I see there is a discussion on BrentfordTW8.com about saving the Libraries. Some of the participants make the connection with the other cuts we are making, and why we are making them. What do you think?
When public libraries started local authorities did not run the range of services they do now. There was not the tension between supporting services for all, against those for the most vulnerable (who we don't often see as we go about our daily lives).
The consultation closes this week so please get your responses in to the budget consultation - budgetconsultation@hounslow.gov.uk
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Saturday, 8 January 2011
Happy New Year - not
Residents are receiving through their doors the list of cuts we (Hounslow's Labour Councillors) are considering in order to make the £18m budget reduction imposed on us by withdrawal of Government grant. It's on-line "http://tinyurl.com/3x329mo" £18m is far more than anything Hounslow, and most other authorities, have ever had to find before.
Too Far - Too Fast
As the Council's leadership, we have been left with no choice but to cut services and jobs next year - Government grants make up c70% of Council income and the spending review and subsequent local government settlement forces Hounslow to make 25% reduction in spend over the next four years. Dressed up as part of deficit reduction strategy, these cuts in our Government grants are an ideological attack on public services, yet the difficult decisions as to how to deliver the cuts are being forced on local Councils to make. Grant reductions have been far worse for urban authorities - whilst Richmond borough, Surrey County, and Cameron's Whitney have got off very lightly, and some northern authorities, along with Hackney and Islington, fare far worse.
The proposals in the consultation represent the least worst possible, and try and protect services to our most vulnerable residents, the frail elderly, disabled people, and vulnerable families and youngsters. We are also trying to reduce the number of redundancies to Council staff.
We will continue to drive out inefficiencies and unnecessary costs. But Mr Pickles is in fantasy land to suggest that joint work and cutting out chief executives can bring the kind of savings we have to make. Even the 3-borough grouping of Hammersmith, Westminster and Kensington reckon their radical efficiency proposals around joint services will only find £15 savings between them in four years.
Hounslow is investing time and expertise into redesigning how things are done so residents get a better service, for less. But it takes time for that change to be implemented, and time is what the Government has not given us
So we cannot avoid making real cuts that will impact on local people and local services. We remain committed to a tax cut and will freeze it again next year if we are not able to cut it. We also remain resolute on our 5 pledges – crime and community safety, schools, new homes and jobs, cleaning up, and cutting Council Tax.
We'll also be working closely with our local health, education and police partners who are also facing funding cuts - to ensure that we don't make cuts in one service that end up costing other partners more.
Please do respond to the consultation to budgetconsultation@hounslow.gov.uk
Too Far - Too Fast
As the Council's leadership, we have been left with no choice but to cut services and jobs next year - Government grants make up c70% of Council income and the spending review and subsequent local government settlement forces Hounslow to make 25% reduction in spend over the next four years. Dressed up as part of deficit reduction strategy, these cuts in our Government grants are an ideological attack on public services, yet the difficult decisions as to how to deliver the cuts are being forced on local Councils to make. Grant reductions have been far worse for urban authorities - whilst Richmond borough, Surrey County, and Cameron's Whitney have got off very lightly, and some northern authorities, along with Hackney and Islington, fare far worse.
The proposals in the consultation represent the least worst possible, and try and protect services to our most vulnerable residents, the frail elderly, disabled people, and vulnerable families and youngsters. We are also trying to reduce the number of redundancies to Council staff.
We will continue to drive out inefficiencies and unnecessary costs. But Mr Pickles is in fantasy land to suggest that joint work and cutting out chief executives can bring the kind of savings we have to make. Even the 3-borough grouping of Hammersmith, Westminster and Kensington reckon their radical efficiency proposals around joint services will only find £15 savings between them in four years.
Hounslow is investing time and expertise into redesigning how things are done so residents get a better service, for less. But it takes time for that change to be implemented, and time is what the Government has not given us
So we cannot avoid making real cuts that will impact on local people and local services. We remain committed to a tax cut and will freeze it again next year if we are not able to cut it. We also remain resolute on our 5 pledges – crime and community safety, schools, new homes and jobs, cleaning up, and cutting Council Tax.
