H&F Conservatives Block Crucial Vote Until After Homeless Charity Is Forced To Shut

I can’t recall the last time I saw so many members of the public give up their evening to witness a Full Council Meeting. Most were charity workers and their homeless clients but others made up the sixty strong crowd too. It was a mixed group: A young woman sat with her baby in a pram; a man in his twenties who served in the army, a woman in her thirties who said she had been a victim of domestic violence. There were many. All waited anxiously to hear the Conservative Administration’s explanation for closing down the homeless charity that had helped many of them get back onto their feet. They were hoping the Tories would have a change of heart by putting an end this vindictive scam and vote to reinstate Council funding.

But the Conservatives had decided on a darkly cynical path. They announced that they didn’t even want to discuss the matter - let alone vote on it. Instead, they called for it to be moved from the agenda that night on 16^th September to the 27^th October. Almost certainly, they knew that by that date it would be too late. The charity will have run out of funding and been forced to shut down.

The Mayor could have intervened. Indeed, it is customary to allow debate on matters that have engaged such public interests. This did not happen. Instead, and at the insistence of Mark Loveday, the Tory Chief Whip, the Mayor called for a vote to move the debate. It wasn’t hard to guess what would happen.  It was won by the extremely large majority of the Conservative Group of councillors - of which the Mayor is also a member.

The meeting erupted as members of the public and Opposition councillors realised what the Tories had done. It was the worst Council Meeting I have ever been to.

This was, in fact, the first time ever that any Administration had abused its powers in this way and stopped all Opposition motions. It’s hard to really understand why Cllr. Loveday and his fellow Conservative councillors believed this was a clever thing to do. They can’t have had somewhere else more important to go as by 8.30pm that night; nearly all of them were drinking in a local pub and had been doing so within minutes of that meeting finishing.

Consider, for a moment, some of the other occasions when members of the public have turned up to Hammersmith Town Hall. There have been planning meetings when hundreds of local residents have made the effort to attend only to be yelled at and threatened with “expulsion” by the Conservative Committee Chair - who then used the massive Tory majority to vote against each and every one of their concerns. Even children and their parents have been flabbergasted after arguing their case in late night Town Hall meetings only to watch in amazement as a unanimous line of Tory councillors’ hands rose into the air signalling the closure of their cherished local school. But even on all those occasions, Opposition Councillors have been able to argue their constituents’ case. This is the very least our democratic system allows.

That didn’t happen on September 16^th. Afterwards, the director of Threshold Housing Advice was dejected. She told me she had lost all hope of keeping the local homeless service alive. “What will happen to those hundreds and hundreds of homeless people who come to us for help?” she asked. She knew the bitter answer. I looked back struggling to think of something positive to tell her.

H&F Conservatives have a dire record on homelessness. Threshold Housing Advice has been a vital counter-weight to H&F Council’s actions. They need about £175,000 to maintain their vital service. If you want to help (no matter how large or small the sum), please donate using this web link.

Is H&F Council’s Housing Consultation A Done Deal?

I didn’t think giving people a vote would be considered a controversial matter but at the Select Committee on Tuesday, 14^th September the Conservatives refused to do it. Instead, they said a consultation will suffice.

The issue requiring a vote concerned the future management of all the council homes in the Borough. It’s reasonable to ask why? The answer being eighty eight per cent of council tenants and seventy seven per cent of leaseholders had only recently voted to transfer the management of their homes to a resident led arms length management board - as you can read on H&F Council’s website. Given the scale of the democratic mandate for this change it’s hard to not to see how another vote is needed to transfer it back.

The last vote was managed by the independent Electoral Reform Society. But this time, Cllr. Lucy Ivimy, the Cabinet Member for Housing, argued that a marketing company’s consultation would be enough.

Meanwhile, the attached advert for a new housing director appeared in the Sunday Times just two days earlier. This is a new post being advertised but it assumes there will be a direct housing management role – a role which is forbidden by the current arms length structure. So it’s not difficult to see how this Conservative Administration is, at the very least, confident that this “consultation” will produce “the right result”.

