|
Should we protect Bramwell care home?
What should we pledge on the economy?
Urgent info on gritting of roads
What's happening on housing development
Hi all –
Happy New Year! I'm back at work a few days early, since the converted
windmill sounded less attractive when we learned that it was (a)
surrounded by now and (b) had had a power failure.
I'd like say some more about the local issue of Bramwell care home, and
then return to the subject of the national economy, where it seems to me
that nearly everyone is still pussy-footing around: I've got some fairly
blunt comments.
First, in election year, another kind endorsement (from the former
non-party leader of Kimberley Town Council, Colin Epton):
"When we wife and I were diagnosed as having swine flu, there was nobody
who could collect the Tamiflu for us. My wife contacted your office to
complain about the way distribution had been set up. We were both feeling
pretty wretched and wondered how we were going to manage. Not only did you
get back to us promptly, you offered to collect the prescription
personally and bring it to us. It is good to know, in this day and age,
that there are still MPs who care about the welfare of their constituents
and will go out of their way to help them. You can most definitely count
on our votes."
I remember the incident well, mainly because the people at the Tamiflu
centre fell about laughing when they saw I was wearing gloves for handling
the paperwork from Colin – they didn't quite say, "What a wuss!" but you
could see them thinking it. I'd not twigged that the phone call was from
Colin's wife and envisaged a very elderly couple, but anyway I'm glad to
help when I can.
On to policy matters.
1. Bramwell Care Home
Despite the controversy that's raging over this, not everyone knows what
it is, so first a short briefing. It's one the best care homes in the
country (rated Excellent in the most recent inspection, last April)
specialising in looking after people with relative severe physical
disabilities or dementia, on a residential or day-care basis. There are
separate wings for the various types of situation. If you'd like to know
more you can find it here
http://www.any- care.co.uk/ care-homes/ 118686-Bramwell/ index.htm
If you'd like to read the detailed assessment of what the place is like,
see
http://tinyurl. com/ycsdfh4
Note that the inspectors had no suggestions whatever for how it might be
further improved, which is really very unusual in any sort of audit. What
is unusual about the home is that they've developed real expertise in
looking after people with various kinds of relatively severe conditions.
The controversy is because the County Council wants to sell it off to a
private buyer (together with every other care home in the County). I've
criticised this and have more than 1000 signatures from constituents
opposing it. So that you hear both sides of the argument, let me put the
County's case. They say:
(a) The County needs to save money. By selling the homes, the County can
raise capital, which will help balance the books.
(b) Running care homes is not really a core council responsibility. Most
care homes are private anyway, so why not let the private sector cover all
of them?
(c) They will make it a condition of sale that patients cannot be forced
to go to other homes for least three years, and staff cannot be sacked for
the same period.
My case for opposing the sale is this:
(a) Having an excellent local facility for dementia and Alzheimer's
is a very important local asset. Councils aren't only there to collect
rubbish; they are also supposed to provide good local infrastructure. If
the home is sold and subsequently closed, the concentrated expertise will
be lost.
(b) The home doesn't make a profit at the moment, so it's obvious
that any private buyer will want to raise fees, lower standards or (most
likely in my opinion) merge it into a private home elsewhere with free
capacity, and sell the land for housing development. It's absolutely prime
development land for housing, at the end of a small estate off a main road
with green fields behind, and the buyer could make millions out that; I
can't see anyone wanting to buy it for any other purpose.
(c) The three-year guarantee is virtually worthless. If you got a
letter saying that you could be assured that you wouldn't be evicted from
your home within three years, wouldn't you conclude that after three years
you could expect exactly that?
(d) The one-off proceeds of a sale wouldn't address the County's
long-term finances: once it's gone, it's gone. If the County is so keen to
save money, why have they just advertised a £71,000/year post for a new
communications director to put across the County's message? Wouldn't it be
better to improve the policies that improve the communications?
I am seeing the head of Notts County Council on Friday week and will be
pressing the case.
Oddly, to my mind, my opponent has leapt into the fray on the other side
of this issue. You can normally find her blog here:
http://www.broxtowe conservatives. com/anna_ blog.html
As you'll see, she hasn't commented in her blog or email on anything at
all since April (during the same period I've sent you 28 separate updates
on local and national issues – see
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/BroxtoweIn fo/messages ), but on
Christmas Eve she sent out an email passionately defending the
Conservative Council's position and describing criticism from me and
others as "scare-mongering" and "irresponsible nonsense"; she stresses the
point about the three-year guarantee. The message seems to have been put
up on the site on Boxing Day but is no longer there (if you click on it
you get a blank page), so she may have had second thoughts. When I think
the Government or Labour councillors have got something wrong, I say so
(the Labour Group on Broxtowe Council formally censured me for being
critical over Green Belt housing development plans). I don't think most
people nowadays want to have their representatives cling to the party line
in every situation.
2. The national economy
I've said earlier that I wasn't every impressed by the national debate on
the economy, and if anything it seems to me to have got more childish.
