Residents First

Complaint against Stephen Greenhalgh rejected

A great tactic for the Left in seeking to defeat a policy they don't like is through vexatious complaints. If they can't get their way through the ballot box they can seek a Judicial Review (fronted by a welfare claimant so it can be funded on Legal Aid) or make an array of complaints to official bodies. No matter how spurious such claims may be, or how expensive they are for the taxpayer, there is no downside for those making them. Even if they lose: They still cause delay. There is the propaganda value when the complaint is made (its subsequent dismissal is generally regarded as less newsworthy.)

via conservativehome.blogs.com

Councils are strangled by EU red tape

Letter from Cllr Harry Phibbs to the Hammersmith and Fulham Chronicle

Dear Sir,
UKIP's gains in the  recent local elections were felt to be more to do with national issues - like immigration and the EU than local issues.

It has been widely reported that David Cameron proposes to renegotiate our membership of the European Union and then to hold an in/out referendum. Those who would like us to be a self governing nation opening up our global trading opportunities welcome this. A Conservative Government is needed to achieve this.

However there is some local relevance to our EU membership. EU red tape is making it harder for Hammersmith and Fulham Council to cut the Council Tax and improve services. The cross party Local Government Association says that "ridiculous EU procurement rules are making it harder for councils to save money by sharing services." The rules are "making it virtually impossible for councils to give preference to local suppliers" and "force those wishing to pool services with neighbouring local authorities into an unnecessarily lengthy and costly EU-wide tendering process."

The bureaucratic burden makes it unrealistic for small firms to pitch for contracts - meaning the Council has to pay more to its suppliers. There are also EU directives which cause delays and perverse outcomes in planning cases increasing the amount spent on lawyers. This is not just about saving money. It is also about local democracy. These should be decisions for the elected local councillors not matters imposed by European Commissioners.

At a recent Council meeting we passed a motion calling on the government: "To take the fight to Brussels on behalf of the residents of Hammersmith & Fulham to promote a re-write of the rules stifling public service innovation" and "To allow more freedom to award contracts to local suppliers, including relaxing rules that demand that procurement contracts to employee organisations or staff mutuals must be opened to providers across Europe."

I was disappointed that the Labour councillors voted against - given that their colleagues nationally in the LGA signed up to this cross party campaign.

Yours sincerely
Cllr Harry Phibbs
(Ravenscourt Park Ward. Conservative.)
Hammersmith Town Hall,
King Street,
W6 9JU.

Charing Cross Hospital changes will save lives

Letter from Cllr Harry Phibbs to the Hammersmith and Fulham Chronicle

Dear Sir,
I agree with Josephine Lundberg that many residents will be confused by the various claims and counter claims concerning Charing Cross Hospital. But I disagree with a pessimistic verdict. The revised proposals would not mean a "small enterprise." The threat that we faced last year to drastically downgrade the Charing Cross Hospital has been lifted.

The revised NHS proposals would mean at least 85% of patients at the hospital would continue to be treated there. However they would still allow for greater specialisation, which the NHS tells us would save 130 lives a year.

At the moment the mortality rate is much higher for patients admitted at weekends than week days - as they are more likely to see junior doctors rather than consultants. The reorganization of stroke care in London has produced dramatic improvements in life expectancy for stroke victims saving 200 lives in 2010/11 with an estimate that it will now be saving as many as 500 lives a year.

There has been a lot of misleading allegations about what is proposed for Charing Cross Hospital. I'm afraid the Labour MP Andrew Slaughter has been scaremongering in a way which is disgraceful even by his standards. There have also been false claims from the "Save our Hospitals" campaign, the GMB trade union and others.

Some have suggested that as the existing building will be demolished that the hospital will cease to exist. But it is a phased rebuilding. The existing tower block at the hospital is in poor condition. £90m has been agreed for a new state of the art hospital on the existing site. At no stage during the building process will the hospital close.