Cllr. Ivimy argued that this consultation is in fact a vote. But take a look at the attached page (Click on it to enlarge) from the Conservatives’ consultation. It does not look anything like any ballot paper I’ve ever seen before and that is only one of the many pages in their “consultation”. In fact, H&F Council have used a cynical psychological ploy that will allow them to count a 'Yes' vote if the resident ticks any of the first 3 of the 5 boxes on Q1.  Imagine the outrage if this technique was used to decide the outcome of any real elections - either here or abroad. 

It is not unknown for public bodies to go through the motions when “consulting”. Given this Conservative Administration’s highly controversial plans to knock down a quarter of all Council housing then it’s not hard to see why they want it all back in house as it would greatly smooth out this process.

The Opposition require a review of this consultation and methodoloy before we say we are in any way satisfied with its validity.

At the last elections my fellow Labour councillors and I campaigned for a different approach to managing our council housing. One that would have devolved more powers to residents on a much more local basis. But, like last time, we would have given all residents a vote. It is a concern that this Administration will not do that and given everything else they have said and done with social housing it’s hard to trust that they have the best interest of our current residents at heart.

Disease And Ill Health To Go Untreated In Hammersmith And Fulham

“There are going to be real failures of delivery. Heart attacks not dealt with, hernias won’t be fixed, hip replacements won’t happen, and psychological care will not be given." So said Dr. Tony Grewal, on the 14^th September. He was representing Hammersmith and Fulham’s Local Medical Committee (LMC) at the Borough's Housing, Health and Adult Social Care Select Committee.

Dr. Grewal made the controversial comments during his opening statement about the Coalition Government’s health re-organisation plans detailed on item 5 on this agenda. I twice repeated them back to him to be sure I correctly had taken down what he said. He confirmed that I had.

I was keen to ask Dr. Grewal why he believed these calamities would happen. But the Conservative Committee Chair quickly interrupted and said we needed to hear from Cllr. Joe Carlebach (Con), H&F’s Cabinet Member for Community Care. Cllr. Carlebach fudged the issue telling us that “heath care had always been rationed over the last 40 years and now was no different”. This was a disingenuous point - one which Cllr. Iain Coleman (Lab) skewered saying “this was all the result of a political decision. One made by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - and one bitterly opposed by the Labour Party.”

Dr. Grewal diplomatically agreed that it was politics that decided the future of the NHS but said “we can’t go out and change the votes of hundreds of thousands of people so I want to see how to make the government’s plans work as I have to do the best by my patients”.

By now we were none the wiser as to why the government’s actions would produce such failures in the our health care. Earlier in the meeting, James Reilly (H&F Council’s Director of Health and Adult Social Care) had responded to questions about the level of objective analysis and evidence base for the government’s claim that its 36% cut to NHS commissioning and support is just “cutting waste”. He said “There isn’t any… and there is therefore risk”. Adding that the approach to this cut was based on a “pretty crude application”.

Dr. Grewal later said he would “refute any notion” that it was the government’s reorganisation plans that would bring about “heart attacks not dealt with…” etc. Was it therefore a lack of funding or what? The Chair was keen to cut all further questioning on what was proving to be an embarrassing matter for the Conservative led government.

By the end of the meeting it was apparent that these changes are being rushed through; that there is a weak approach to managing the evident risk of failure and that the Government's proposals appear to be based on virtually no objective analysis of what the problems are.

Given the dangers we had been told about, I called for the Select Committee to write a non-party political letter to Andrew Lansley MP (Con) - the Health Secretary. I argued that we had a duty to pass on our concerns and do all we can to avoid any failures in local health care. The Tories used their majority to vote this proposal down.

The Labour Opposition will therefore write to Mr. Lansley and we’ll let you know when we get a reply.

Meanwhile, if you’d like to read the coalition government’s proposed changes then please click here.

North End Councillor: "Many Residents Will Be Left Without A Hope Of Staying In This Wonderful Community"

Councillor Daryl Brown (Lab), the newly elected representative for North End ward gave her maiden speech in Hammersmith Town Hall last night. 

North End is a highly political ward - not least because of the Conservatives' proposed police cuts and plans to demolish 800 affordable homes for people on low incomes.

Here's what she said.

