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