The vote was a triumph of manipulation based in part on a budget consultation.¹ There were 140 responses, most of which saw through Damian’s loaded questions, with 65% rejecting his question one.

Question one: Is it reasonable to expect working age claimants without a disability to pay at least the minimum amount of 25% towards their Council Tax bill?

A ‘‘Yes” answer is agreeing to a 67% increase for this group of council tax payers.

Benefits are inflexible as they’re subject to the government austerity programme. The GLA commented that…..Council’s proposed scheme would be amongst the schemes that require the highest level of contribution from working age claimants [in London].²

Damian is increasing council tax for the most vulnerable so that everyone else pays a slightly lower increase in 2019-20.

Re-writing question one is helpful.

Question one (re-written): Is it reasonable that the poorest working age claimants without a disability should have their payments towards their Council Tax bill increased by 67%?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Question two shows Damian to be both repugnant and cunning

Question two: Should working age claimants who are disabled and less able to increase their household incomes be protected and pay a minimum of 20% towards their Council Tax bill rather than 25%

Damian here is benchmarking council tax support at 25% when in it’s currently (January 2019) 15%. He was hoping that his ‘largesse’ in apparently reducing disabled council tax from 25% to 20% would gain him kudos. He still lost the ‘vote’ 53%-36% but it was a goodish result for him. Some responses spotted question two is based on a lie. There’s no reduction for the disabled. The disabled are facing an increase of 33%.

Question two (re-written): Should working age claimants who are disabled and less able to increase their household incomes pay an increased 33% towards their Council Tax bill?

Damian’s 2019 budget is shameless. It’s an attack on the most vulnerable people in Havering, because Damian won’t put up council tax by the authorised 6%. Worse: it’s a display of testosterone fuelled posturing at the expense of the weak and helpless.

1 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s34258/CTS%20Consultation%20Outcome%20Report%20Appendix%20A.pdf

2 ibid p16

Chris

 

Melvin is alleged to have committed a sexual assault on former councillor, Linda Trew. The alleged low key sexual assault was humiliating and unpleasant. This has presented Damian White, Leader of the Council, with a double-edged sword. Presumably that’s why it has taken the Conservatives 25 months to eject Melvin from the party.

Is Damian delighted about Melvin’s moral implosion? One benefit is losing an older ‘colleague’. Damian can infiltrate one of Andrew Rosindell’s cronies into a safe seat. As Andrew’s consigliere this will further enhance his position. This is a genuine bonus in Romford Conservative internal politics. But …… a downside is Melvin could turn sulky. Damian’s reliance on three Harold Wood Resident Association members would increase. Brian Eagling might become a street fighter, actively using his new found position. Therefore Melvin’s political power is, perversely, enhanced.

Damian knows all of this. He’s dragged out the ‘naughty boy’ decision as long as possible. It’s now January 2019, 25 months since Linda suffered at Melvin’s hands. Political calculation has finally met the road block of reality and Damian has acted. Melvin is out but still in the Chamber and Damian doesn’t have a majority.

Theresa May’s desperate bid to win the vote of no confidence in December 2018 saw her reinstate the whip to two disgraced MPs. Perhaps Damian will follow suit with Melvin?

Theresa May’s reverse Midas touch continues with her crushing defeat in the Brexit Vote. Amazingly she has, however, managed to unite the three Havering MPs who all voted the same way – though for different reasons.

Jon Cruddas: Jon is a heavyweight intellectual with a Ph.D in economics. A left-centre politician, he noticed that every Brexit option made British people worse off. However, the 2016 referendum demanded Brexit and so he is looking for the least worst option. Theresa’s isn’t the least worse option and so he voted Against.

Julia Lopez: Julia isn’t an economist and she believes that WTO trading regulations are benign. She’s mistaken. The British economy is a ‘roll-on, roll-off’ economy dependent on frictionless movement of goods. 10,000 lorry movements per day at Dover couldn’t continue in a frictionless manner with custom and excise checks. Julia did, rightly, note¹ that the referendum is the cuckoo that has destroyed our parliamentary tradition of representative government. Julia voted Against.

Andrew Rosindell: Andrew doesn’t care about economics as he believes that our trading partners feel privileged to take our goods and services. Therefore WTO deals are a piece of cake with foreign countries lining up to trade with us. Anything other than a ‘No Deal’ Brexit is treachery for Andrew and therefore he voted Against.

Three Havering MPs and three separate reasons for rejecting Theresa’s Brexit deal. Obviously looking for leadership from parliament is a waste of time and there should be a new referendum. This time without the lies.

1 Julia’s speech 11^th January in the debate is on her Tweet page. On the same day Andrew made an entertaining speech in the debate. His speech is on Twitter.

Damian White, Leader, and Roger Ramsey, Finance, are extremists. They worship austerity. This year they’ve excelled themselves by attacking the bereaved, the disabled and the volunteer sector.

The Bereaved: Against officers’ coded advice Damian and Roger have forgotten the fable of the Golden Goose. Havering’s crematorium is the most expensive in Essex and London. Their cunning plan is to make it more expensive.¹ Damian and Roger have created a Death Tax for Havering.

The Disabled: Against officers’ coded advice who point out that those with disabilities tend to be unemployed Damian and Roger’s plan is to reduce the council tax subsidy.² The outcome will increase food bank dependency.

