County council refuses to spend business profits on affordable housing

“Liberal Democrat councillors have criticised Surrey County Council for failing to spend profits from its £298m commercial property portfolio on council services.

In November, the council transferred £3.8m of rental income from the properties into its revolving infrastructure and investment fund.

However, Liberal Democrats complained that the original investment strategy, agreed by the council in July 2013, promised to use income to support the delivery of functions and services.

Cllr Hazel Watson, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council, said: “I am deeply concerned that none of the income derived from the county council’s extensive property investment portfolio so far has been used to support council services.

“This contradicts previous assurances from the Conservative administration that the purpose of their investment strategy was to support the county council’s budget.

“The county council is proposing millions of cuts to services this financial year and it is simply unacceptable for them to use precious resources to purchase more property, when that resource should be used instead to protect services for Surrey residents.”

Responding to the criticism, Tim Oliver, Surrey’s Conservative cabinet member for property and business services, said: “The investment portfolio created under the investment strategy consists of property investments which have been made by the council in order to deliver economic regeneration or to provide for long-term future service use, whilst delivering an investment return.

“These assets provide flexibility in the estate whilst producing a net revenue.”

He said that the total net income delivered to date by the strategy will be used to support spending on council services in the future and was expected to have reached £5.3m by March 2018.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/treasury/lib-dems-slam-use-of-property-profits-at-surrey-cc/

“Staircase tax” WILL apply to business rates despite government promise to drop it

Owl says: so nos small businesses will get their own version of the council house “bedtoom tax” …

“Housing minister Dominic Raab has confirmed a government u-turn on a budget promise to compensate councils for the new “staircase tax” resulting from a 2015 Supreme Court ruling on business rates.

In last year’s budget, chancellor Philip Hammond announced that businesses would be able to claim a rebate on bills based on the way they were calculated before the ruling – backdated to 2010.

However, speaking in the House of Commons this week, Raab said that the government no longer intended to honour this promise.

“I do not think it would be right to compensate local authorities for what would effectively be an inadvertent windfall resulting from a judicial determination,” said Raab. “From the point of view of government policy, that was not something we wanted to see, and we have moved as swiftly and reasonably as we can to correct this.”

The Supreme Court ruling reversed more than 50 years of practice that businesses operating in separate units, or rooms, accessed from a connecting staircase received a single rates bill.

Following the judgement, the Valuation Office Agency has changed its practice to issue separate bills for each floor — with businesses able to claim a rebate back to 2010.

This means that some rates payers previously eligible for small business rates relief have lost some, or all, of their relief.

In addition, rateable value per square metre is sometimes lower for large properties due to landlords offering discounts to fill space.

Raab said that only a small number of businesses — fewer than 1,000 — are affected adversely by the change.

Raab made his announcement on Monday, during a debate on the tax, held during the second reading of the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill.

Also speaking in the debate, Clive Betts, chairman of the housing, communities and local government select committee, said: “We accept that the legislation takes the position back to what people thought it was before the court decision.

“In the meantime, however, we have had the court decision and local authorities will have done their estimates based on that decision, so the government are effectively changing local authorities’ financial positions from what they thought they would be a few months ago.”

Raab said that local authorities had been informed of the change of direction “as soon as was reasonably possible”.

In a briefing criticising the u-turn, the Local Government Association said: “It is disappointing that the government has reversed their autumn budget decision on the financial implications of this measure, and has indicated that no compensation will be payable to local government.

“We support the housing, communities and local government committee’s recommendation that the government needs to reassure councils that they are not going to be worse off financially because of this legislation, and that the government should bear the associated costs as a result of the reforms.”

http://www.room151.co.uk/funding/government-u-turns-on-staircase-tax/

“Free” schools – anything but free!

“The government’s free schools policy has come under renewed fire after it emerged that another of its studio schools, set up using millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, is to close this summer after a brief, troubled existence.

Plymouth studio school will be the 19th of its kind to shut its doors to pupils since the policy was introduced in 2010, at

an estimated collective cost of £48.3m

according to the National Education Union (NEU).