We'll also be working closely with our local health, education and police partners who are also facing funding cuts - to ensure that we don't make cuts in one service that end up costing other partners more.
Please do respond to the consultation to budgetconsultation@hounslow.gov.uk
Ed Milliband - "Deceit about the past endangers our future"
The Labour Leader challenges Cameron's endless, and wrong, assertion that the Labour Government was to blame for the Global economic collapse.
This article was first published in the Times on Thursday, 6th January.
" This week you will have heard some heated exchanges between Labour and the Conservative-led Government over the decision to impose a permanent increase in VAT.
"Behind all the sound and fury, however, it is important to remember this is not just an argument about whether VAT is fair. A bigger debate has begun over whether the Government’s approach is the right way to support jobs and get back to strong growth. David Cameron and George Osborne are making the wrong judgements about our economy. In their politically motivated desire to propagate a myth about the last Labour Government, they are ignoring the real lessons of the global financial crisis.
"Politics is a rough trade and if all I was doing was to complain about such misrepresentation, I should expect little sympathy from readers of The Times. Instead, my concern is that a great deceit designed to damage Labour has led to profoundly misguided and dangerous economic decisions that I fear will cause deep damage to Britain’s future.
"What is this deceit? It is that the deficit was caused by chronic overspending rather than a global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues. One pound in every five of corporation tax disappeared in 2009-10. Their deceit ignores the evidence from around the world that a global credit crunch caused deficits to rise on every continent. The US and Japan face deficits of the same scale and for the same reason.
"Their deceit seeks to rewrite history, airbrushing out the fact that Britain’s debt at the outset of this crisis was the second-lowest in the G7; lower than it was under the Tories in 1997. And it forgets that neither of the two parties now in government called for lower spending at the time. It is this deceit about the past that leads Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne to make the wrong judgements now. They want to say that Britain’s difficulties were caused by chronic overspending and, therefore, the right response is simply to cut the deficit as far and as fast as possible.
"That, rather than simply debating myths from the past, is what matters today. The real debate is not about whether or not to cut the deficit: Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high. Where we differ is how that is best done in the world as we find it, not as we would like it to be.
"Mr Osborne is gambling on a rapid rebalancing of the economy through a steep rise in VAT and swift cuts to public spending. He is staking much on those steps being matched by increased investment, driven by low interest rates and an export boom on the back of a devalued currency.
"We hope that his gamble pays off. But we take a different view about the balance of risks. We recognise that no other developed country is taking such an extreme approach. That is why we say Mr Osborne is going too far and too fast on the deficit. This is not a political slogan, it is our economic judgement.
"The big question is whether the Tory approach will leave us with low growth and squeezed living standards in the short term, as well as deeper economic problems in the long term.
"On growth, our concern is that conditions are not right for the rapid rebalancing that the Chancellor is hoping for and that Britain will be left without the jobs and growth we need. He is fond of referring to the experience of Canada in the 1990s, where public sector retrenchment was matched by an export-fuelled private sector boom. But exports need a market. Canada had a booming US economy. But the UK’s main export market is Europe where growth remains sluggish.
"New investment relies on business confidence and available credit. But with interest rates at record lows there is little evidence of pent-up demand for investment. And the banks, having just emerged from the worst financial crisis for generations, are not providing the credit that businesses need to grow.
"Rising prices, pushed higher still by the VAT rise, will squeeze living standards for those on middle and low incomes, threatening consumer confidence and undermining demand. Some might shrug and say that low growth and squeezed family budgets are a price worth paying. But we know from Britain’s past how this approach stores up problems for the future.
"Mr Osborne’s failure to have any credible growth strategy means that we will not address the real lesson of the crisis: that we were too reliant on financial services and did not have a broad enough industrial base. His approach risks prolonged unemployment, wasting the talents of future generations, while a strategy based on VAT risks stoking inflation, especially when oil prices are high.