Labour has promised to halve the deficit in the next few years, but has
only identified one third of the measures needed for that, the largest
part being the end of the VAT reduction (this week) and the rise in
National Insurance (in 2011). Some earlier spending pledges seem to have
quietly evaporated (e.g. the free laptops that were planned for primary
schoolchildren) .
Meanwhile, the Conservatives have claimed to be fiercely determined to
reduce the deficit, but have only identified one tenth of the measures
needed – and now they've started announcing major spending increases, such
as a new high-speed rail network. They've also said they'll switch NHS
spending more to deprived areas: does this mean more spending overall (I
thought they said we'd overspent?), or actual cuts in NHS spending in less
deprived areas (like Broxtowe)? They've also said they'll press ahead with
cutting inheritance tax for estates over £700,000, aim to abolish the top
rate of income tax and `try' to cancel the NI rise
What's happened, I think, is that focus groups have advised that people
don't like hearing about cuts that affect them and they want to hear some
cheerful messages. But the technical term for this sort of thing is
(excuse my language) "bollocks". It's simply not going to happen. I have
in front of me an Evening Post cutting from May 28 a week before the
County election. It says "Kay Cutts, Conservative group leader, said, "If
we win on June 4, I will make funding available immediately so work can
start on access to the IKEA retail park." We're now seven months on. Has
it happened? Of course not.
For what it's worth, I'm a PhD in mathematics and a former member of the
Treasury Select Committee, and I don't want to go along with this nebulous
stuff. I think voters generally like to hear realities, since if you're
truthful about the nasty bits you're more readily believed about the
better bits. The position as I see it is this:
(a) The recession so far
Contrary to some accounts, I think it could have been much worse. The
predictions of unemployment soaring towards to 4 million have proved wrong
(see The Times on this:
http://tinyurl. com/ydeewuz ), no banks have been allowed to fail,
only two major companies have gone (Woolworths and MFI) and the fear of a
huge wave of home repossessions has failed to materialise. The housing
market turned last year at the point that I predicted at the time. There
are painful cutbacks in several places (e.g. the ex-Beeston Ericsson jobs
that moved to Coventry now look like being lost altogether, unless the
last-minute efforts that I and others are making help), but we appear to
be past the worst without severe structural damage.
It's an Opposition myth that we were especially indebted before the crisis
(see
http://tinyurl. com/44q6bu for Channel 4's analysis just before it set
in), but it's also a Government myth that we were `best placed to handle
the recession'. With a large financial sector and a big mortgage market we
were actually more at risk than most. A third myth is that we've had a
worse recession than e.g. Germany – Germany's recession was much sharper
than ours, though they've recovered marginally earlier. The reality is
that the world economy moves in step together, and collectively the
world's governments haven't done a bad job – certainly much better than
their counterparts in the 1930s.
(b) What happens next
There are two issues: how quickly to balance public spending, and how to
do it. On the first, there's a difference of 12 months: Labour favours
cutting the deficit starting in 2011, by which time we expect the economy
to be recovering sharply. The Conservatives favour cutting it at once.
Since tax revenue rises when the economy recovers, it's important for debt
reduction not to push us back into recession, and I'm with the Government
on that one.
On the second issue, both sides are nebulous at best, but there are clear
differences in direction. Labour has said it will protect health, schools,
neighbourhood policing and foreign aid, but by implication will cut more
in other areas, with some proposals already emerging (e.g. the cuts in
funding for some university courses and the conversion of one of the
aircraft carriers into a much cheaper troop-carrier) . The Conservatives
have allowed persistent rumours of a VAT rise to 20% and various spending
reductions, including means-testing of the Winter Allowance and the
pensioner bus pass: they are committed to protecting health and foreign
aid, but not schools and local policing, and the PCSOs who deliver much of
the local presence seem likely to be scrapped. Labour will limit new
public pay settlements to 1%; the Conservatives will have a one-year
freeze.
My own view is that we need to stop making new spending commitments, and
look again at the ones we've already got. There are all kinds of desirable
things to do, but right now is not the moment. I've taken my own medicine
on this – I'm in favour of not renewing Trident (which I voted for in
healthier times), halting the ID card project (which I voted for) and
freezing all new motorway projects. I previously pressed for
electrification of the Midland Mainline – I've scaled that back to saying
that we should be next on the list when it becomes affordable. I'm
consistently declining to support new projects, even those I really like.
I hope this is helpful. I'm sorry if it sounds too austere, but I think we
need a balanced approach – neither carrying on as though there wasn't a
problem, nor destroying all the progress we've made in public services
(e.g. 98% of people are now getting hospitals treatment within 18 weeks of
first GP appointment, against up to 2 years in the past). We've not done
badly in a very difficult period so far, but we need to see it through in
a balanced and responsible way. By being more frank than the national
leaders, I'm hoping to play my part in promoting an adult debate, both
here and in Parliament, and I think I serve you better that way than if I
just rattle off slogans and highlight the good bits.
As always, feedback welcome, but NNTR (no need to reply) appreciated if
you don't need a personal answer – life is hectic! By the way, I promised
a plug for a local church group who are deeply involved in the climate
change issue – see
http://tinyurl. com/yh5kt3f for more!