This week it also emerged that Isle of Wight studio school, which opened four years ago, will close in the summer of 2019 due to lack of demand.

The NEU says the latest closures bring the total to 66 new schools launched under the government’s flagship free schools policy that have either closed, partially closed or failed to open at all, at an estimated cost of almost

£150m

in startup costs and capital funding. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/25/free-schools-policy-under-fire-as-yet-another-closure-announced-plymouth

“Sleeping rough more comfortable than army exercises – Tory MP”

Where to start? Of course, sleeping rough for a TV programme is easy! A nice warm bed to return to (not to mention a nice MPs salary) AND a film crew to keep you safe! AND he forgets to say he did his TV programme in 1991!

“A Conservative MP and former army officer has said that sleeping rough is “a lot more comfortable” than military exercises, in a debate he led on tackling street homelessness.

Adam Holloway, the MP for Gravesham in Kent, told parliamentary colleagues in the Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday that if a person is “able-bodied and sound of mind” there are resources that make it possible to sleep rough.

He said begging was also part of the problem, allowing homeless people to make “quite a lot of money”.

Holloway, a supporter of the pro-Brexit campaign group Leave Means Leave, also said that a rise in street homelessness was driven by eastern European immigration, claiming that many migrants from that region preferred to sleep rough than pay for accommodation.

He said mental illness and drug addiction were “real ingrained problems” behind homelessness that needed to be tackled to solve the crisis.

Holloway, who told MPs he had spent a number of nights during the parliamentary recess in February sleeping on the streets as part of a television programme on street homelessness, said: “One observation I do have, if you are able-bodied and of sound mind there are all sorts of services – not quite 24 hours a day – that make it possible to sleep out.

“I’m 52, I was in the army; to be honest for me sleeping rough in central London is a lot more comfortable than going on exercise in the army.

“But if you’re mentally ill or you are old or you are personality disordered then it is a very different thing. Or if you’re drug addicted it is very difficult. We have to accept that some people are able to sleep rough because there are resources to do so.”

Holloway’s comments come after research revealed at least 78 homeless people died on the streets and in temporary accommodation this winter, bringing the number of recorded homeless deaths to more than 300 since 2013.”

“Scrutiny in public sector ‘struggling’ “

“Public sector scrutiny “struggles to keep up” with the “increased complexity of modern government”, according to a think-tank.

The collapse of construction contractor Carillion showed the government’s failure to effectively evaluate the use of private providers in the public sector, the discussion paper released by the Institute for Government yesterday also said.

Five million public sector workers were responsible for delivering services, the IFG noted, but still “there are weaknesses in the UK’s system of accountability, which often struggles to keep up with the realities of modern government both nationally and locally”.

Because government has failed to keep pace with the “increased complexity of modern government”, it has not properly scrutinised public-private partnerships’ value for money, Accountability in modern government added.

The think-tank suggested often in government accountability is replaced by a “pervading culture of blame”.

This culture, the think-tank argued, has been evident in the roll out of Universal Credit – which combines six working-age benefits in one – and more recently in the Windrush immigration cases.

IfG said: “While accountability certainly involves apportioning blame when something goes wrong, it should also foster an environment that lead to improvement.

“This is what the public cares most about- preventing failures recurring, rather than simple retribution.”

Benoit Guerin, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, said: “Accountability helps people know how the government is doing and where to go when things go wrong.

“A lack of accountability is worrying because it increases the risk of failure and decreases legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the public.”

He said the IFG hoped to start a debate on how accountability in the public sector could be strengthened with the aim of making recommendations for reform.”

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2018/04/scrutiny-public-sector-struggling

Bad news for East Devon commuters: “Exeter rated one of the worst places to make a living in the UK”

So growth doesn’t equal wealth – who would have guessed!!!

“… TotallyMoney’s research into the best places to make a living ranked Exeter ninth from the bottom of 59 towns and cities in the UK.

Featuring 59 UK towns and cities, the company analysed median take-home salary, average monthly mortgage repayment, cost of living, employment rates and business closures.”