"Good Evening.

I would like to begin by thanking the people of North End ward for voting for me on May 6th.

It was a hard fought campaign. I worked with a fantastic team with Max Schmid and Matt Turmaine.

It is an honour to be an elected representative and I am only sorry that, this time, Max and Matt are not also here with me on these Labour benches.

I would like to also recognise the contribution of Caroline Ffisk who lost her seat in the same local election. I didn’t know her. Undoubtedly, I disagree with much of the programme she actively supported. But politics aside, I thank her for the work she did and wish her well with her young family.

I also offer my congratulations to fellow newly elected North End ward Councillors Georgie Cooney and Tom Crofts.

North End is a mixed ward. People living side-by-side and at the same time living very different lives, with very different incomes, very different life experiences, different opportunities and different fears.

There are a large number of people in private rented accomodation. More in our social housing communities on Cheeseman’s Terrace, the West Kensington Estate and Gibbs Green - to name but a few.

Walk down the leafy streets of Fairholm, Charlville or Turnville Roads and resident parking permits sit in the widows of shiny cars costing over £60,000 and houses are valued at over £1 million.

Stroll through the streets of North End on any busy morning: There are elderly ladies queuing at bus stops; excited children running to the newly refurbished Normancroft school; people carrying fresh fruit and vegetables back from North End Market; business women rushing for the tube and people enjoying the much improved Normand Park – thanks to Labour’s New Deal for Communities.

Come to my ward and you will get a feel and a flavour of this wonderful, mixed part of London and see a neighbourhood that truly works.

So it is apt that, given all this, I should use my maiden speech to talk about the Local Development Framework.

Not only does this document carry this Administration’s vision for this vibrant community. It makes a number of detailed assertions on how this area should change.

On page 98, you will note that much of North End ward is placed in the North Fulham Regeneration Area. And the Administration asserts that “this area has the potential to become a major new neighbourhood for the Borough”.

The word “new” causes concern for many of my constituents as they, clearly, are part of the present neighbourhood and they wonder what will happen to them as their Council seeks something different - evidently viewing them as part of the old.

While there is a nod to the importance of the North End market in this paper, it is a concern that this Council wants to “relocate it”. This facility that provides value, freshness and vitality to the people of Fulham is left with its future hanging in the balance.

The LDF criticises the lack of services but does not mention the closure of Baron’s Court Library. On page 99 the Administration seems to have toned down its comments on social housing.

Gone is the talk of “ghettos” and “barracks for the poor”. But the sentiment remains familiar, with talk of council estates being “poorly laid out” and going on to complain that there are “high levels of social rented housing” – which it links to the (and I quote) “social, economic and physical deprivation in the area”.

The Administration’s plans for social housing in North End ward are a particular concern. Residents groups have campaigned. There has been national media coverage and over 80% of residents on the West Ken and Gibbs Green Estates said they were happy with their neighbourhood.

And yet, despite all this, the Administration is unable to allay people’s fears about demolitions and cuts to social rented housing.

Instead, it simply says that quantity of “social housing should not be reduced”. There is no binding guarantee of the levels of “affordable rented housing”.

If we look at what this Administration already does we can only conclude that many residents will be left without a hope of staying in this wonderful community - as they will only be offered shared ownership schemes well beyond their financial reach.

Reading through this document it is apparent that this Administration does not share the affection or recognise the strengths that many people, including me, have for North End ward. They want to change it so that it is new.

This document puts a light coat of gloss on proposals that will be to the detriment of a lot of my constituents. The only glimmer of hope in this LDF is that it says many of the plans will be phased in over the next twenty years.

Well, as the plans unfold, this year and next, I state now that we will support those proposals that benefit the people of this ward and I will vigorously oppose those that end their rights, increase their cost and threaten their homes.

But the only real security can come from an Administration that appreciates the strengths of this amazing mixed community. That can only be a Labour Administration.

And that’s why I give notice that we will campaign to take all the seats in North End and win back the Council. Only then can we deliver the security, fairness and decency the people of my ward deserve."

Clegg's Shepherds Bush Blunder

With friends like the Conservatives it's worth asking does Nick Clegg need enemies? 