Best wishes
Nick
UPDATE
1. Bramwell PS
In my last email I forgot to give a link to my petition to ask the county
to reconsider its position on Bramwell care home. If you would like to
support this and haven't yet had the chance, please go here
http://www.broxtowe labour.org/
and follow the link "Sign Petition" on the left-hand side. Thanks!
Conversely, if you disagree with me and think that Bramwell should be sold
off, I suggest writing directly to the council leader, Kay Cutts at County
Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7QP – I'm sure she'll appreciate your
support. Or you can tell me and I'll truthfully pass it on when I meet her
to press the issue next week.
2. What's happening about salting the roads?
As I've had many enquiries from constituents about what the county council
is doing about the icy roads, I've obtained a briefing this morning from
them which I'm inserting in full below. I've interceded on behalf of
constituents whose roads were particularly icy, with some success in
getting them added to the gritting rota, but in view of what this says it
looks as though further additions will be difficult and if anything they
will scale back what they're already doing. I don't think they were doing
most side-roads even before the stocks started to run down – the fleet of
lorries and drivers (who are working very long hours) is also a limiting
factor. I'd suggest stocking up with enough tinned/frozen food for a bit
longer than usual to be on the safe side, just in case.
By contrast the reports that we might run out of gas were just a scare
story. I'm familiar with the issue from when I was PPS to the Energy
Minister. Basically the system is that if demand increases then the
National Grid bids for more gas through the continental pipelines and also
asks heavy users to rein in (the heavy users get a discount in return for
doing this on occasion). The system has been established for years, works
well and my current information is that there is no cause for alarm on
that front. The Government previously built up LNG (liquid natural gas)
facilities as a backup for this sort of situation and this provides a
further buffer.
Here's the County statement:
Our salt stock before Christmas was well up and nearly twice the
recommended minimum stock, but the continuous severe weather conditions
have meant that we have used up a lot of our stockpile and are having to
be extremely careful in conserving what remains. This means concentrating
on keeping our priority salting routes open and treated, these including
all A and B category roads and in total being about 35% of the total road
length in the County.
We have had more salt scheduled for delivery since before Christmas, but
due to the very poor weather in the north and in Scotland the available
salt has had to go there and we are only just beginning to get some more
salt delivered, in smaller quantities than we would wish. You will know
that this severe winter weather is scheduled to continue for up to a
further two weeks and therefore we cannot at the moment change our present
policy of prudence in salt use - should we lose the main salting routes
then all highway activity and emergency access will be threatened.
There is national debate and concern regarding salt supply and we are
talking to other Local Authorities both locally and nationally, but all
are in the same position with only two suppliers of salt one in Whitby and
one in Runcorn. Both Leicestershire and Derbyshire are following our
course of action, and we are jointly seeking to source salt from other
suppliers but this means it coming from abroad via ship with a long lead
time.
We have taken delivery of quantities of small size sharp grit, and are
sending teams out to spread this on icy footways and roads to provide a
measure of grip and help as much as we can.
3. What's happening about housing development?
All the councils in the area (of every political persuasion) have prepared
a draft document on where housing might be built between now and 2026. As
you know, I've campaigned against a number of sites, though I know from my
surgeries that there's significant unmet need for affordable local
housing, so I'm not opposed to everything. Broxtowe has deferred
consideration of the proposals and there won't be any final decisions till
there has been a public consultation period, i.e. later this year.
However, you may like to know what's been outlined in our area.
Briefly:
• The need for housing over the next 16 years in Broxtowe, as estimated by
demographers in the light of current longevity, people moving out from the
city, etc., is 5700, or about 350 homes a year. Some of that has already
been approved or is under construction, and the councils have decided not
to allocate the full amount for the moment, since the projections are
uncertain (e.g. a sharp decline in new immigration due to the new
Australian-style points system and the return to Poland of many previous
arrivals may reduce demand in the city, indirectly reducing the spread to
Broxtowe).
• The plan is to have about half of this in the area adjoining the city
and half spread around the rest of the borough.
• It's proposed to build 550 homes on brownfield Boots and Severn Trent
land in Beeston, at the north end of Rylands. In principle I think this
makes sense, since it's land that will otherwise fall into disuse, it's
brownfield, there are shops and transport nearby, and it won't do any harm
to Beeston to have some more people supporting the local shops. I am
concerned about access and will be pressing for this to be from the north
(Boots) side, not via Trent Road.
• Other areas where possible development is foreseen are 480 homes north
of Stapleford (which must mean field Farm etc.) and 1000 west of Bardills,
including Toton Sidings. I have serious concerns about both of these,
especially because of the impact on local roads and infrastructure (e.g.
school capacity).
• It's also proposed to look at small developments throughout Greater
Nottingham, but these haven't been specified and the idea is to look at
local proposals as they come up.
The next stage is that when and if all the councils approve the report, it
will go out to an extended public consultation. As always, I'll keep you
posted on when that happens so that you can submit your views, and I'll
organise further local meetings to discuss controversial sites and
organise opposition where the proposals are unacceptable.
I hope this is helpful.
Best wishes
Nick
|