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/exeter-rated-one-worst-places-1494891

“Don’t save it for the duchess. All new mothers should be treated like royalty”

Very difficult to do that when local maternity units such as Honiton are closed so many routine births AND emergencies have to travel 20-30 miles plus to Exeter:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/24/duchess-cambridge-new-mothers-royalty

“Why I started a petition against NHS privatisation”

by Jamie Snape:

Today in Westminster MPs will debate a petition calling on the government to stop the privatisation of NHS services. Now, if I’m entirely honest, the date of a petition debate isn’t something that would normally appear in my calendar, however this particular debate I’m responsible for myself.

Until starting this petition I’d never campaigned on behalf the NHS, nor had I any connection to the plethora of local or national NHS campaign groups. So what drove me to begin the petition in the first place?

Well, it was after I’d encountered for myself the already privatised NHS services in my local area. Following this I was left with a clear understanding of what it means in reality, when our healthcare is provided by a profit-orientated business rather than an organisation focused on patient outcome like the NHS, and indeed what it is we are losing by privatising it.

As a parent, seeing my young children’s well-being affected directly and indirectly by NHS privatisation on more than one occasion, it motivated me to a degree that I might not otherwise have been.

So I began reading more about NHS privatisation, and why people like the late Stephen Hawking were so concerned. I concluded I could perhaps make a little difference myself by using a petition as a vehicle to help voice the concerns that many people have and that I share about creeping NHS privatisation.

This belief panned out, indeed a single post I wrote on Facebook about the petition was shared over 73,000 times, meaning it was very likely to have been read by more than a million people.

There are over 6,500 petitions on the parliament website right now, and it’s fair to say the UK public are petitioned out. Despite that, not too far short of a quarter of a million people took the time to sign this petition, which ultimately resulted in the scheduling of today’s debate in parliament.

NHS privatisation can mean so many things as there are so many aspects to it, so in terms of the debate itself, my hope is simply that I will observe a well-informed one. I hope that all the MPs involved demonstrate a real knowledge of the issues relating to it, such as the scale of current NHS privatisation.

What simply must be covered are the concerns surrounding the introduction of Accountable Care Organisations later this year, and their potential for leaving a back door wide open for a massive new wave of NHS privatisation.

If the debate centres around the small part of NHS privatisation, where a few people get bumped up the waiting list by having a routine operation performed by a private company, then I will of course be disappointed.

The concept of the NHS is erroneously referenced by many now in historic terms, especially when they are arguing in favour of NHS privatisation.

Personally, I see the NHS as something very much of the future, indeed I’m entirely certain that in years to come, a nation will only be considered civilised if it provides comprehensive free healthcare to all of its citizens.”

Source: Times (pay wall)

“Number of zero hours contracts rises by 100,000 in 2017, says ONS”

“The number of zero hour contracts in the UK labour market rose by around 100,000 last year according to the Office for National Statistics.

The agency reported that in its latest survey of firms there were 1.8 million contracts that did not guarantee a minimum numbers of hours in the year to November 2017. The equivalent number in November 2016 was 1.7 million. …”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/zero-hours-contracts-number-ons-gig-economy-latest-a8317646.html

“Councils sit on £375m earmarked for affordable housing”

“Local councils in England are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds of money designated for affordable housing.

A total of £375m is available, £100m of which has not even been earmarked for a specific project. This is despite a survey last year for the Town and Country Planning Association showing that 98% of councils described their need for affordable homes as either “severe” or “moderate”.

The cash has been accumulated under so-called section 106 agreements by which builders and developers give a council a ringfenced amount of money instead of building affordable homes within a development themselves.

James Prestwich, the head of policy at the National Housing Federation, which represents housing associations, said it confirmed the federation’s view that section 106 was flawed. “Affordable housing should be delivered within new developments, rather than developers simply funding its delivery elsewhere,” he said. “This would guarantee that affordable housing will be built alongside other homes.”