"For all the political noise, these differences of judgement are at the heart of the real choice Britain faces. It is not true we oppose every cut. Labour is clear that spending is not the answer to every problem. But neither is it true that Labour is to blame for the deficit or that the deficit-reduction programme being pursued by this Government is necessary and fair.
"Because this Conservative-led Government is trying to deceive people about the past, it is making the wrong judgements about the future. By misleading you, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are leading our country in the wrong direction."
This article was first published in the Times on Thursday, 6th January.
" This week you will have heard some heated exchanges between Labour and the Conservative-led Government over the decision to impose a permanent increase in VAT.
"Behind all the sound and fury, however, it is important to remember this is not just an argument about whether VAT is fair. A bigger debate has begun over whether the Government’s approach is the right way to support jobs and get back to strong growth. David Cameron and George Osborne are making the wrong judgements about our economy. In their politically motivated desire to propagate a myth about the last Labour Government, they are ignoring the real lessons of the global financial crisis.
"Politics is a rough trade and if all I was doing was to complain about such misrepresentation, I should expect little sympathy from readers of The Times. Instead, my concern is that a great deceit designed to damage Labour has led to profoundly misguided and dangerous economic decisions that I fear will cause deep damage to Britain’s future.
"What is this deceit? It is that the deficit was caused by chronic overspending rather than a global financial crisis that resulted in recession and a calamitous collapse in tax revenues. One pound in every five of corporation tax disappeared in 2009-10. Their deceit ignores the evidence from around the world that a global credit crunch caused deficits to rise on every continent. The US and Japan face deficits of the same scale and for the same reason.
"Their deceit seeks to rewrite history, airbrushing out the fact that Britain’s debt at the outset of this crisis was the second-lowest in the G7; lower than it was under the Tories in 1997. And it forgets that neither of the two parties now in government called for lower spending at the time. It is this deceit about the past that leads Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne to make the wrong judgements now. They want to say that Britain’s difficulties were caused by chronic overspending and, therefore, the right response is simply to cut the deficit as far and as fast as possible.
"That, rather than simply debating myths from the past, is what matters today. The real debate is not about whether or not to cut the deficit: Labour has been clear that we need to reduce borrowing from levels that are far too high. Where we differ is how that is best done in the world as we find it, not as we would like it to be.
"Mr Osborne is gambling on a rapid rebalancing of the economy through a steep rise in VAT and swift cuts to public spending. He is staking much on those steps being matched by increased investment, driven by low interest rates and an export boom on the back of a devalued currency.
"We hope that his gamble pays off. But we take a different view about the balance of risks. We recognise that no other developed country is taking such an extreme approach. That is why we say Mr Osborne is going too far and too fast on the deficit. This is not a political slogan, it is our economic judgement.
"The big question is whether the Tory approach will leave us with low growth and squeezed living standards in the short term, as well as deeper economic problems in the long term.
"On growth, our concern is that conditions are not right for the rapid rebalancing that the Chancellor is hoping for and that Britain will be left without the jobs and growth we need. He is fond of referring to the experience of Canada in the 1990s, where public sector retrenchment was matched by an export-fuelled private sector boom. But exports need a market. Canada had a booming US economy. But the UK’s main export market is Europe where growth remains sluggish.
"New investment relies on business confidence and available credit. But with interest rates at record lows there is little evidence of pent-up demand for investment. And the banks, having just emerged from the worst financial crisis for generations, are not providing the credit that businesses need to grow.
"Rising prices, pushed higher still by the VAT rise, will squeeze living standards for those on middle and low incomes, threatening consumer confidence and undermining demand. Some might shrug and say that low growth and squeezed family budgets are a price worth paying. But we know from Britain’s past how this approach stores up problems for the future.
"Mr Osborne’s failure to have any credible growth strategy means that we will not address the real lesson of the crisis: that we were too reliant on financial services and did not have a broad enough industrial base. His approach risks prolonged unemployment, wasting the talents of future generations, while a strategy based on VAT risks stoking inflation, especially when oil prices are high.