To say we will "lose the hospital" is like saying you would "lose your car" if you trade in a Skoda for a Rolls Royce. The Accident and Emergency Centre is being renamed the Urgent Care Centre. Anyone who arrives at the hospital with an accident or emergency 24 hours a day, seven days a week, will be cared for.
usually this will be in the hospital. If a decision is made that better specialist care could be provided elsewhere they will be taken by ambulance to where this is available.

Contrary to the claim that there are spending cuts the NHS in north-west London is getting £3.6 billion this year. That is £100 million more than last year. It is matter of providing the most effective care with the money available.

Yours sincerely
Cllr Harry Phibbs
(Ravenscourt Park Ward. Conservative.)
Hammersmith Town Hall,
King Street,
W6 9JU.

The Argentinians should also be grateful to Baroness Thatcher

Cllr Harry Phibbs writes

Among the many tributes to Baroness Thatcher was one from Lord Soley - who as Clive Soley was the Labour MP for Hammersmith during her time as Prime Minister.

Naturally enough Lord Soley included some criticisms. But he also made the interesting point that the Argentinians were among the beneficiaries of her decision to go to war over the Falklands.

"As a result of defeating General Galtieri, the dictatorship in Argentina fell," says Lord Soley. "It might be beneficial if the people of Argentina think about that. Although it might not have been the intention in the first instance, it was the outcome. It might be contentious to say this, but it also is my belief that that helped to bring about the end of the juntas in South America, which we all took for granted at that time. One after another they fell. One of the messages was that you need to stand up to dictators."

Her role in helping to defeat Communism in eastern and central Europe is often discussed. But Lord Soley highlights another way in which she championed the cause of freedom not just in Britain but around the world.

Law should be toughened on squatters

Cllr Harry Phibbs writes

I am pleased that squatters have now been evicted from the Askham Road Family Centre allowing building work to proceed on it becoming a specialist school for autistic children. However I share the frustration of residents that the legal process took so long.

This government brought in a long overdue reform to make squatting a criminal offence in England and Wales (it has been one in Scotland since 1865). Yet the reform has not been implemented in full. For no very clear reason it only applies to residential buildings. This means that squatting remains merely a civil offence when other buildings are targeted. Police and property owners still don’t have the law on their side when it comes to squatters in non-residential buildings. If this changed, removing squatters would be a far more rapid and straightforward process.

There is no justification for squatting - least of all when the victims are vulnerable children. The government should be commended for tightening the law. Now it should complete the job and make squatting a criminal offence for all types of property.
 

Clueless Cowan Puts Labour Short of £80 Million

By Cllr Peter Graham

The man who thinks he got Barack Obama elected was interviewed in last week’s Chronicle. Stephen Cowan unveiled a string of Labour spending commitments, but completely failed to explain how he would pay for them.

He did announce a U-turn on extra funding for the police, saying he would now simply “replicate the current administration’s financial commitment”. And his “unequivocal no” to selling expensive, council-owned street properties would guarantee a big rise in rents for council tenants.

The rest of the interview, however, was a lengthy shopping list.

“When we say we will do something, we will do it,” he claimed. Borough residents had best hope he never gets the chance...

 

COWAN’S SPENDING COMMITMENTS

1.       “scrap homecare charges”

We have been reluctant to follow Labour boroughs in charging, have frozen the homecare charge and still have one of the most generous schemes in London. If Cowan scrapped all charges from 2014, it would cost over £400,000 annually. Over the four years of the council term, the cumulative cost would be £1.7 million.

Annual cost:  £0.4 million

Total cost:  £1.7 million

 

2.       “revise parking prices”

Revisions can be upward, but it’s clear from the context that Cowan anticipates a reduction in revenue. We have frozen parking charges and are well below the London average. If Labour were to cut all parking charges by 10% in their first year, and freeze thereafter, the annual cost would be around £1.5 million. Over a term, that would cost £6 million.