Some of the worst offenders shown up by research carried out by the Huffington Post are in London and the south-east. The housing minister Dominic Raab’s own local council, Elmbridge in Surrey, has £8m waiting to be invested.

Raab was criticised this month after he blamed high levels of immigration for increasing house prices. A review by the statistics watchdog found that his department had used an outdated statistical method to calculate the causes of housing pressure and their relationship with house prices.

The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which has yet to find new homes for two-thirds of the Grenfell survivors and other families affected by the disaster, has £21m of dedicated reserves. It says £19m has been set aside for Grenfell families.

Two Labour-held councils also in London, Southwark and Camden, between them have more than £90m that could be spent on affordable homes. Altogether, just 14 councils account for two-thirds of the unspent cash.

Rough sleeping in London has risen by at least 18% over the past year; in England as a whole, it is up 15%. Although a shortage of affordable homes is only one of many causes that explains the continuous rise over the past seven years, its consequences have a series of knock-on effects.

A spokesman for Southwark said the money it had was already allocated and the projects for which it was intended would be completed within the next five years.

Camden has set up a new scheme for affordable home building, the community investment programme, which is intended to create 1,400 affordable homes over 15 years.

Tony Travers, a local government expert at the London School of Economics, said nearly a decade of cuts had left council capacity to manage big projects “hollowed out”.

“Average cuts of between 25% and 30% over eight years and the way they have protected children’s and adult social care services have led to bigger cuts in departments like housing and planning. There is no question that their capacity to handle major projects has been eroded.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/22/councils-sit-on-375m-earmarked-for-affordable-housing

“Elderly and disabled at risk in inadequate housing, human rights watchdog finds”

Owl says: Not to worry – those at the luxurious PegasusLife development at Knowle will be just fine!

“Britain’s planning rules are fueling a housing “crisis” for the elderly and disabled which is forcing the frail to live in dangerous conditions, a leaked report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission seen by the Telegraph has found.

The Commission’s report, due to be released next month, found a “severe shortage of accessible and adaptable housing” with only seven per cent of homes in England offering minimal accessibility features.

It warns that local councils are failing to build enough accessible homes to meet demand and were not taking action against developers who failed to comply with regulations.

The Commission, a human rights watchdog, said that at least ten per cent of all future housing should be built with a growing elderly and disabled population in mind and that local authorities must reduce the bureaucratic hurdles for adapting homes.

The report comes at a time of a growing social care crisis in Britain with many elderly and frail people stuck in hospitals, unable to be discharged due to inadequate housing.

At the same time, younger Britons are struggling to get on to the housing ladder with older people unable to downsize due to a lack of suitable properties.

Following an inquiry into the state of housing for disabled people in Britain, the Commission reported that the “acute housing crisis“ was leaving elderly and disabled people in unsafe homes and leading to accidents and hospital admissions.

The report’s executive summary, seen by the Telegraph, said that some people were forced into “eating, sleeping and bathing in one room” and to rely on family members to carry them between rooms and up stairs.

Local authorities told the Commission that developers are “reluctant to build accessible houses, as they see them as less profitable”, and often failed to comply with accessibility standards.

Disabled older people are being let down and this is a stark reminder that urgent action is needed, which is the least they deserve in a compassionate society.

Despite this, just three per cent of councils took enforcement action against developers who failed to meet these standards, the Commission found.

The report also said that people were forced to wait an average of 22 weeks between application and the installation of home adaptations necessary to live safely and independently, with some waiting for more than a year.

The Commission’s report said that better housing would help ease the health and social care crisis as it found that poor housing led to an “increased need for social care” and “avoidable hospital admissions”.

Responding to the report, charities warned that the lack of suitable housing was exacerbating the NHS crisis as elderly and disabled people were forced to stay in hospital for longer due to a lack of safe accommodation.

Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK said: “Providing accessible homes must be seen as core to reducing pressure on social care and the NHS.

“If these recommendations are implemented they will help many more older and disabled people to receive care and support at home.”

She added: “It’s vital that we build safe, accessible, high quality homes that work for all generations and that don’t undermine our ability to stay independent as we get older.”