The Deputy Prime Minister popped down to the Shepherds Bush Families Project for what, he no doubt believed, would be a apt photo shoot that underlined the points he had just made in a speech on social mobility. But, there was a problem with the venue as H&F's Conservative run Council are selling it off as part of their asset stripping programme. And there was problem with the project as H&F Conservatives have just removed £44,000.00 from the children's scheme. Even worse,  there is a problem with Sure Start itself as the Government, Nick Clegg helps to lead, is questioning whether to keep Sure Start - so this project may not exist at all after March 2011.

Andy Slaughter MP (Lab) was on the scene to explain this to the assembled media. The parents affected by the sell-off, the cut and the closure were there too. They asked the Lib Dem Leader about these policies. Unfortunately, Mr. Clegg was quite clearly out of his depth and incapable of answering their questions. Senior Tory councillors were on hand to add to the sense of chaos. You can watch the BBC news video of the event by clicking here. It's well worth viewing.

Coalition Government Backs H&F Tories’ Plan To Privatise Our Local Children’s Services

A guest post by Cllr. Caroline Needham (Lab), the Shadow Cabinet Member for Education and Children’s Services…

Hammersmith and Fulham is to become part of the Coalition Government’s latest scheme to reduce the role of the state in their drive to create the so-called “Big Society”.  The Conservative Administration has agreed to become a pathfinder Council that will privatise the delivery of children’s services.

Having only recently decided to merge the Borough’s education department with Westminster (not a neighbouring borough), this will be seen as more evidence of an approach to the provision of Council services for local children that is at best, blasé.

Children’s services are the most politically and legally sensitive area for local authorities. The Baby ‘P’ case has drawn national attention to the high risks involved in failure to deliver adequate protection.  Only 18 months ago Hammersmith and Fulham Tories gained national infamy by proposing to cut £905,000 from the children with critical needs budget. Coming in the wake of Baby ‘P’ the Labour Opposition led a fierce campaign and forced the Administration not to make the cut but the Conservatives’ intention was there for all to see.

Last month saw swinging cuts to children’s under-fives provision in Sands End, while plans to provide new play equipment in parks have been cancelled.

Meanwhile, many families in the Borough are struggling to find primary school places near their home – a situation made worse by the Conservatives closing and selling off schools. Families caring for children with special needs have already faced major changes in their access to support following the council’s forced closure of the Carers Centre. Now they will face further disruption, as the new social work-led service experiments with new and untried ways of providing services.

H&F Council’s plan to privitise Children’s Services involves setting up a new arms length ‘mutual’ company. It will be run by some ex-social service staff but advised by national firms like KPMG and John Lewis Partnership. It is notable that none of the companies mentioned in the cabinet office press release have any experience of running children’s services, or knowledge of the complex legal, social, and political sensitivities in this area.

In Hammersmith and Fulham we are fortunate in experiencing a growing population of children. They are our future, and unfortunately, far from responding with better services, the local Conservatives only see the budgets allocated to them as ripe for the chop.

The Conservative administration locally, and the coalition government nationally, are placing our children in the forefront of their expenditure cuts and social experiments.

This was all kept very quiet in the run up to the local elections last May. The parents and careers of our Borough’s children did not vote for these changes. They have not been consulted and, their vocal opposition to local cuts have been ignored. The Labour Opposition on H&F Council will work with local families. We will publicise and oppose the Tories’ dangerous plans and campaign for guarantees from this Administration that any changes it makes will benefit the needs of all families in the borough, and that those most at risk are most protected. 

H&F Conservatives Seek To Shut Homeless Charity Down After Local Tories Were Embarrassed In National Press

I’ve never really liked that phrase about ‘revenge’… You know the one. It says it's“a dish best eaten cold”. It implies a petty, small-mindedness and is often uttered by those with a Godfather complex who seek power for all the wrong reasons.

But take a look at how H&F’s Conservative Administration has treated Threshold Housing Advice - the homeless charity. It’s hard not to reach the conclusion that the removal of all Council funding to that organisation is anything other than cold-hearted revenge that was plotted well before the last local elections in May.