Annual cost:  £1.5 million

Total cost:  £6 million

 

3.       “don’t need to penalise motorists with box junctions and cameras everywhere"

This isn’t a commitment to remove every box junction and camera, but it implies a significant proportion. Box junctions exist to stop congestion and revenue is used to make improvements. Nevertheless, assuming Labour removed two-thirds of box junctions (with any additional junctions being offset by the loss of cameras) that would create a shortfall of £4 million a year. The total over four years would be £12 million.

Annual cost:  £4 million

Total cost:  £12 million

 

4.       “fund the ward budgets”

There are no ward budgets at present, so this isn’t a straightforward calculation. However, it’s clear that the budgets are intended to involve discretionary, optional spending. The panels will have a choice about what to spend money on because they aren’t required to fund essential services.  Cowan says he will “provide money for it to happen” and says a ward might decide: “We want extra police, another youth club, cleaner streets”. It would be difficult for a ward to fund all three for less than £250,000. That produces an annual cost of £4 million for all wards and a total of £16 million over the term.

Annual cost:  £4 million

Total cost:  £16 million

 

5.       “reinvest in youth services”

The Youth and Community section of the Children’s Services budget includes children’s centres, but Cowan is already committed to reversing changes made there, so it is fair to take them together. Net spending is up significantly because central government grants have reduced. However, if Cowan’s plan is to restore peak 2010/11 gross expenditure levels, it would cost around £7 million a year.

Annual cost:  £7 million

Total cost:  £28 million

 

6.       “cut council tax”

We have cut tax, on average, by 3% each year. Cowan is on record saying he would cut it by much more. Although no-one believes him, let’s take this seriously for a moment and assume reductions by Labour of 4% a year. That produces an ongoing loss of around 2.1 million for every reduction. If Labour reduced tax by more than the Conservative average every year, that’s an annual loss of more than £8 million by the end of the term. The cumulative cost across the four years would be at least £20 million.

Annual cost:  £8 million

Total cost:  £20 million

These are just the spending commitments from his interview, as others have been given at Council meetings.

TOTAL COST

The Chronicle reports Cowan as thinking that all this can be paid for “by eradicating what he says is more than £20million in unnecessary costs”. The estimates above suggest an annual cost of £25 million, not £20 million. 

Cowan’s figures

Annual cost:  £20 million

 

Reasonable estimate

Annual cost:  £25 million

Total cost:  £84 million

So he is already some £5 million adrift each year. But where would that £20 million actually come from?

 

PAID FOR BY?

There are three policies in the Chronicle article that Cowan claims would save money. Helpfully, we know exactly how much he thinks two of the three will save, as he provided figures on his own blog in 2011.

 

1.       "cutting millions spent on glossy leaflets and consultants fees”

Ignoring the facts and looking exclusively at Cowan’s figures, he claims he will save “at least £1 million by getting rid of high paid consultants” and “at least £1.25 million by cutting the council’s press office, shutting down the three glossy council magazines and ending the council’s controversial propaganda budget”. That’s a purported annual total of £2.25 million.

Cowan’s figures

Annual saving:  £2.25 million

Total saving:  £9 million

 

2.       “far too many officials employed on huge salaries”

In the same post on his 2011 blog, he claimed he would save “at least £600,000 by cutting council directors, super tri-borough directors and assistant directors jobs”. Ignoring reality once again in favour of his figures, that provides an additional £0.6 million annually, and £2.4 million over the term.

Cowan’s figures

Annual saving:  £0.6 million

Total saving:  £2.4 million

 

3.       “Neighbourhood improvement panels will strip out costs”

This is a new claim, so it’s impossible to know what figure Cowan has in mind. However, given it involves creating an additional tier of decision-making for new, discretionary spending, it is very difficult to see how any costs would be removed. At best, officers would try to accommodate the extra workload without adding to overheads.