George McNamara, director of policy and public affairs at Independent Age, the older people’s charity, said: “These are some of the most vulnerable people but they’re forgotten when it comes to housing policy. They are being discriminated against by a system that doesn’t work for them.

“This issue is only going to become more important as our population ages and people have a greater need for specialist housing that addresses all their health and care needs.

“Disabled older people are being let down and this is a stark reminder that urgent action is needed, which is the least they deserve in a compassionate society.”

Rob Wilson, former Government minister for civil society, said: “This isn’t a new problem, but this is a timely report and reminder that disabled people face enormous challenges with getting appropriate housing.

“Almost every local authority area faces the same difficulty in getting enough wheelchair accessible houses built.

“The Government’s drive to increase house building is very welcome, but clearly there is much more to do for those with these special requirements.”

Cllr Izzi Seccombe, chairman of the Local Government Association’s Community Wellbeing Board, said councils needed “greater planning powers and resources to hold developers to account”.

“Housing is too often unavailable, unaffordable, and not appropriate for everyone that needs it. This includes the availability of homes suitable for older people and people in vulnerable circumstances,” she said.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Our new planning rules make clear that councils must take the needs of elderly and disabled people into account when planning new homes in their area.

“We’re also providing councils with almost £1 billion over the next two years to adapt properties for disabled and older people so they can live independently and safely.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/22/elderly-disabled-risk-inadequate-housing-human-rights-watchdog/

City faces corruption crackdown as IMF investigates wealthy countries

“The City of London will come under the spotlight of the International Monetary Fund as part of a crackdown on corruption that will investigate whether Britain and other rich countries are taking tough enough action against bribery and money laundering.

In a hardening of its approach, the IMF said it needed to look at those giving bribes and financial centres that laundered dirty money as well as improving the existing clampdown on wrongdoing in poor countries.

London has won the unenviable reputation of being the global centre for money laundering, partly as a result of cases such as the Global Laundromat, under which British-registered companies and banks helped move at least £20bn of money from criminal activities out of Russia.

AdvertisementHide
All members of the Group of Seven industrial nations – Britain, the US, Germany, Japan, France, Italy and Canada – together with Austria and the Czech Republic will be looked at by the IMF to see whether their legal systems criminalised bribery and have the right mechanism to prevent laundering of dirty money.

Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF, said: “The flip side of every bribe taken is a bribe given. And funds received through corruption are often funds concealed outside the country, often in the financial sectors of major capitals. It is quite possible for countries to have “clean hands” at home but “dirty hands” abroad.

“To truly fight corruption, therefore, we need to address the facilitation of corrupt practices by private actors. To do this, we will be encouraging our member countries to volunteer to have their legal and institutional frameworks assessed by the Fund – to see whether they criminalise and prosecute foreign bribery and have mechanisms to stop the laundering and concealment of dirty money.”

Lagarde said the willingness of the G7 plus Austria and the Czech Republic to allow their anticorruption regimes to be tested was a “a major vote of confidence in the new framework”.

The investigation will form part of the annual Article IV health check that the IMF conducts on every member country. Philip Hammond said in Washington that the size of the City of London meant he could not definitively say that there was no illicit money flowing through the UK financial system but that the government was working hard to reduce and eliminate illicit flows.

Lagarde said there was empirical evidence to show that high levels of corruption were linked to significantly lower growth, investment, foreign direct investment and tax revenues.

A country that slid down from halfway to three-quarters of the way down a league table of corruption and governance was likely to see growth of national income per head decline by half a percentage point or more.

“Our results also show that corruption and poor governance are associated with higher inequality and lower inclusive growth.” …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/22/city-faces-corruption-crackdown-as-imf-investigates-wealthy-countries

Potholes: a sign for the middle-classes that austerity is biting them too, and it hurts – literally!

Matthew Parris in today’s Times – it’s a sign of the times when a deep blue Tory says “enough is enough”! But it will NEVER be enough for your political masters , Matthew … as long as the people at the bottom of this stinking heap bear the brunt and you – and those high above you – live in your golden bubbles and prosper.