Threshold Housing Advice helps over 1500 people a year. Their clients are mostly homeless people who come to them when they’re in a desperate situation. Threshold have been operating in Hammersmith and Fulham since 1978.

How then, did a small homeless charity upset H&F Conservatives? Regular readers will recall the truly horrific case of a pregnant woman who had been badly beaten up by her so-called partner. She went to H&F Council but was turned away after the Conservatives had tightened the criteria for offering help. The young woman was later found in a terrified state, sleeping in a park. This all happened just just four days before she was due to (and did) give birth. Threshold Housing Advice took that case to the Local Government Ombudsman. H&F Council was found to have acted illegally and paid significant damages to the traumatised woman. This story made the national press, the Evening Standard, TV news and the new media. The Independent later featured it in this polemic article.

I’ve always believed that it is important to have organisations that are capable and prepared to tackle government bodies because government bodies can and do get things wrong. Councils, in particular, can be overly bureaucratic, unwilling to listen and incompetent. It is especially important that there are checks and balances when highly vulnerable people are the potential victims of these failings. That’s why most decent Councils provide funding for outside bodies to act as an important counter weight. Sadly for Threshold, that young woman wasn’t turned away for any of those reasons. Although the Tories deny this, she was turned away because of a political decision to spend less on helping homeless people by tightening the criteria. When Threshold successfully stood up for that young woman it embarrassed the Conservatives - both here locally and at a national level too. Their revenge was to seek to close Threshold Housing Advice down in this borough by removing all funding. H&F Council’s funding for the homeless charity stopped when that proposal was unanimously voted through by H&F’s Conservative Cabinet on 15th July. If funding is not restored Threshold will probably have to close down by this October.

Threshold tell me that they actually have two more similarly horrific cases and that they have been pursuing H&F Council about them. One is much, much worse. If Threshold isn’t here to stick up for homeless people then what will happen to those local people who find themselves in such an awful plight? I think we all know the answer to that question.

I call on H&F Conservatives to do the big thing and re-instate funding for Threshold Housing Advice. Revenge has no place in government. It reflects badly on the Conservative Party, here and nationally, that their politicians are prepared to treat some of the most vulnerable people who live amongst us in this petty and vindictive manner.

H&F Carers' Centre To be Sold Off - Unpaid Carers Campaign To Save Service

Somewhere in the back of our minds all of us have a fear. A fear that at some point in our lives we, or someone close to us, could become debilitated by serious illness or an accident. When that happens we, or our friends and family become unpaid carers.

There are carers in our borough that are in their 90s and many more are teenagers. The youngest I know of is just 10. No matter what your age or background, becoming a carer is often a harrowing experience requiring much support and advice. Last month H&F’s Conservative Administration closed the Carers' Centre and ended the support coming from that institution.

The Conservatives admitted that they had the building valued at £1.7 million and that they put it on a list of buildings for sale two years ago. It is also clear that before the local elections the H&F Carers Centre were given every indication that they would maintain the contract after the Administration asked them to retender. Now it’s closing down and the affected carers have been running a vigil for over a month.

There are 6 million carers in the UK. Each year over 2 million more people take on a caring responsibility. There are people supported by the Hammersmith and Fulham Carers Centre who have spent a lifetime caring for a child and there are those suddenly confronted with the need to care for a loved one struck down with illness.

Unpaid Carers are the very definition of David Cameron’s Big Society, so it speaks volumes about the Conservatives lack of any genuine commitment to this idea when his Tory colleagues in his favorite council are taking an axe to such a high profile and vital support service.

Cllr. Rory Vaughan, the Shadow Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Services, set out what H&F Conservatives doing in this speech.

“I would like to begin by paying tribute to our carers in Hammersmith and Fulham. There are 11,500 of them according to the most recent census data. They care for loved ones with a wide variety of conditions day in, day out – and many of them may not be in greatest of health themselves. We have seen some of them earlier tonight and I would like to say thank you to them for all they do – their selflessness provides a humbling example to us all.

However, we must recognise that caring can be a struggle. The in-house review of the carers strategy that was produced last year showed the pressures on carers in coping with the needs of those that they care for. One example was of a resident who suffered from severe depression in caring for his wife who had a physical disability and mental health needs. Fortunately, he now benefits from services in attending a Carers Support Group and benefited from a small Carers Support Grant. Both of these outlets have allowed him to escape from the some of the stresses of caring.

