Sue’s Views

  • September 2018
    It suddenly feels like autumn. Those “endless” school summer holidays have come to an end, much to the despondency of many pupils, and their teachers. I wish them all a happy and successful new school year.

    For some families, though, back to school means back to a proper midday meal for their children and it hasn’t come soon enough. Holiday Hunger for children, particularly those of primary school age, is a relatively new expression but the reality of not having enough to eat has been around too long and is growing year on year. This summer, foodbanks across Staffordshire were crying out for residents to donate extras to their local foodbanks in order to cope with demand. Many did, thankfully. However, the Trussell Trust which runs over 420 foodbanks across the UK including locally, estimated last year that one in eight children are left hungry during the summer holidays and that one in five families struggle to put enough food on the table. They anticipated that this would increase this year. What a shocking indictment of our country!

    All of this, of course, affects a child’s education too. Holiday Hunger can impact on a child’s growth, development, health and wellbeing. It is no wonder that the life chances of children at the lower end of the socio-economic scale are limited from an early age and their potential diminished. Goodness only knows what it feels like for families, ordinary mums and dads, to carry the stigma and guilt of knowing that they cannot put enough on their table to feed their children properly.

    This year, I know that lots of numerous voluntary and community organisations in Staffordshire, as elsewhere, have opened their doors to feed families and children during the summer, often providing entertainment and activities in an inclusive way at the same time. This can’t continue, though, and Government must act to find a solution to holiday hunger and, indeed, hunger at any time of the year. Foodbanks and summer holiday lunch clubs can not and must not become a substitute for a decent living income for all families.

  • August 2018
    I’m a pragmatist rather than a purist. I’m probably far too impure in my political beliefs for some but I like to try to find practical solutions to problems and, by doing so, make a difference to our communities. That often means working with people from different political parties towards shared goals. I make no apologies for that. I’m not a Cooperative, as well as Labour, councillor for nothing. It’s struck me recently though how resistant councils can be to working together in the true spirit of partnership to address community needs, often (usually?) councils of the same political stripe.Everyone knows that County Councils like Staffordshire are under huge financial pressure, mainly because of the ever-increasing demand for social care for adults and children, our most vulnerable residents and neighbours. District and Borough Councils are also under financial pressure. Parish councils may think they are under pressure but, in reality, they aren’t. They are the only tier of local government which is not capped to restrict the level of council tax they levy and so have the ability to raise funds to do the things that the community they represent actually want.

    Too often, I hear the words “cost shunting” as top and middle tier councils ask parish councils to take on more responsibilities. I’m not an apologist for austerity cuts but, if the services under threat really are valued, why shouldn’t parish councils take up the mantle and provide them? Surely, that’s what we’re all about as councillors, providing services and support for the things which our electors think are important. It’s simply not possible for top and middle tier councils to carry on as they are but I really can’t understand why Parish Councillors refuse to take on some highways responsibilities or maintenance of parks and open spaces or the provision of leisure opportunities or street cleaning. These all make such a difference to the quality of residents’ lives and are not statutory services so, come on Parish Councils, think a bit more creatively about what you can do for your residents rather than chiding your bigger brothers/sisters. Small can be beautiful.

  • June 2018
    Now that the dust has settled after the Curborough by-election and our new councillor, our very own Colin Ball, has got his feet well and truly under Lichfield District Council’s table (and, incidentally, has got under the Tories’ skin), it’s time to reflect on what that victory means.For a start, the increase from 4 seats to 5, makes it feel very different at the council. With an 18% swing to Labour in what was a Tory seat, we also need to learn lessons from our success as we look ahead to next May’s all-out Lichfield District Council elections when every one of the 47 seats will be up for grabs.Colin and Dave, his agent, were relentless in encouraging Labour members to get out on the doorsteps, delivering leaflets, direct mail letters and knocking on doors as they were doing themselves. Often, they were by themselves or with just a handful of helpers but it paid dividends. As Party loyalties have become more fragile over recent years, people are more likely to vote for someone who’s taken the time and trouble to contact them. Doorstep work makes a difference and the more members who help, the easier it is.The challenge then is to make sure every possible Labour voter is reminded that it’s polling day and encouraged to actually go to the polling station. We had enough Labour “promises” to give the Tories at least a very close run but it meant knocking on the door of (or phoning) each one of them. We did – in spite of it being a really hot and energy-sapping day. All “promises” were talked to directly or got a reminder leaflet. (One member I phoned had completely forgotten but she and her husband said they’d go to the polling station straight away: another two votes in the bag.) There weren’t many members out on polling day doing this – about 17 in all – but we did it. It would have been much easier and less uncertain if we’d had more. Get Out The Vote or GOTV is vital. I certainly was for me in the County elections last May where I managed a 7% swing in my Division, higher than the national swing, but it was by only 50 votes and achieved by a very small number of people.