The Volunteer Sector: Council tax subsidies are given to the sector. This is to be reduced. Officers point out that this activity brings £200 million a year into Havering. Damian and Roger’s plan is to damage this sector and punish hundreds of unpaid volunteers. And redirect charitable donations to paying extra council tax instead of the activity where it should be going!³

Damian and Roger are ignoring the advice of Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, who suggested that 6% was a suitable increase in council tax to maintain services. Damian and Roger have opted for a lower figure instead because they ‘know’ better than the Chancellor.

The self-imposed saving equates to about £3 million. The increased charges for the bereaved is £75,000 if they don’t lose ‘business’ which is entirely likely. The Volunteer Sector saving is about £1.1 million. The disabled will be expected to pay an additional £1.15 a week.⁴ (This hasn’t been aggregated into a total figure in the council papers.)

Damian and Roger are destroying services because they’re extremists. Perhaps Harold Wood councillors Brian Eagling, Martin Goode and Darren Wise should have a quiet word?

1 See http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s27445/Appendix%20A%20Final.pdf especially pages 2, 160 and 173

2 See http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/g5953/Public%20reports%20pack%2025th-Jul-2018%2019.30%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10 p157

3 See http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s16257/voluntary-sector-strategy.pdf p5 and p8

 http://democracy.havering.gov.uk/documents/s32754/Update%20of%20the%20Councils%20MTFS%20Budget%20for%202019-20%20Appendix%20E.pdf

Chris

 

Right-wing extremist* Andrew relies on prejudice for his opinions . He doesn’t worry about evidence. Evidence gets in the way of prejudice. His recent, 27th Dec 2018, tweet is a good example of his ‘thinking’. David Gauke, the Justice Secretary, has evidence that fewer prisoners re-offend if they’re allowed to have contact with their loved ones- Yes, Andrew, even criminals have loved ones. Gauke’s informed decision is that criminals should have access to phones in an easier and more convenient way than at present.

Andrew’s reply:-

I thought the idea of being sent to jail was to punish criminals and take away their freedom and creature comforts? Prison becomes less of a deterrent when the authorities do things like this. What about the welfare of the victims?

Andrew isn’t worried about unrest in the prisons, criminal gangs controlling access to phones, or re-offending. Andrew is a red-meat politician where thought isn’t required. Which is just as well isn’t it?

Chris

*Quoting Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Andrew’s long-time parliamentary colleague

Andrew’s entire political career has focused on Euroscepticism. The Referendum result was manna from Heaven for him. It’s been downhill ever since. He quickly discovered that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is meaningless in the hands of Theresa May. She’s a Machiavellian politician who’s quite prepared to split the Conservative Party into bite sized chunks to maintain power. Theresa is leading us into Brexit-in-name-only. Theresa’s Conservative party isn’t that of Andrew. Who will crack first?

Theresa postponed the Meaningful Vote on Brexit because it was doomed. Andrew is faced by the certainty that his life’s work is crushed. He already knows that British independence has gone for ever. But what’s worse is that his position is scorned within parliament. The No Deal WTO solution has been written off and the alternatives are grim. The Norway option includes payments to the EU, plus free movement of labour. Canada+ is hopelessly complex and a transition deal could last for decades. Meanwhile the Irish Backstop is a constitutional prison cell.

Andrew isn’t alone. There are other like-minded Conservatives who agree with him. Is it possible that the outcome of all of this will be a Conservative Party Mark 2? Andrew has a huge majority but how much is personal or will he be a Brexit martyr? Does he fancy martyrdom or is he addicted to parliamentary air miles and the good life?

Julia was selected for the safe Conservative seat of Hornchurch and Upminster knowing it was solidly Eurosceptic. The 23^rd June, 2016 Referendum forced the government to negotiate withdrawal from the EU. Julia, as a student of political thought from Cambridge University, relished the prospect of putting theory into action. However Theresa May had lost her leadership skills when implementing the Referendum. Immediately Julia knew this wasn’t a ‘strong and stable’ government and that her Brexit ideal was threatened.

Her speech began:

I recall, not long after the Chequers plan was announced, looking across the Chamber during Prime Minister’s questions and feeling a terrible sense of dread as I realised that the moment of reckoning was coming that could see this House completely out of step with the wishes of the British people. That moment is now upon us, with each and every parliamentarian facing a choice that could profoundly influence trust and faith in our democracy.¹

Julia’s speech denounced the EU, the centralising power of the Euro and British politicians using Brussels as a get-out clause for their own failures. Julia’s speech didn’t discuss the economic consequences of withdrawal from the EU, which economists assume will result in us all being poorer. Julia’s argument is purely political. Britain should ‘take control’ of its destiny in her view. The speech is academic and entirely unworldly. Hornchurch and Upminster has a large number of people reliant on the City of London’s financial centre. They might prefer an MP in tune with reality.

1 For the full speech https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-12-06/debates/6DF8A870-48CC-4304-9051-564F94D74E88/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)Act col 1166 following

Chris

Local democracy depends on decision makers being scrutinised. This used to be done by local newspapers many of which had political reporters. They attended council, committee meetings and sundry other events of local importance. None of this now happens. London Borough of Havering isn’t exceptional in this regard.

 

The point of this blog is to make a small contribution to local democracy by writing about local politics and politicians.

Chris