"For all the political noise, these differences of judgement are at the heart of the real choice Britain faces. It is not true we oppose every cut. Labour is clear that spending is not the answer to every problem. But neither is it true that Labour is to blame for the deficit or that the deficit-reduction programme being pursued by this Government is necessary and fair.
"Because this Conservative-led Government is trying to deceive people about the past, it is making the wrong judgements about the future. By misleading you, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are leading our country in the wrong direction."
Hounslow's Labour Leader adds his Name to London Labour Statement
Jagidsh Sharma joined MPs, GLA Members and Council leaders on the following statement issued before Christmas:
"Following the Local Government Finance Settlement it's clear London has suffered a raw deal, with its councils facing average cuts of 11.25 per cent. The average for the rest of England is 9.93 per cent.
"So much for Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson's claim to have mounted a ‘Stalingrad like defence' of funding for London.
"We must be clear - the size and the speed of these cuts are a choice the Conservative-led government is making. Councils in London are being forced into making the heaviest cuts in the next year because of the decisions taken by George Osborne and Eric Pickles, damaging frontline services and putting jobs and the recovery at risk.
"Our first responsibility is to protect the communities we serve, pressing the government to abandon its course and minimising the pain of the government's cuts for residents. However the scale of the cuts in funding for councils is so big that in many cases this will not be enough to protect many vital services.
"There is little doubt that local government cuts of this size, imposed this quickly and frontloaded in the first year will hit many of the important frontline services families and communities rely on. Roads already damaged last winter could go unrepaired this year too. Potholes could go unfixed, pavements unswept. Streetlights will be turned off. Youth clubs will close. Libraries will shut down. As more people than ever need help with social care, fewer will find their local council able to help.
"Whether from local government, Parliament, City Hall, the trade unions or local Labour parties, London Labour's approach will be based on uniting everyone in London opposed to the way the government has handed these cuts to councils and focusing our campaign where it deserves to be focused - on the government.
"We urge the government to carefully reconsider the serious impact of policies on the quality of life of millions of Londoners, rethink the settlement and give the capital a fair deal."
Yours sincerely
Ken Livingstone, Labour's candidate for Mayor of London
Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Tessa Jowell MP, Shadow Minister for the Olympics
Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney
Linda Perks, UNISON Regional Secretary
Steve Hart, UNITE Regional Secretary London and Eastern
Paul Hayes, GMB London regional secretary
Richard Ascough, GMB Southern regional secretary
Alan Tate, CWU London Regional Political Secretary
Len Duvall AM, Leader of London Assembly Labour Group
Claude Moraes MEP
Nicky Gavron AM
Val Shawcross AM
Murad Qureshi AM
John Biggs AM
Joanne McCartney AM
Navin Shah AM
Jennette Arnold AM
Diane Abbott MP
Heidi Alexander MP
Rushanara Ali MP
Karen Buck MP
Lyn Brown MP
Jon Cruddas MP
John Cryer MP
Jim Dowd MP
Clive Efford MP
Mike Gapes MP
Meg Hillier MP
Jim Fitzpatrick MP
Margaret Hodge MP
David Lammy MP
Siobhan McDonagh MP
Andy Love MP
Stephen Pound MP
Teresa Pearce MP
Nick Raynsford MP
Joan Ruddock MP
Virendra Sharma MP
Andy Slaughter MP
Stephen Timms MP
Gareth Thomas MP
Emily Thornberry MP
Malcolm Wicks MP
Cllr Liam Smith, Leader of Barking and Dagenham Council
Cllr Ann John, Leader of Brent Council
Cllr Nasim Ali, Leader of Camden Council
Cllr Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council
Cllr Doug Taylor, Leader of Enfield Council
Cllr Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council
Cllr Jagdish Sharma, Leader of Hounslow Council
Cllr Claire Kober, Leader of Haringey Council
Cllr Bill Stephenson, Leader of Harrow Council
Cllr Catherine West, Leader of Islington Council
Cllr Steve Reed, Leader of Lambeth Council
Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham
Cllr Stephen Alambritis, Leader of Merton Council
Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham
Cllr Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council
Cllr Chris Robbins, Leader of Waltham Forest Council
"Following the Local Government Finance Settlement it's clear London has suffered a raw deal, with its councils facing average cuts of 11.25 per cent. The average for the rest of England is 9.93 per cent.