“I blame myself. My bicycle boy-racer days should have been over. I’d had two whiskies at the Duke of York, the night was dark, the lane was narrow and I knew well enough there were potholes. This one was a stonker. Crash, bang, wallop. Anyway I survived. I broke a few ribs but the crash helmet did its job, the ribs healed, the bruises faded and I live to tell the tale more than a year later.

I tell it now more as parable than anecdote. In a couple of weeks come important local government elections in many places. We don’t think enough about local government, whose job it was to mend that pothole.

But by starting with a me-and-my-pothole story I risk sounding like a parody of one of those ghastly charity appeals on the radio, showcasing the plight of some victim, typically a child. “So poor little Matthew fell off his bike. For just £5 your local council could fix that pothole. Please send your donation, however small, to HM Treasury, Great George Street . . .”

My story is trivial compared with cuts which for others may have meant the loss of social care in dementia, no Sure Start centre for a child, the closure of a small local hospital or the end of a vital local bus service. So is there a connection?

Yes. Throughout history rings the cry “It’s when it happens to you . . .”. Austerity often doesn’t “happen” to people like me (and many of you) as fast, as often or as painfully as it does to millions of others. But potholes we Times readers see. When in our own lives our nearside front tyre is shredded, the ruddy pothole represents a momentary twitching-back of one tiny corner of a great curtain, behind which lie, no, not potholes, but a million anxious human stories, caused in part by cuts in public spending.

And, no, I’m not going to decry cutting public spending. Much of it had to happen. But I’m making two points. First, the exercise cannot be without limit. Second, the time-lag between the cut and the pain can be so long that by the time you feel the pain the cut may have gone much deeper than you noticed. We need to wake up to that.

So back, without apology, to potholes. Thanks to another of these, a friend in Lincolnshire has just broken his neck, though not fatally, thank heaven. Potholes matter in themselves. But they are a parable for others that matter even more.

Over roughly the last decade (my figures don’t cover 2017) spending on roads by councils has fallen by about a fifth. Serious injuries to cyclists have trebled, while cyclists’ numbers have increased by a fraction of that. According to the RAC, the number of cars needing roadside assistance after hitting potholes has almost doubled since January.

According to the Asphalt Industry Alliance there are 24,000 miles of roads urgently awaiting repair in England and Wales. On present trends a road is resurfaced every 78 years and it would now take 14 years, and more than £9 billion, to return the network to a “steady state”. Our roads have been crumbling.

Roads spending has just started to rise, albeit gently. Late in the day, local and central government politicians have woken up to what’s happening.

The trouble is, it’s already happened. Voters in their millions, including Times readers in huge numbers, are telling them so. Just as my little argument with Mawstone Lane was a parable for a wider problem with potholes nationwide, so potholes nationwide are a parable for a problem far wider than that. We may be deceived by the fact that you can get away for years, but not for ever, with pushing a problem to one side.

All the pressures on those who run government, local and central, are to worry about the short-term. George Osborne had the aftermath of a world economic crash to get Britain through. Philip Hammond has Brexit. And when the Devil drives (as in politics he always does) and if you can block your ears to the caterwauling of those who always cry wolf anyway, it is usually possible to leave issues like road maintenance, decaying school buildings, rotting prisons, social care for the elderly, Britain’s military preparedness or a cash-strapped health service, to tread water for years or even decades. “They’ll get by,” say fiscal hawks, and in the short-term they’re often right.

Nobody’s likely to invade us; the NHS is used to squeezing slightly more out of not enough; cutting pre-school provision is hardly the Slaughter of the Innocents; the elderly won’t all get dementia at once; there’s little public sympathy for prisoners; teachers can place a bucket under the hole in the roof; and road users can dodge potholes.

In the case of local government Mr Osborne found you could slash, not snip. It has lost, unbelievably, almost 50 per cent of what it gets from the general taxpayer in less than a decade. But, hey, the rubbish is still collected.

