Denzil Coulson

After watching Gordon Brown’s populist speech today, I shuddered in disbelief. It is seriously worrying when the Prime Minister loses the plot and “promises the Earth” to grab the headlines for policies that the country seriously cannot afford. How can voters take Brown’s proposals seriously with a record government defecit?

How and who will pay for higher child tax credits and child benefits let alone a new National Care Service and ten hours of free childcare? How will he protect schools, hospitals and the police and make cuts at the same time?

His whole speech lacked vision or a strategy. Instead it was a desperate attempt to grab headlines by stealing Tory and Lib Dem ideas to vainly woo back voters to the sinking Labour titanic.

Neither can I take Gordon Brown’s pledge for a referendum on the alternative vote seriously, even though it is a good idea. Labour broke their informal pact with Paddy Ashdown in 1997 to actively pursue voting reform after winning a landslide amounting to nearly two-thirds of MPs. Now they are interested in voting reform - ONLY when they are seriously on the ropes as the third-placed party in a IPSOS Mori poll. It is pure self-interest rather than serious concern with public demands for reform.

I am far more interested in David Cameron’s stand on this issue as he is likely to be the relevant political player for the Lib Dems to deal with on his party’s commitment to reforming “politics as usual”.

As far as Labour is concerned, they are finished and bereft of ideas. The Sun captures it succinctly - Labour’s Lost It! 

Much has been made of the Tory primary selection contest next week. However, something even more important is happening tonight at a council briefing on the future of Woking’s governance. The public are invited to comment on the proposed leadership of Woking Council. Do you want a directly elected Executive Mayor as they do have in London? Or do you want a Strong Leader with a Cabinet Executive and a ceremonial non-political Mayor?

Come along to the briefing tonight and examine these two options on the table. The meeting starts at 7pm in the Council Chamber. Next week, there will be a briefing on whether to elect Councillors only every four years as opposed to the current system of electing councillors by thirds annually with one year of no elections. 

Further details can be found at this link.

Just as we, at the Liberal Democrat Conference, are grappling with our commitment to no tuition fees, the Confederation of British Industry (link here) raises the stakes by saying that students should pay more for their tuition. Not only do we have a huge government defecit thanks to Gordon Brown’s economic policies of the past 12 years as well as the “cowboy economics” of our banks, but we also have rising youth unemployment to contend with - all of which make our commitment to free tuition increasingly unaffordable.

It is a travesty that students are saddled with debt as they graduate. I know from my own experience of student debt that it takes a long time to pay it off. I came to the UK in 1998, ostensibly just for 2 years to help pay off South African student debt faster because of the generous exchange rate. I know what it’s like to be saddled with debt where you are forced to leave your country to try and reduce the burden faster so that you can focus your finances on other priorities such as buying a house or starting a family. 

However, reality bites and we are where we are. Free tuition fees looks unaffordable for now. In the meantime, all efforts should concentrate on keeping the current £3000 cap on tuition fees as well as setting up a National Bursary and Loan Scheme partially financed by private companies so that all students from all backgrounds are given an equal opportunity to access university if they want it.

Generally speaking on all social and economic priorities, we are all going to be bearing the “economic pain” for some time to come. We, as politicians, must get the policies right to ensure that that “pain” is as minimal as possible. Like Joseph’s seven good years in the Bible were followed by seven bad years, I think we are in a similar situation right now.

I find it shocking beyond belief that the first public cuts that Labour announces is £2 billion cuts to schools! Labour Education Secretary Ed Balls announced today that there will be a cut of 3 000 senior school posts of headteachers and deputies during the next spending review.

This decision makes a complete nonsense of Labour’s Education, education, education pledge in 1997. There are many other areas of wasteful public spending that can be cut. Instead Labour have picked on schools and our children’s education instead of seriously tackling wasteful bureaucracy in the public service.

As a teacher myself, I am appalled!

Norman Lamb MP, our party’s Shadow Health Secretary, asserted that at least two-thirds of Tory MPs wish to change the NHS to a more private medical insurance scheme such as in the USA. He challenged the Tories to be honest about their intentions regarding the NHS.

He also questioned David Cameron’s commitment to the NHS. If he truly supports the NHS, why did he promote anti-NHS MEP Daniel Hannan to the front bench of the Tory MEP group? Why indeed?

I am at the Liberal Democrat National Conference in Bournemouth this weekend and I will provide brief updates of key messages.

Our shadow foreign secretary, Ed Davey MP, highlighted the fact that the Tories will have no influence in Washington, Berlin or Paris on key issues affecting British political and economic interests. Having pulled the Conservatives out of the centre-right European People’s Party in the European Parliament, David Cameron has alligned his party with 36 ultra-right isolationist MEPs including homophobes and climate change deniers.

If the Tories come into power next year, Foreign Secretary William Hague, will have no influence with President Sarkozy in France or Chancellor Merkel in Germany, who are both members of the EPP. And who is US President Obama likely to call regarding European matters? Not London if the Tories get in. More likely to be Paris or Berlin.

Britain’s role in tackling urgent problems such as the economy, climate change or security will be diminished without any effective influence in Europe under the Tories. This will also diminish our special relationship with the US as well.

Last night at our Council’s Overview and Scrutiny meeting, we discussed Tory plans to charge residents £8 for a membership card to use our day centres. We called-in this Tory Executive decision to check whether they have properly thought through the implications of such a scheme.

Firstly, the day centres are public facilities for residents to use.

Secondly, most residents who use them tend to be on the lower economic bracket such as pensioners, young people and various charitable groups.

To start trying to generate extra income from services such as these may put off some not to use them altogether, particularly if this charge is increased in the future.