    All politics is local, they say, and it is clear that the Friarsgate fiasco motivated voters to show their displeasure and kept hardened Tory voters at home. This was also hard work – relentlessly exploiting the Tories’ failures and embarrassment at LDC and sharing that as widely as possible via the media, social media and letters to the press. The Tory members at LDC don’t on the whole do much social media but they do sit up and take notice of adverse reports in The Mercury and the letters page. The social media posts and shares created an anti-Tory mood which was then reflected in the print media. In spite of working long days and evenings, Colin himself managed to get two letters in The Mercury in the last couple of weeks of the campaign and two or three other members did too. But not enough, to be frank. Friarsgate hasn’t gone away and we need to keep this show on the road. More letters to the press, please.

    We’re about to start the process of selecting our Labour candidates for next May. 47 of them, if we’re lucky (plus candidates for all of the Parish, Town and City Council seats up for election – hundreds of them across the District). Every Labour councillor can make a difference, not least in supporting their electors via casework. Two or more Labour councillors on any council can make an even bigger difference: one can propose a motion, for example, and the other can second it meaning that it must be debated, voted on and can then be used in newsletters. We’ve got to be realistic about our prospects though. In spite of an 18% swing on 5 July, we’re still only just ahead in the national polls in spite of the omnishambles of this Tory Government. We won’t win every seat and we need to assess and understand where the effort we put in will bring the biggest dividend. Only 17 members were out knocking doors on polling day in Curborough. If only 17 people were spread across the whole District next May, we ain’t going to get many doors knocked.

    For me then, the lessons then are:

    • Contact, contact, contact voters – preferably face-to-face but telephone and leaflets are fine,
    • Polling day organisation is vital and the whole campaign needs to lead towards it,
    • Use local issues relentlessly – especially where they highlight Tory failures or the effects of austerity cuts in your patch,
    • Use the media to create interest but don’t just rely on the odd social media post to really cut through to voters,
    • Build a team. Get more members active, willing and eager to help. Encourage them to do more. A letter or post or delivering a round of leaflets is great but we either need more members to do just that or the members who do to be there on poling day too!

    And postal votes. It’s time we all made a real effort to get rock-solid Labour supporters signed up including our members.

    Finally, massive thanks and congratulations to Colin and Dave. You did a great job on behalf of us all, the Labour Party in Lichfield. Can we have some more please?