All this has encouraged those, like me, of a Conservative disposition who see state wastefulness everywhere, to think that maybe you can just keep on cutting and never reach bone. For so it has often seemed, however urgent the shrieks of doom-mongers.

But beneath the surface problems build up. The old get older, and more numerous. Potholes start breaking cyclists’ necks. Care homes start going under. The Crown Prosecution Service begins to flounder. We run out of social housing. Prisoners riot. And is there really no link between things like pre-schooling, sports and leisure centres and local outreach work, and the discouragement of knife crime? It all takes time, though.

In that most unfashionable thing, public administration, the life cycle of a problem may be counted in decades, even generations. The cycle of an elected politician’s term is four or five years. Democratic politics and good public administration march to different drumbeats.

When New Labour was elected in 1997 we Tories groaned as it tipper-trucked money into the NHS, school building and other public services. But after 18 years of saying no, we had let an undersupply arise: of bricks, mortar, equipment, wages, staff and morale — invisible on any Treasury balance sheet. Thirteen years later when Labour left office the undersupply was monetary, the red ink all too visible.

Must we forever oscillate like this? Probably. Unless politics understands this paradox: the right time to fill a pothole is before it’s a pothole.”

“Poorest families ‘going without food or power’ “

Owl says: Are we back in the Middle Ages with rich feudal barons and poor serfs?

“Hundreds of thousands of the poorest families in Britain are going without basic necessities, according to two separate surveys.

Citizens Advice said as many as 140,000 households are going without power, as they cannot afford to top up their prepayment meters.

And the Living Wage Foundation – which campaigns for fair pay – said many of the poorest parents are skipping meals.

However the government said workers are now earning more, and paying less tax.

The survey conducted by Citizens Advice suggests that most households that cannot afford to put money in the meter contain either children or someone with a long-term health condition.

Some people are left in cold houses, or without hot water.

“It is unacceptable that so many vulnerable households are being left without heat and light,” said Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice.

“For some people self-disconnection is easily managed, but for many others it is an extremely stressful experience that can have harmful physical and emotional effects.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43827846

“Funding for poorest children used to plug school budgets, say teachers”

“Schools are cutting back on staff, IT, equipment and day trips while funding for the UK’s poorest children is being used to plug budgets, teachers have claimed.

More than a fifth of teachers and school leaders believe pupil premium cash – the money aimed at the most deprived youngsters – is instead being used to make ends meet, a poll by the National Foundation for Educational Research found.

Almost half told the study that academisation – removing schools from local authority control – had a negative impact on the classroom, or no no impact at all.

The findings come amid widespread concerns from teachers, unions and parents about a squeeze on school budgets in England, though ministers have insisted more money is going to schools.

The survey of 1,246 primary and secondary teachers and senior leaders, working in English state schools, found that 22% said money from the pupil premium – extra funding to support the most disadvantaged youngsters – is being used to plug gaps elsewhere in their school’s budget.

Just over a third (36%) said this was not happening and the rest did not know.

Among the senior leaders polled, 34% said pupil premium funding was being used elsewhere, with 57% saying no.

Those surveyed by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) were asked whether their school was cutting back on certain areas for financial reasons.

Some 63% said their school was cutting back on teaching assistants, making it the most popular answer, with 50% saying there had been cuts to support staff, and 39% saying teaching staff.

In addition, 44% said trips and outings had been cut back and 41% said there had been cuts to IT equipment.

The survey was commissioned by the Sutton Trust ahead of its education summit in New York. …”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/funding-for-poorest-children-used-to-plug-schools-budget-say-teachers_uk_5ad7c36be4b03c426dab01f8

Maybe (surely?) we should be doing this in East Devon?

“Date for your diary – 12 June 2018 in Devonport Guildhall we will be holding a community meeting about local decision making, the role of councils, social enterprise etc. Indra Adnan will be leading the event with input from Transition Town, Real Ideas Organisation, Peter Macfadyen author of Flatpack Democracy and Buckfastleigh Independent Group. Full details to be announced shortly.”