Cllr Ian Johnson and I questioned the Portfolio Holder, Cllr Melanie Whitehand, and Council Leader, Cllr John Kingsbury, where they obtained their evidence from and how they conducted their consultation with affected groups. We also asked them if volunteers would have to pay and whether they had thought that the administration costs of such a scheme could outweigh the benefits of extra income generation.

Their answers were:

1. Everyone who uses the day centres will have to apply for membership cards, including volunteers who help out at the centres. (I think that it is wrong that volunteers should have to have a card)

2. Thankfully user groups such as Scouts will not have to carry membership cards to hire facilities.

3. Cllr John Kingsbury hinted that residents who use chiropody and bath facilities may not be required to carry membership cards. (I certainly hope not. An essential health and well-being service should not be charged.)

4. Residents who buy meals at the day centres will have to have membership cards. However, this does exclude minor catering such as “just going for a coffee”. Cllr Whitehand did say that having such a membership scheme would mean that those on means-tested benefits would not be known as they have to carry different “coloured tickets”. (But the point is that those on means-tested benefits will be charged - which is wrong).

5. Spurious conversations have taken place with “some user groups and day centre staff” stating that they approve of the scheme, without explicitly stating who. They have also clearly not formally consulted with day centre users as Cllr Whitehand could only admit to having “casual conversations” with some users about the scheme. 

6. We also received no straight answers about the administrative costs of the scheme. My fear is that take-up will be reduced by having the membership card.

7. If the membership card, as Cllr Melanie Whitehand alleges, is designed to ensure that we know which Woking residents use them as opposed to non-residents, why are we charging both the same rate? It is not a reason to introduce such a scheme.

We requested that a supporting document is put to Full Council on Thursday 1 October stating how the Tories plan to implement this. What is clear is that they have not thought some of these issues all the way through. If we had not called this in, I doubt they would have.  

I was amused this morning to receive a forwarded e-mail from my Group Leader, Cllr Ian Johnson, that he received from Tory Councillor Melanie Whitehand complaining about my Marjorie Richardson piece. Why did she not respond directly to my piece on this blog? What did she hope to achieve in speaking to my Group Leader? Did she hope that I would be censured in some way for stating my opinion of the facts as I see them?

She should have the guts to speak out and explain why there is little money to go around in providing grants to community organisations such as Marjorie Richardson. She should explain why MRC has to fire two staff to produce a business plan acceptable to the Tories for the Centre’s survival. A person who loses their job is tragic in this recessionary climate. If MRC closed, elderly less well-off residents would have lost a valuable service where they can buy coffee cheaply amongst other things. Many who go there cannot afford Starbucks!

The Tories should look at their financial mismanagement of council finances such as the irresponsible 0% council tax rise which has contributed to a defecit of £1.44 million that we would have had to spend now during the recession. That is £1.44 million lost from the tax base over 3 years. Half-hourly parking rates contributed to a sharp fall in parking income for the council. And finally £4 million was spent to accelerate council redundancies to make £2.4 million of savings. Reserves were raided to pay off voluntary redundancy packages. Now when reserves are needed to cushion the recession’s bite, there are none. Everyone is paying the price including council staff who have had to forfeit pay awards and overtime. This will spill over into services where a raft of new charges will be introduced by the Tories in their desperate attempt to generate income for the council.

The consequence of Tory financial mismanagement is that there is less to go around including grant money for community organisations. Marjorie Richardson are paying the price as this Council grant funds them for only one year. Its future remains uncertain.

If you are concerned about all the ambitious big projects that this Council has spent money on such as the canopy, then remember one thing. They were all projects approved under Tory council control. Would you trust anyone to resolve a financial mess that was caused by themselves in the first place? I didn’t think so. 

The Marjorie Richardson Centre has been saved thanks to a concerted effort by Lib Dem activists and residents writing letters to the Executive, including a recorded letter to Tory Council Leader, John Kingsbury, which he had to sign for at 7:30am one morning. This helped to force the Tories to cave in on their plans to close this vital community service.

The Centre has been given a £15 000 lifeline to continue operating but at a cost of making a cook and cleaner redundant in their business plan. It is most unfair that community services such as the Marjorie Richardson Centre have to pay the price for Tory financial mismanagement of the Council to “plug the £1 million + hole” in council finances. The Tories are now applying financial crisis management measures such as forcing council staff to forfeit pay awards, overtime and take sabbaticals to pay for their financial mistakes and lack of foresight. Residents and community organisations have already started paying the price of Tory cuts being applied to fill their financial hole in the council accounts. 

Had the Tories not levied an ill-thought through 0% council tax rise in 2008/09, embarked on a costly accelerated redundancy programme of council staff and levying half-hour parking charges, the Council would have about £2.5 million available in reserves to help steer it through the recession. Instead the Tories raided reserves in 2008/09 to push through the 0% council tax rise and redundancy programme. We are paying for their mistakes now.  

I was rather taken aback that the Tory Executive made a wise decision in refusing the URC bid for £25 000 last night. To fund an enhanced entrance and piazza to the church is something that the Council taxpayer should not be paying for. Surely the church can raise these funds seperately from the members in their congregation without residents (many of whom do not attend church or have no faith) having to pay for it.

But please don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the council funding churches for strictly community-based activities that benefit the whole community and not just the congregations they serve. This is why I welcome the £50 000 granted to St Paul’s Church in Maybury for an improved footpath/cycleway, disabled toilets and improved access to the Community Hall, which is widely used by over 200 people in the community each week. They also serve a community that is not particularly well-off.

I am glad that the Executive are thinking carefully about how we fund our churches and more careful consideration should be given to how and if we fund them in future - particularly because many of them are quite wealthy as it is and can raise the funds themselves.