So, carers are immensely dedicated individuals, but caring is a stressful business. And one of the key things that carers themselves needs and asked for from us and care professionals in the carers strategy review was for 'greater understanding, dignity and respect to be afforded to carers'. They were quite right.


And that is where our debate tonight starts. Around 1,000 of our carers use the Carers Centre run by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers in Hammersmith Road. They were told very soon after the election in May – by an administration that has spent four years cutting adult social care, introducing charges and selling off voluntary sector premises – that this Centre would be shut by the end of June. These selfless individuals, who rely on some of the support of the Carers Centre were devastated by the news that these services were to be cut. In light of the timing and the administration's record, subsequent announcements that alternative services would be put in their place have failed to reassure carers that their services are not being downgraded.


Further events have been less than convincing. The Carers Centre has now had a further extension until the end of July when the Council will put in place 'in-house' provision until a new provider can be found. I understand (from the Director of Community Services) that this will not be until April next year at the earliest. This 'Plan B' does little to inspire confidence.


This has come about because, whilst there were 37 expressions of interest in providing carers services from outside agencies, only one organisation – the current Carers Centre – actually put in a tender. This begs the question that, if expert, experienced organisations that provide these services elsewhere in the country do not feel able to bid, then how can in-house provision meet the specifications? And, in particular, how can carers and we have confidence in in-house provision that is only providing a stop-gap until a new provider can be found?


And we must also address the issue of timescales. Can we really be confident that a suitable new provider will be found by next April when Community Services are only at the stage of going back to the potential providers to find out why they did not bid? This bureaucratic muddle could be avoided if current services are maintained until a comprehensive new arrangement is put in place, particularly when there have been 'previous lengthy extensions' to these arrangements.


All of these questions show the administration's policy and strategy on carers to be a complete shambles. They have devastated over 1,000 carers and lost their trust by removing their current services at short notice. They have then asked them to accept a stop-gap service provided by the Council with highly uncertain prospects for future provision.


Our carers deserve understanding, dignity and respect. Closing a set of services that people currently both need and use whilst providing them with hastily planned stop-gap arrangements is shabby treatment of some of our most inspirational residents. Carers deserve the little that they asked for from us, their elected representatives: understanding, dignity and respect. We should give them that understanding tonight by agreeing this motion.”

Former Tory Councillor's £230 Per Meeting "Tip"?

Councillor PJ Murphy (Lab), the newly elected representative for Hammersmith Broadway has raised concerns about Tory sleaze at his first meeting of the Audit and Pensions Committee - which met last week on the 29th June.

PJ was concerned to see that in the supplementary agenda the Audit “Committee is asked to confirm the appointment of Ms. Eugenie White as a nonvoting co-opted member”. It then ask members to agree to pay her £921 a year to attend just four meetings.

Many residents will recall that, up until 6th May 2010, Ms. White (see pic) was a Conservative Councillor for Ravenscourt Park ward.

PJ has worked as a human resources expert all over the world. He rightly asked for an explanation of what skills and knowledge were missing amongst the current committee members; what the process was for encouraging a wide range of applicants with the missing aptitudes; how Ms. White was recruited or would fill any of the missing ability gaps amongst the Committee. No satisfactory answers were provided.

Previously Hammersmith and Fulham's ruling Conservative Councillors have sought to give themselves unwarranted, inflation busting salary hikes, then the Leader of the Council tried to award himself a secret 14% salary rise. But this is the first time they have paid a non-elected Conservative larges amounts of public money.

It seems that this age of austerity does not apply to friends of H&F's Conservative Administration. The Labour Opposition are seeking a review of this appointment and I will report back shortly.

UPDATE: The Conservatives have responded to this but have tellingly only sought to take exception to our use of the word "bung". They say "a bung is a slang term for a bribe". I am very happy to confirm that we are not accusing Ms. White of seeking or taking a bribe or anything like it. I do not believe she would ever do that or (unlike some of her Tory colleagues) that she actively sought out this payment. Our criticism is aimed at the Conservative run Council. "Bung" is mostly a slang term for a "gratuity" or "tip" that would rightly be paid after a service had been provided. It is also defined as expressing how something is "thrown" or "slung" to someone. I have changed the wording in the title to clarify our position.