"So much for Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson's claim to have mounted a ‘Stalingrad like defence' of funding for London.
"We must be clear - the size and the speed of these cuts are a choice the Conservative-led government is making. Councils in London are being forced into making the heaviest cuts in the next year because of the decisions taken by George Osborne and Eric Pickles, damaging frontline services and putting jobs and the recovery at risk.
"Our first responsibility is to protect the communities we serve, pressing the government to abandon its course and minimising the pain of the government's cuts for residents. However the scale of the cuts in funding for councils is so big that in many cases this will not be enough to protect many vital services.
"There is little doubt that local government cuts of this size, imposed this quickly and frontloaded in the first year will hit many of the important frontline services families and communities rely on. Roads already damaged last winter could go unrepaired this year too. Potholes could go unfixed, pavements unswept. Streetlights will be turned off. Youth clubs will close. Libraries will shut down. As more people than ever need help with social care, fewer will find their local council able to help.
"Whether from local government, Parliament, City Hall, the trade unions or local Labour parties, London Labour's approach will be based on uniting everyone in London opposed to the way the government has handed these cuts to councils and focusing our campaign where it deserves to be focused - on the government.
"We urge the government to carefully reconsider the serious impact of policies on the quality of life of millions of Londoners, rethink the settlement and give the capital a fair deal."
Yours sincerely
Ken Livingstone, Labour's candidate for Mayor of London
Harriet Harman MP, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Tessa Jowell MP, Shadow Minister for the Olympics
Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney
Linda Perks, UNISON Regional Secretary
Steve Hart, UNITE Regional Secretary London and Eastern
Paul Hayes, GMB London regional secretary
Richard Ascough, GMB Southern regional secretary
Alan Tate, CWU London Regional Political Secretary
Len Duvall AM, Leader of London Assembly Labour Group
Claude Moraes MEP
Nicky Gavron AM
Val Shawcross AM
Murad Qureshi AM
John Biggs AM
Joanne McCartney AM
Navin Shah AM
Jennette Arnold AM
Diane Abbott MP
Heidi Alexander MP
Rushanara Ali MP
Karen Buck MP
Lyn Brown MP
Jon Cruddas MP
John Cryer MP
Jim Dowd MP
Clive Efford MP
Mike Gapes MP
Meg Hillier MP
Jim Fitzpatrick MP
Margaret Hodge MP
David Lammy MP
Siobhan McDonagh MP
Andy Love MP
Stephen Pound MP
Teresa Pearce MP
Nick Raynsford MP
Joan Ruddock MP
Virendra Sharma MP
Andy Slaughter MP
Stephen Timms MP
Gareth Thomas MP
Emily Thornberry MP
Malcolm Wicks MP
Cllr Liam Smith, Leader of Barking and Dagenham Council
Cllr Ann John, Leader of Brent Council
Cllr Nasim Ali, Leader of Camden Council
Cllr Julian Bell, Leader of Ealing Council
Cllr Doug Taylor, Leader of Enfield Council
Cllr Chris Roberts, Leader of Greenwich Council
Cllr Jagdish Sharma, Leader of Hounslow Council
Cllr Claire Kober, Leader of Haringey Council
Cllr Bill Stephenson, Leader of Harrow Council
Cllr Catherine West, Leader of Islington Council
Cllr Steve Reed, Leader of Lambeth Council
Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham
Cllr Stephen Alambritis, Leader of Merton Council
Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham
Cllr Peter John, Leader of Southwark Council
Cllr Chris Robbins, Leader of Waltham Forest Council
Monday, 6 December 2010
Tuition Fees: Their plans are not necessary, not fair, bad for higher education
And bad for the country
Not necessary because the short-term need for deficit reduction doesn't justify a long term change in Higher Education funding which will be bad for universities and not save any public money. They've chosen to cut higher education teaching by 80% when other public services are being cut much less.