Annual saving:  £0 million

Total saving:  £0 million

 

LABOUR’S £80 MILLION BLACK HOLE

Having identified those dubious savings of around £3 million, Cowan has a £17 million annual shortfall on his own figures. That would mean borrowing £68 million and taking the Council’s debt back up to near where Labour left it. Judged against the estimates above, the annual shortfall would exceed £22 million. And because his savings aren’t, in reality, credible...

Labour would need to borrow at least £80 million over four years, redoubling the debt.

Amusingly enough, one of Cowan’s many pledges in the Chronicle was to “bring down debt”. The truth is that his Labour Group doesn’t have a clue.

“People will have to work out whether they trust us or not,” he says. That isn’t much of a struggle for anyone who remembers debt at £169 million and average Council Tax rises of 7.7 % each year the last time he was in power.

“Importantly, when we say we will do something, we will do it and when we can’t, we will admit we can’t.”

My advice, Stephen? Fess up now.

 

 

The Legacy of Baroness Thatcher: 1925-2013

The Heritage Foundation in the United States have made a video which is a fitting tribute to Baroness Thatcher

 

Specialisation will save lives

Cllr Andrew Brown's speech at the Council meeting on Tuesday evening

My background is in medicine and healthcare and because of this I was determined to speak in tonight’s debate. I firstly want to provide some context to the issue and explain why the council’s position on this is the only sensible way to ensure the best provision of healthcare for Hammersmith & Fulham residents both in the borough and the wider area.

I live in Hammersmith & Fulham because of Charing Cross hospital and its links with Imperial College, where I studied medicine. I moved to the borough eleven years ago because Charing Cross was the main undergraduate teaching campus. I have trained in all of North West London’s hospitals, including Charing Cross, Chelsea & Westminster, St Mary’s, the Hammersmith, Central Middlesex, West Middlesex, Northwick Park and Hillingdon. I have also studied medical management at Imperial’s business school. I am passionate about the provision of healthcare, and if I believed that this proposal was against the interests of local residents I would not support it.

I am proud of the NHS and what it stands for. But what I will not do however is bury my head in the sand and suggest that it requires no reform. That is irresponsible for the NHS itself and most importantly for patients. The terrible cases revealed by the Francis Report in Staffordshire reflect this. We are not talking tonight about pensions or parks or even council tax. Very important topics, but not as important as peoples’ lives. Playing politics with this is unacceptable as is opposing any proposals to improve the NHS to protect vested interests or for partisan reasons.

Labour told to stop playing politics with Charing Cross Hospital

Cllr Marcus Ginn spoke last night at a Council meeting on the future of Charing Cross Hospital. These were the key points he made:

1. Throughout this process we have sought to protect the health needs of our residents – which is my job in local government

2. I would like to thank members of the public and of the party opposite, for joining with us last year to show the NHS how important our local health services are to residents

3. We fought tough and principled public campaign,

a. Communicated widely and continue to do that –duty

b. Commissioned an independent assessment of the NHS’s plans which we considered

4. Many in this room continue to campaign against any change

5. But sometimes doing the right thing means a change of approach. We chose to negotiate and to listen. To H&F GPs who backed the plans unanimously and to the 1,300 local health and social care users who are members of The LINK.

6. Hammersmith Hospital will continue to be a leading specialist cardiac hospital, serving 90% of patients

a. A&E will be replaced with new department which receives 70% of patients,

b. A&E small part of hospital and future never in doubt

7. Different at Charing Cross though - a few months ago I feared that the reconfiguration plans would lead to its eventual closure. But £90 million hospital secure for generations to come.