To be clear: we are saying that the Council's Audit and Pensions Committee deals with investments worth hundreds of millions of pounds of public money. We believe that there are serious questions still to be answered about the recruitment process which led Hammersmith and Fulham's Conservative run Council to conclude that this particular un-elected Conservative is the most suitable of all the people available to sit on this extremely important committee and to be paid this large amount of taxpayers' money per meeting.

H&F Conservatives now have a long record of finding new and creative ways to pay fellow Conservatives extra public money. I will report more on this later. Meanwhile, they argue that local people must suffer austerity, stealth taxes and cuts. All this is sleazy and the public deserve to know what's being done in their name.

Letter To Prime Minister David Cameron Following His Hammersmith "Lies" Comments

It is rare for great statesmen and women to make allegations of lies but David Cameron is a long way from proving he's anything close to resembling a great statesman.  On the 22nd May 2010, our Prime Minister, gave an interview to Robert Winnett and Andrew Porter of the Daily Telegraph. In it Mr. Cameron sought to explain why his candidate had failed to win the Hammersmith parliamentary seat by saying Labour had made up "appalling" lies about the Tories' plans to demolish social housing and make the rest of it unaffordable for social housing residents.

This is complete nonsense. There were no lies. So, on the 27th May 2010 I wrote to the Prime Minister detailing why he is wrong and seeking an explanation along with six important guarantees that will protect the rights of the tenants and leaseholders under threat. You can read the letter here. I am yet to receive any sort of reply.

"Dear Prime Minister

I was surprised to read your accusation in the Daily Telegraph that the Conservatives failed to win the parliamentary seat in Hammersmith because of “appalling Labour lies”. You went on to say “They were telling people in Hammersmith they were going to have their council house taken away by the Tories”.

There were no lies and the evidence clearly proves that. I would therefore be grateful if you would explain why you are making this accusation. Given your assertion, it is also reasonable to ask you to clarify your Government’s and the Conservative Party’s position on the housing proposals coming from the Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. I have set out some of the details around these proposals below to assist you and will happily provide you with more information should you require it.

There are two aspects to the accusations made against the Conservatives on social housing. Firstly, that your colleagues on Hammersmith and Fulham Council hope to demolish 3500 council homes but will not replace them with the same amounts of social housing in the same tenures or level of affordability despite there being nearly 10,000 people on the Borough’s housing waiting list. The Council has already offered these homes to property developers and are currently engaged in negotiations with developers about two estates. Secondly, that Cllr. Stephen Greenhalgh and other leading Conservatives have made a series of policy proposals which they hope will form the basis of a new housing bill. Their proposals seek to remove tenants’ rights and introduce higher “near market rents”. As you will know, Cllr. Greenhalgh published these ideas last spring in a paper titled Principles for Social Housing Reform. During that period he also instigated a series of ‘round table’ meetings which were attended by Grant Shapps, your housing minister, and other leading Conservatives.

It is almost three years since I first uncovered information that this borough’s Conservative councillors were considering knocking down local council housing. Details of Cllr. Greenhalgh’s policy paper and round table meeting have been in the public realm for almost a year. So it is a concern that, despite all this and the high levels of publicity around it, the Conservative Party at no point took any measures to reassure residents affected by such proposals.

Instead, it appears that your party adopted a damage limitation strategy and refused to provide any comprehensive answers to your political opponents, journalists or residents whose homes are under threat.

Indeed, you will remember that John Healey MP took the unusual step of writing to you about this matter on 28th July 2009 when he was the Housing Minister. Given the content of that letter, it was reasonable to expect you to categorically deny any accusations you felt were unfair and to clarify the Conservative Party’s position. In particular, he asked you to assure him that “changes to tenancy rights and changes to rent levels as set out in Cllr. Greenhalgh’s Localis paper will not become Conservative policy”. You did not provide those detailed assurances.

