Named: The Gang of Five Labour councillors silenced by the spin doctors

Five Labour councillors originally signed, on behalf of their authorities, the letter to The Times this morning which denounced the Government for misleading the elderly with an unfunded promise of free home care.

The councillors asked, rather too late in most cases, for their names to be withdrawn. Who knows what terrible threats caused them to suddenly change their minds. But it strikes me that the bullying, control freakery of the new Labour spin doctors has been utterly counter productive.

I understand those who asked for their names to be withdrawn were the following:

Cllr Norma Wright (Sunderland). Cllr Emma Lewell (South Tyneside). Cllr Ann Gerrard (Halton). Cllr Morris Nicholls (Durham). Cllr Lorna Campbell (Lambeth).

Councils denounce the Government for misleading the elderly

The Times today leads on a letter sent to the paper from over Council leaders and Adult Social Care lead members from over 70 councils. The letter declares that proposals in the Government's Personal Care at Home Bill are "unclear, unfunded and are likely to have a significant impact on existing local services, including possible cuts and rises in council tax." The paper reports this under the headline: "Councils say Brown care plan misleads the elderly." The letter points to research which indicates "the cost to local authorities would amount to about £580 million per annum as opposed to the £250 million assumed in the proposals."

The letter concludes:

It is also wrong to raise expectations among many of the most vulnerable in our society and their families that they may be in a position to benefit from these proposals when the reality may be
significantly different. We are therefore calling for the Government to commission urgently an independent review of these proposals, including an analysis of the financial position, before progressing any farther.

What makes the letter much harder for the Government to dismiss is the number of Labour, and Labour led, councils that have endorsed it. South Tyneside, Waltham Forest, Durham and Sunderland were the ones I spotted scrolling down the list. For Labour councillors to be signing up so close to a General Election shows the level of anger at the Government's cynicism on this issue. Naturally there has been some desperate arm twisting going on. The Times says three Labour councillors signed but then requested their names be removed.

It follows earlier criticism from the Labour peer Lord Lipsey.

Durham Council plans care home closures

Labour controlled Durham County Council is planning to close seven of its 12 care homes. It says the reason is that more people are choosing to stay at home and are avodiing residential care. Some of the Council's care home are only operating at 50% capacity. So the closure sounds eminently sensible. But can you imagine all the Labour spin about "wicked Tories leave the old to die" if a Conservative Council took the same decision?

Meanwhile the Labour Party are seeking to boost their credentials as the party for the elderly with the Personal Care at Home Bill. It offers "free" personal care - that it would be paid for by a hike in Council Tax. The Local Government Association estimate it would cost double the £670 million estimated by the Department of Health and would mean £50 on an average Council Tax bill.

Writing in The Times, the Labour peer, Lord Lipsey says:

Fortunately there is no chance of the policy coming into force before a new government takes office, but it is wholly wrong to manipulate the hopes and fears of the elderly by having a political battle about their care.

Eight councils named as providing poor care for the elderly

A report from the Care Quality Commission says 4,000 out of the 24,000 care homes in his country are deficient. It means that 80,000 elderly people are getting substandard care. Over 400 were rated poor while another 3,500 were rated "adequate" (evidently code for inadequate,)

The Commission has named eight councils - Bromley, Cornwall, Peterborough, Poole, Solihull, South Tyneside, Southwark, and Surrey - for doing badly overall with their provision.

High Council Tax levels do not equate to high care standards. My own Council's provision in this area was judged by the Commission as excellent. (Stephen Burke, the former Labour leader of Hammersmith of Fulham, has an article in The Times this morning stressing the validity of the Commission's findings so doubtless will wish to acknowledge the progress we have made since his departure.)

Other low Council Tax authorities such as Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea were also judged excellent. Wandsworth were considered to be doing "well."

The CQC chief executive, Cynthia Bower, says:

"It is striking that many of the issues of most concern to the public - such as dignity - are not necessarily things that cost a lot of money to put right. So there is clearly room to continue improving services, despite the tough economic backdrop."

The CQC believe that Councils could get better value for money in he care they commission. They also believe more could be done on personalisation of care. But what about more help for the elderly to be cared for by their families to reduce the number that need for to go into care homes in the first place?

Waltham Forest takeaway ban

Labour-run Waltham Forest Council are proposing a ban on new takeaways opening with "400 metres" (just under 440 yards) from schools. The borough has among the worst rates of child obesity in Britain.

What does everyone think? Some will see this as illiberal but then the planning system is pretty restrictive anyway. If market forces were operating we would probably have fewer retail outlets and more housing. We seem to have a lot of empty shops and a shortage of homes so wouldn't some rebalancing to allow change of use from, for example, takeaways to homes, make economic sense. Sometimes this wouldn't be appropriate but in other places - such as on the corner of a high street and residential terrace it might well be.

In that sense it would be a liberalisation of the planning system rather than a further restriction that could reduce the number of existing takeaways. I suppose Waltham Forest are proposing something more restrictive and it might result in an empty shop where a takeaway has been turned down and no other retail outlet is considered profitable.

Another point is what are Waltham Forest schools doing to provide healthy appetising food so that children don't have the inclination to bunk off to the local chippie? What are the schools doing to organise sports competitions with each other?

Guildford Council's war on greasy spoons

Conservative-run Guildford Council is promoting healthy eating by warning snack vans found in busy lay-bys to include salads and low fat yoghurts of face losing their street trader's licence. One van owner says the lorry drivers and builders who represent his client base do not want salads. Guildford say it also about grilling not frying.

What does everyone think? I think I need to withold judgement as I don't know how sought after these pitches are. If the vans are driven out of business than that hardly results in more choice but rather in us being left hungry. On the other hand if lots of people are clamouring to trade on these sites then perhaps it is reasonable for Guildford to insist on a move upmarket. Would be pleased to hear from anyone in Guildford who knows the background.