Not fair because graduates will now have to pay the whole cost of most degrees (simply replacing the cut in funding), instead of sharing the costs with the taxpayer. Graduates will pay much more, and pay for 30 years. Middle income graduates will be hardest hit.
Not good for higher education. England’s world class university system has been built on a public investment and trust in the professional academic leadership of universities. This will be replaced by a market in higher education in which many students will be put off university and forced to choose the cheapest rather than the best course.
The Labour Party says:
* We would not make such a big cut in Higher Education teaching grants, so high fees would not be needed to replace lost income.
* Graduates should share the cost of higher education; by moving towards a graduate tax the highest earning graduates would make a fairer contribution
* We believe that universities should remain public institutions, receiving significant public funding
Not necessary because the short-term need for deficit reduction doesn't justify a long term change in Higher Education funding which will be bad for universities and not save any public money. They've chosen to cut higher education teaching by 80% when other public services are being cut much less.
Not fair because graduates will now have to pay the whole cost of most degrees (simply replacing the cut in funding), instead of sharing the costs with the taxpayer. Graduates will pay much more, and pay for 30 years. Middle income graduates will be hardest hit.
Not good for higher education. England’s world class university system has been built on a public investment and trust in the professional academic leadership of universities. This will be replaced by a market in higher education in which many students will be put off university and forced to choose the cheapest rather than the best course.
The Labour Party says:
* We would not make such a big cut in Higher Education teaching grants, so high fees would not be needed to replace lost income.
* Graduates should share the cost of higher education; by moving towards a graduate tax the highest earning graduates would make a fairer contribution
* We believe that universities should remain public institutions, receiving significant public funding
Friday, 26 November 2010
First New Council Housing for over 20 years ready for letting
Convent Way in Heston is the site of 20 NEW COUNCIL homes - the first to be built in Hounslow for over 20 years. I was so pleased and proud to be at the celebration yesterday to see the houses before the first tenants move in by Christmas. Councils haven't been able to build Council housing since Thatcher's time, but the Labour Government started the work to make that possible for Councils with high-performing ALMOs (Arms Length Management Organisations that manage our Council Housing). We met Yvette Cooper to thrash out the details when she was housing minister around 2004, and my only regret is that it has taken so long for the first ones to get built and let. Initially the legal complexities took forever, but now that is sorted we have a whole lot under construction and should be ready for letting next year.
After these though, the future is bleak. Capital funding for most affordable Council and Housing Association new-build is dependent on Government funding, via the HCA (Homes and Communities Agency). Their future funding for London has been halved from the last budget, and most of what they have is already allocated. It looks as though ever more families will be living in high-cost private rented and/or overcrowded housing. This government has absolutely no interest in London's fundamental housing problem - that "the market" delivers homes only at or above the level that many earn - compare private rents with, say the London Living Wage. Good quality affordable housing is more necessary than ever.
After these though, the future is bleak. Capital funding for most affordable Council and Housing Association new-build is dependent on Government funding, via the HCA (Homes and Communities Agency). Their future funding for London has been halved from the last budget, and most of what they have is already allocated. It looks as though ever more families will be living in high-cost private rented and/or overcrowded housing. This government has absolutely no interest in London's fundamental housing problem - that "the market" delivers homes only at or above the level that many earn - compare private rents with, say the London Living Wage. Good quality affordable housing is more necessary than ever.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Six Months leading Hounslow
CON/DEM ATTACK ON HOMES, INCOMES AND SERVICES
Another week, another government announcement that was never trailed in any manifesto. Together they are set to throw people out of work, hold back economic growth and damage the public services we all rely on. The Tories and Lib Dems have broken their promise to be fair; with tax increases and benefit cuts that will hit hardest at the people who can least afford them.