Clinton Devon Estates: an early Lord Rolle’s interesting history in Budleigh

From Facebook’s ‘East Devon Past’:

“I found this report relating to the old harbour at Budleigh, I knew that boats used to navigate up the Otter estuary to the mills at Newton Poppleford. Anyway it seems that Lord Rolle was a bit of a rogue and dammed up the harbour to increase his expanse of land but put an end to the use of larger boats on the Otter. So not only did he remove the Sidmouth stones but he took away the harbour for his own gain.”😵
Western Times 1858:

DCC let down child with special needs – compensation and strengthening of procedures required

Unfortunately, DCC under pressure from government has had to cut back on alternative provision for children with special needs including those deemed medically unfit for mainstream school. They are meant to provide 25 hours alternative provision for such young people deemed medically unfit. A parent whose child did not receive alternative schooling took his case to the Local Government Ombudsman

The complaint x which is linked to below – illustrates that DCC has no central person dealing with this type of need, and also did not realise that it should be providing 25 hours of alternative provision.

There were multiple mistakes made in this sad case.

Actions required were:

For the Council to:

Apologise for the fault identified in this statement. It should do this within a month of my decision.

Pay Mr E £300 to reflect the time and trouble he was put to identifying the central point of contact and in finding the Council’s policy on children out of school.

A further £100 for his distress in the Council failing to consider his wish for F to be educated outside the home and £200 for the uncertainty of not knowing whether F could have had more contact with his peers.

I note the Council has not yet made the payment of £400 to reflect the delay in its complaints handling; it should make this a payment of £500 to reflect its delay in dealing with the third complaint. These payments should be made within three months of my decision.

Pay F £1,600 to reflect him receiving insufficient amounts of education until he was electively home educated. This payment should also be made within three months of my decision.

For the Council to consider amending its procedures to:
Check with schools that the people employed to support individual children with special educational needs, are appropriately trained;

Consider recommendations made in statutory guidance are acted upon as soon as possible or to explain why practice is not being changed;

Receive reports about children educated out of school to check they are receiving the full amount of education to which they are entitled.

Consider parental wishes when arranging alternative provision. Even if those wishes cannot be met, the Council should explain why.

Ensure procedures are robust enough to ensure the Council obtains documents promptly and sends out decision letters and drafts as soon as possible.

Ensure LADOs are appropriately trained to enable them to fulfil this role.

Ensure its complaints procedure is robust enough so that deadlines are adhered to.

These aspects should be considered within four months of the date of my decision.

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/education/alternative-provision/16-011-798#point1

Telegraph: Why is the NHS under so much pressure? Their answer: its our fault for getting older and fatter!

“An ageing population. There are one million more people over the age of 65 than five years ago. This has caused a surge in demand for medical care.

[Owl: this has been known for DECADES and should have been built-in to spending forecasts]

Cuts to budgets for social care. While the NHS budget has been protected, social services for home helps and other care have fallen by 11 per cent in five years. This has caused record levels of “bedblocking”; people with no medical need to be in hospital are stuck there because they can’t be supported at home.

[Owl: the NHS budget has NOT been protected! In real terms, funding has fallen enormously]

Staff shortages. While hospital doctor and nurse numbers have risen over the last decade, they have not kept pace with the rise in demand. Meanwhile 2016 saw record numbers of GP practices close, displacing patients on to A&E departments as they seek medical advice.

[Staff shortages are due to austerity cuts and an exodus of EU workers, who are not replaced. Changing nursing bursaries to loans had exacerbated this serious problem]

Lifestyle factors. Drinking too much alcohol, smoking, a poor diet with not enough fruit and vegetables and not doing enough exercise are all major reasons for becoming unwell and needing to rely on our health services. Growing numbers of overweight children show this problem is currently set to continue.

[Many lifestyle problems are due to the government’s policies: allowing food and drink lobbies to dictate the sugar problem until it is too late, and not putting greater taxes on cigarettes and alcohol as this would reduce government income, shutting Sure Start services that promoted better parenting].


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/chances-getting-nhs-funded-care-depends-live/