8. No, Charing Cross won’t be the same hospital. No, it won’t be the same size.

a. But change was inevitable with such strong clinical support for a move to fewer, better staffed and supported acute hospitals

b. Highly unlikely that Charing Cross would be chosen as an acute hospital compared to the newer Chelsea & Westminster

c. Negotiated the best possible outcome for Charing Cross.

d. A new, alternative and no less vital role

9. Ealing have increased the likelihood of their hospital being downgraded to a tiny local facility – something that I was and am determined not to do here

So what have we achieved at Charing Cross

1. Much made of reduction in size of, but

a. New hospital will cover 40% of the current site, with height and
final size tbc

b. Up to 50% of current site is not used by patients

i. Social housing, pathology laboratories, the university, child care facilities

2. Acute services won’t disappear, but will be provided at neighbouring sites

a. Expanded emergency/acute facilities incl 64% capacity increase at C&W

b. 24/7 consultant cover and best care which will saves lives

c. Proven to save lives amongst heart attack and stroke victims

3. Guarantees from NHS re enhancements to the ambulance service – one of our concerns

4. 85% of H&F residents will continue to use it in the same way - despite loss of beds

5. Residents will receive new or enhanced services there

a. Expectant mothers will now receive care there

b. New mothers will now receive care there

c. Elderly and mental health patients will receive enhanced care there

6. And to those who have suggested either ignorantly or mischievously that the new Charing Cross ‘will be a glorified GP clinic’:

a. Cancer patients don’t receive chemotherapy in a GP clinic

b. Patients don’t receive elective surgery in a GP clinic

c. Renal patients don’t receive dialysis at a GP clinic

d. I have never heard of a consultant led, 4 story, £90m GP clinic

7. Patients will in future receive care for different conditions at different sites - better, specialist, consultant led care

8. Integrated care model at CX will be so innovative CX could become a ‘European centre of excellence’ for teaching new methods

Further Enhancements

1. Yes, some land will be sold by NHS why retain whole site if the hospital smaller

2. Council will ensure - through negotiation - that a lot less will be sold and a lot more will be used for hospital and community services

3. Supported housing on the Charing Cross site for elderly and disabled patients

4. A range of health providers

5. Local charities

A Choice for the Labour Party

1. Outright opposition to change or support the best deal possible for CX

2. This isn’t a political issue, it is a quality of care issue

3. Solidarity with the Socialist Worker Party, pandering to the agenda of the unions, burning candles and spreading a message of fear amongst residents won’t protect our hospitals

4. What will protect them is firm negotiation and an understanding of the facts

5. The party opposite can challenge our motives, challenge our negotiating and challenge our vision for a new Charing Cross. But the voters of H&F will know that you are playing politics with our health service, burying your heads and the sand, manipulating a community campaign for your own purposes and taking the easy option.

Mystic Andy has made so many false claims, why should we believe him on Charing Cross Hospital?

By Cllr Harry Phibbs

Andrew Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith, is busy trying to scare his constituents with the claim that Charing Cross Hospital is still to be closed. Mr Slaughter dismisses the new proposals, negotiated by the Council, for £90 million to be spent enhancing specialist care at the hospital. He also refuses to acknowledge that 24/7 emergency care will continue.

This has left some residents, confused by the claim and counter-claim, not knowing who to believe. 

What they might find reassuring is how many of Mr Slaughter's past statements have been disproved.

Here are some examples.

1. Sure Start Children's Centres.

On June 30 2011 Mr Slaughter said in his email missive to residents

The Council has virtually ended Sure Start provision in many parts of the borough with cuts to Children’s Centre funding that will close nine of them.

Earlier that year, on February 2nd, he told Parliament:

The actual cut in service will be more than 50%, with nine out of 15 centres closing, having their grants reduced from £475,000 to £19,000 - not enough to run a service. That is the truth about Sure Start on the ground at the moment.

On June 20 2011 he told Parliament the closure would happen the following month:

That is all very interesting, but from next month, nine Sure Start centres in Hammersmith and Fulham will lose more than 90% of their funding, and therefore will close.

The reality has been that the number of Children's Centres has increased from 15 to 16. They are listed here. The number of sessions has doubled since 2011 and they have more visitors than ever before. Perhaps if Mr Slaughter believes that these sessions are non-existent, that "nothing remains except the shell of the building", - as he told Parliament in yet another of his predictions - he should go along and visit.