  • April 2018
    Bear with me: I’m going to mention three words which strike terror into a lot of
    Councillors but which induce complete boredom for most people. Those three words
    are Local Government Reorganisation. It’s the ultimate page-turner, but not in a
    good way. With councils at all levels struggling to meet growing demands with
    reducing income and council tax-payers constantly asking themselves, “Which
    Council does what?” and, perhaps all the more pertinently now, “Why am I paying
    two (or three) lots of council tax?”, it’s high time we talked openly and honestly about
    this.Governments are hesitant to start the discussions as councillors are their troops on
    the ground and they don’t want to upset them. For councils themselves, turkeys are
    unwilling to call for an early Christmas. So we’re stuck; stuck with two and more
    likely three councils, each with their own administration costs, doing different things
    and – too often – pulling in different directions. The County Council and the eight
    District and Borough Councils in Staffordshire each have their own Chief Executives,
    Chief Finance Officers, Officers leading the different services and, of course, their
    own civic offices. That’s as well as the local parish councils which each have their
    own running costs. Is this really sustainable any more? It’s fair to say that a lot of
    councils look to share costs by joining up services, particularly back office ones, and
    have done for a long time. But progress towards a one-stop unitary model is not just
    slow; it’s glacial.In other parts of the country, councils have reorganised, reduced the number of
    councils and therefore saved shedloads of money to put into services for their
    residents. The Secretary of State has pretty much agreed to these proposals as
    they’ve come forward. It’s a no-brainer. We’ve got to focus on improving outcomes
    for the residents we represent, on what is important to them rather than self-
    preservation. Would the sky fall in if we lost one complete tier of councils? Not at all.
    It certainly isn’t a favourite topic of conversation anywhere but it’s a conversation that
    needs to be had.
  • March 2018
    Staffordshire County Council, like all local authorities across the country, has been faced with swingeing budget cuts from central Government, all in the name of austerity. This budget-making round has been challenging – a euphemism, if ever there was one, for nigh on impossible. Other sources of funding for councils such as retaining all business rates raised within their boundaries or payments for each now house built via New Homes Bonus are still not fully developed. The Government is deaf to all this. That leaves the County Council leaders, like others, scratching their heads about how to balance their books over the next few years especially as demand on services rises. It also leaves them with little option but to raise council tax for residents to the maximum level allowed (or almost the maximum: no-one is really fooled by the 0.05% below the limit any more than we’re fooled that £5.99 is a far better bargain that 6 quid). Therefore, the Conservative administration at the County Council voted through a 5.95% increase this week which Labour councillors opposed.We opposed the increase, not because we don’t value public services and public servants, not because we don’t welcome the commitment to ensure that vulnerable adults and children will be a priority, not even specifically because the budget was based on an assumption of 0% inflation but because the transfer of the tax burden from national to local taxes is unfair, unsustainable and takes no account of ability to pay. I described the budget as fragile, risky and vague. The words “fragile” and “risky” were echoed by two senior Conservative members. It’s vague on where further cuts will fall. Words like “review ”, “reorganisation”, “renegotiation” are supposed to realise savings but there is no detail about how – or the impacts on the residents of Staffordshire. The devil is always in the detail.And what about the much-vaunted extra £5million to repair potholes? That would be fine if it wasn’t based on a cut of well over half in next year’s Highways budget, from £52million to £22million. Tomorrow, it seems, will have to look after itself.
  • February 2018
    On the day that the report on Sexism in Parliament has been published, I’ve been spurred on to push for more visibility of this issue at both Lichfield District and Staffordshire County Councils. It certainly exists. It drives me mad. Here’s just one example: as Opposition Leader, I’d had a go at a Committee Chairman that he wasn’t doing his job properly and that he should be doing more than simply chairing the periodic meetings; in effect, that he should do a lot more work between meetings to actually earn the extra cash he gets in allowances for the privilege. He couldn’t answer my question and was completely flustered in the public arena of the Council meeting but came up to me afterwards, smiley smiley and wagging his finger in a mock telling off, and said, “You little minx.” I was nearly apoplectic. Not only was he showing contempt for the Labour Opposition view, he expressed it in appallingly sexist language. I gave him an appropriate response. And it’s not just Tories. When I became Leader of the Staffs County Labour Group, two women put themselves forward as Deputy Leader. Oh my goodness. The reaction from some of the blokes, the Labour blokes! “We can’t possibly have a woman Leader AND Deputy.” Strange that they had never raised any concerns about having male Leaders and Deputies for the aeons before.I’m also keen to raise awareness though of the sexism in the Party and it was good to get unanimous support for challenging sexism in the Party from all members at a recent CLP meeting. But is it translating into any real impact? Do we all do enough, male and female comrades, to call out sexism? Is sexist “banter” outed in Branch meetings or more widely among members? Sadly, I don’t think so.As Party members, we all believe in equality, don’t we? As Party members, we’d all challenge racist or homophobic comments, wouldn’t we? We will do all we can to support people with disabilities, won’t we? But do we do enough to challenge sexism or, indeed, its ugly sister ageism? Sadly, I don’t think so. Yet.