BENEFITS AND HOUSING CUTS
• Capping Housing Benefit for private tenants when there is a shortage of homes, so landlords will find non HB tenants and many will be made homeless
• cuts in HB for those occupying a large home, anyone unemployed more than 12m, those with non-dpendent adults living with them
• Cuts to benefits for disabled people
• Halving the capital budget for new Council and HA housing
• Cuts to working family tax credits
• Ending of Educational Maintenance Allowance (for over 16s staying in education)
• Forced free labour schemes for those long-term unemployed
• Ending of the Building Schools for the Future scheme
FIGHTING FOR HOUNSLOW
The Labour team now leading Hounslow Council have vowed to do whatever it can to protect local services. We are working hard to protect our most vulnerable residents and will do everything we can to prevent these cuts causing lasting harm to our residents. It won’t be easy and we are going to have to make some difficult choices.
The October spending review hit local Councils hard. Hounslow expects to need to find savings of around £60m over 4 years, and that this must be “front loaded” ie £18m in each of the next two years and around £12m in the subsequent ones.
Efficiency savings are not going to deliver £18m savings, we will have to agree to service cuts. Whilst we will do what we can to protect jobs, at this level of cut, redundancies will be inevitable. We have met the staff side Unions and have agreed a severance scheme that is more generous, and fairer than the one used by the Tory/ICG administration.
We have a timetable that ensures proper consultation including a residents' panel meeting, briefing meetings in each area, and a special edition of Hounslow Matters.
We are also going to be using You Choose – an online public participation tool that allows residents to “play” with different budget options (eg spending more on parks and less on childrens services.) It described what the impact of your choices would be both on those service, but also on the Council Tax. We will be launching the Hounslow version very soon but you can see the Redbridge one on www.redbridge.gov.uk.
We welcome constructive comments on the choices we have to make - what services could be cut back and which should be protected at all costs?
Another week, another government announcement that was never trailed in any manifesto. Together they are set to throw people out of work, hold back economic growth and damage the public services we all rely on. The Tories and Lib Dems have broken their promise to be fair; with tax increases and benefit cuts that will hit hardest at the people who can least afford them.
BENEFITS AND HOUSING CUTS
• Capping Housing Benefit for private tenants when there is a shortage of homes, so landlords will find non HB tenants and many will be made homeless
• cuts in HB for those occupying a large home, anyone unemployed more than 12m, those with non-dpendent adults living with them
• Cuts to benefits for disabled people
• Halving the capital budget for new Council and HA housing
• Cuts to working family tax credits
• Ending of Educational Maintenance Allowance (for over 16s staying in education)
• Forced free labour schemes for those long-term unemployed
• Ending of the Building Schools for the Future scheme
FIGHTING FOR HOUNSLOW
The Labour team now leading Hounslow Council have vowed to do whatever it can to protect local services. We are working hard to protect our most vulnerable residents and will do everything we can to prevent these cuts causing lasting harm to our residents. It won’t be easy and we are going to have to make some difficult choices.
The October spending review hit local Councils hard. Hounslow expects to need to find savings of around £60m over 4 years, and that this must be “front loaded” ie £18m in each of the next two years and around £12m in the subsequent ones.
Efficiency savings are not going to deliver £18m savings, we will have to agree to service cuts. Whilst we will do what we can to protect jobs, at this level of cut, redundancies will be inevitable. We have met the staff side Unions and have agreed a severance scheme that is more generous, and fairer than the one used by the Tory/ICG administration.
We have a timetable that ensures proper consultation including a residents' panel meeting, briefing meetings in each area, and a special edition of Hounslow Matters.
We are also going to be using You Choose – an online public participation tool that allows residents to “play” with different budget options (eg spending more on parks and less on childrens services.) It described what the impact of your choices would be both on those service, but also on the Council Tax. We will be launching the Hounslow version very soon but you can see the Redbridge one on www.redbridge.gov.uk.
We welcome constructive comments on the choices we have to make - what services could be cut back and which should be protected at all costs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)