Likewise, on 5th January 2010 you twice side-stepped residents’ questions on this subject when you visited St. Paul's Church, Hammersmith. You will recall that you initially answered a resident of the West Kensington Estate saying “There’s an awful lot of black propaganda being put about by the Labour Party and others.” When Maxine Bayliss, a resident of Queen Caroline Estate whose home is under threat, informed you that your Conservative colleagues on Hammersmith and Fulham Council had actually published a list of estates targeted for “redevelopment” you simply concluded that exchange by telling her "If you don't like them stand for election."

Ms. Bayliss was right to ask you to look at Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s Local Development Framework as you would have been able to view the list of council house estates under threat and explain what that meant for Ms. Bayliss and many residents like her..

I therefore ask that you clarify the following matters:

• Will you guarantee that no government you lead will ever seek to end secure council home tenancies as they currently stand?
• Will you guarantee that no government you lead will ever seek to put social housing tenants’ rents up to market values or “near market values”?

I would also be grateful if you would undertake to ensure the following guarantees are offered to the social housing residents in Hammersmith and Fulham:

• Guarantee that there will be a vote by residents on any proposals of any estate threatened with demolition, requiring a 55% agreement – as was the policy of the previous Labour Council Administration
• Guarantee that all tenants whose homes are demolished will be given a new, similar sized home, on the new development with the same rent and tenancy rights and will have an opportunity to choose their new home.
• Guarantee that no resident whose home is demolished will lose out financially or lose any legal rights they currently hold.
• Guarantee that all resident leaseholders whose homes are demolished will be given a new, similar sized, home on the new development at a rate they can afford.

I appreciate that four of the six guarantees I seek are in the gift of the Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. He has failed to offer those to date. As Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party you are clearly able to obtain these.

I am sure you will appreciate that people will indeed find that their council houses have been taken away if Conservative councillors are allowed to knock down much of the affordable housing in our borough, and then fail to replace it with more social housing of the same tenure and level of affordability. And, if any government you lead puts rents up to “near market values” then many residents currently living in social housing in high value areas would be forced to move away to cheaper areas.

Given your assertions that the housing demolitions and loss of tenants’ rights are “lies”, I respectfully suggest that you are obliged to make sure that the housing proposals made by your Conservatives colleagues are stopped immediately.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Cllr. Stephen Cowan

Leader of the Opposition

Cc Rt Hon John Healey MP
Shadow Minister for Housing

Andrew Slaughter MP"

Hammersmith & Fulham: "A Chilling Vision Of Cameron's Britain"

Johann Hari has written an insightful piece in yesterday's Independent. It sets out how the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham provides "A chilling vision of Cameron's Britain". It touches on many of the issues my Labour colleagues and I have campaigned on over the last four years. 

The article considers how David Cameron's favourite Council is a blue print for his idea of Conservative government. You can read it by clicking here.

Today is election day. There are local elections to decide who runs Hammersmith and Fulham Council as well, of course, as the general election. My colleagues are campaigning for a better way. One that put's all our residents first and in doing so, we promise to reverse the terrible things the Conservatives are doing - many featured in the Independent's article.

Labour's Borough Manifesto Launch - Lyric Square, Hammersmith

At 2.00pm today I climbed onto a “soap box” in Lyric Square, Hammersmith and launched Labour’s local borough manifesto.

Lyric Square was the perfect venue as I wanted to take our proposals to residents and local businesses in the most direct way possible. Having never engaged in old-fashioned soap box politics before I can confide that I was more than a little nervous. I needn’t have been. People seemed genuinely interested and wanted to ask me about a host of local issues.

My premise was vote for us, or don’t vote for us but know what we stand for and how we want to change Hammersmith and Fulham for the better. I was encouraged by the quite large numbers of people who stopped, joined in asking questions and by the overall positive public response.

We have titled our local manifesto “There’s A Better Way”. The global financial situation and its likely consequences for local government funding have left us making modest spending proposals and we list the cuts we would make to demonstrate how we would pay for them. If elected on May 6th we will put more police onto the streets; have better youth services, cut tax and stealth taxes and much more.

If you would like a copy of There’s A better Way, please email by clicking here.