  • January 2018
    For anyone involved in Council finance, this is a pretty frenetic period as Councils prepare their budgets for the next financial year starting in April. In the run-up to Christmas, we wait with bated breath to find out from Government how much – or, more frequently, how little – support Councils are going to get and, it’s fair to say, there are usually some positives among the negatives. However, when the negatives keep outweighing the positives, it’s clear that more cuts to council services are on their way. That’s been the case for too long now under the banner of Austerity as councils’ funding from central Government is cut year on year on year with more to come. We ain’t seen nothing yet.I’ve heard it said several times now by leading councillors that people don’t like paying taxes but I challenge this assumption. We certainly need to bust the myth that you can have good public services without paying for them. Just look at what’s happening in the NHS now. From my perspective, national taxation based on income is the glue that binds society together. It’s a mutual insurance cover that means services such as health or social care are there when we need them and we can be thankful for our good fortune if we don’t. “From each according to his (or her, I might add) ability, to each according to his (or her) need.”As funding from national taxes is taken away from councils, councils have again been given the opportunity to raise council tax by a bit more. But this is the most regressive and unfair form of taxation as it’s based on the value of your home rather than your income. On top of that, we are being asked to pay directly for more and more services that we have previously paid for through tax and it’s those least able to afford it who are hit hardest. As someone has just said to me in relation to a further round of impending cuts to library funding, “Here we go again. Pay more, get less and blame the old”.
  • October 2017
    What’s the biggest challenge facing our country, and our County, today? Given the potential impacts on all of our lives, I suspect that many people would say Brexit. Others would perhaps refer to housing, terrorism, climate change, education or something else – or all of the above.For me, the biggest issue is demographic change which has seen life expectancy rise since 1950 from around 67 years to almost 82. These are just averages, of course, and we all know people who are well into their 90s or have passed their century. This is the good news and testament to the success of advances in heakth care particularly. However, the bad news is that more people are spending their late life in poor health, disability, mental and physical frailty.We all look to healthy old age contentedly watching our children and grandchildren flourish – like in the Werther’s Originals advert. It’s much more uncomfortable to think about impairment, immobility, incontinence and increased dependency on social care for older relatives, let alone for ourselves.The County Council spends 70% of its annual budget on around 2% of its residents, the most vulnerable and needing care including the frail elderly. To manage its budget, the Council recently changed its contracts with home care providers. On the face of it, this helps to balance the books but the changes are causing a great deal of anxiety for some home care users and their families. It’s also bringing job uncertainty for hard-pressed care-workers. Unless we are directly affected, we don’t see these problems, unlike roads needing repair or libraries reducing services or charges increasing as well as council tax.The Council has recently been congratulating itself on “spending a record £300 million” on “providing three million hours of quality care.” Do the math, as they say. Is this enough? Will it ensure quality? Really? There have been calls over many years for a national debate on the costs of elderly care but it’s now becoming critical. Honest discussions about the sort of care we want for older citizens and for ourselves and how we pay for it is long overdue.
  • September 2017
    There’s been one thread to numerous conversations I’ve had recently with residents, community groups, council officers and others: transport. While Government and County Council leaders are engaged with big infrastructure projects like HS2 or trunk road improvements, the current consultation on bus subsidies is in danger of slipping under the radar. (Why do such consultations always seem to happen at holiday time, I wonder.)Whether it’s accessing leisure and employment opportunities for young people or enabling older people to remain independent by getting to shops or social groups, they need buses.For many, the loss of bus services will be cutting their lifelines. There doesn’t seem to be nearly enough joined up thinking or any real understanding of the impacts of losing bus services on those very groups of people where demand on public resources is increasing, the biggest headache for councils. If people can’t get to work, health appointments, community activities, to visit friends and family, they become all the more prone to health problems. In the end, this can lead to even more demand on public services. A vicious circle.Take loneliness, for example. Research shows that it can have as bad an impact on health as obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake or substance abuse. Loneliness increases the risk of premature death by 26%. It also increases demand on social care services.People tell me that getting on a bus and chatting to other passengers is an important part of their weekly routine. Apart from getting people from A to B, the bus services in themselves provide social interaction and can therefore improve an individual’s sense of wellbeing. One resident said to me, “It’s usually the same people on the bus I catch. We’ve got to know each other and look out for each other. We have a really good natter on the way and I look forward to my trip.” How much better to promote independence than dependence.You may, like me, be so used to getting where you want to by car that you rarely think about bus services. Please think again, not least as a tax-payer, and have your say on this important issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *