Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

Interesting that it is DC, Ken Clarke, Heidi Allen etc speaking out in favour of Austerity. If the choice is Remain / Soft Brexit plus more Osborneomics or Brexit plus investment in public services with tax rises then I am pretty certain which way the electorate are leaning.

I think Guido is just having a laugh.

DH is friendly with family where a 5 year old has been hospitalised recently relating to a poverty related health issue. The details DH knows build a picture which is desperately depressing, but it's no where near the full picture. They try and keep it secret. Even then though the kids are still lucky in other ways compared to others as hard up. Their parents although a bit inept really do try and support them and give them opportunities and the kids do go to a good school. I'm not surprised by that report Big Choc.

If the Tories go for a Brexit which sends the economy over a cliff, then the Tories may impose austerity to a degree that will make us look back in nostalgia to Osbourne.

However, austerity was NOT necessary before and would not be necessary with an EEA / EFTA Brexit or Remain.
Klugmann long ago demolished the justification for previous Tory austerity.

Austerity is a choice of Tories who regard the national finances as they regard household finances
It is just an excuse to cut benefits to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/04/brexit-red-lines-eu-tories-labour

Recall what Brexiteers said during the referendum campaign.

Daniel Hannan MEP said:
“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.”

Matthew Elliott, of the leave campaign, offered the Norwegian, EEA option that his Brexiteers now see as betrayal.
.......
Owen Paterson used to say:
“Only a madman would actually leave the market.”
< indeed >
....
Watch May’s party fall apart spectacularly in the autumn as eight EU repeal bills stagger in parliament.
< do Westministenders expect this too ? >

Tory Euro-fever among both pros and antis is so rampant that on this – if on nothing else – both sides would bring down their government rather than concede.

Just read your post that Heidi Allen's now advocating continued austerity, howabout. Can you link to the story as I'd like to see her rationale for changing position. I had a quick google but nothing jumped out.

If you want to get a good idea of the real, day to day impact austerity is having on local services Hampshire County Council is currently consulting on the proposed service changes they considering carrying out to come up with their next tranche of savings (£140 million). I will paste their full list of possible service changes and cuts as it is a pretty comprehensive description of reduced services that will be seen to varying degrees across the country if austerity is not stopped.

As context compared to some council's I know of Hampshire have not cut face to face services as widely, they have been praised by central government for their transformation strategies to save money in the past as the focus has been on sharing services and back office efficiencies (possibly worth noting they are Tory majority). However, I think this time they have hit the point where they can't avoid cutting services and people will notice the difference. Some of the stuff below is going to be really worrying for local residents. In other councils it will be even worse.

www.hants.gov.uk/aboutthecouncil/haveyoursay/consultations/balancingthebudget

Children’s Social Care
Potential service change
To reduce the cost of children's social care by:
Providing more targeted help to vulnerable children, particularly teenagers
Intervening early to prevent the need for statutory care services
Investing in family-based interventions to enable children and young people to remain within family networks
Potential impacts
Children’s social care resource would be tightly focused on the most vulnerable families only
Greater number of teenage children, and other children who would otherwise be in care, would be supported to remain with their family / family network / community
Children’s social care workforce would be reduced and required to work more flexibly and efficiently
Proposed, innovative changes to the delivery of social care would need to be fully tested

Grant funding to voluntary and community organisations to support children and young people
Potential service change
To reduce the £750,000 grant funding awarded to 88 organisations to deliver community services for children and families across Hampshire to a minimum of £250,000
Potential impacts
Capacity within the voluntary and community sector to support children and families, at a local level, could be reduced if funding cannot be found from other sources. This could make it more difficult to deliver proposed changes to children’s social care
The role of Councils for Voluntary Service organisations in supporting voluntary and community groups to become more financially self-sufficient, could become greater
The County Council would continue to provide grant funding to support Young Carers, in keeping with its statutory duty

Home to School Transport
Potential service change
To only provide the legal minimum for home to school transport, i.e. when a child aged under eight lives more than two miles from their nearest school, or when a child aged eight and over lives more than three miles away from their school
Potential impacts
Fewer Special Educational Needs (SEN) children being awarded transport under current discretionary exceptions criteria
All discretionary transport arrangements would be determined annually, with parents having to re-apply each year
More families of children with SEN would need to arrange their own transport to school

Children with disabilities
Potential service change
To reduce the cost of delivering support services to children with disabilities and their families by:
Developing a more joined up service, involving different professionals, across children’s social care, adults’ social care and Public Health
Enabling families to do more for themselves
Providing access to personalised services for a set period of time
Potential impacts
Service users would only need to tell their ‘story’ once
Although services could continue to be provided, fewer families and carers may be able to access funding for short breaks and/or residential respite care placements for children with disabilities as they would be provided with alternative support arrangements
Service users would be equipped to do more for themselves, supported in alternative ways
Greater reliance on families and communities to support children, depending on their specific needs
Service users could experience fewer difficulties when moving from being supported by Children’s Services to Adults’ Services
Service users could benefit from faster access to support through more efficient decision making

Education services
Potential service change
To reduce the cost of education support for some pupils by limiting the range of non-statutory services provided to:
Young people aged 16+ who are not in education, employment or training
Pupils educated at home
Schools, regarding pupil exclusions
Potential impacts
Young people may be less likely to return to education, employment or training
Parents may be less able to access the full range of curriculum for children who are home educated
Greater likelihood of more children being excluded from school

Independent living for older people
Potential service change
To reduce the cost of care for older people by:
Placing fewer adults into residential care homes on long-term placements
Investing more in Extra Care housing (accommodation with 24 hour support)
Enabling people to do more for themselves and changing how ‘care at home’ support is provided
Potential impacts
People would only receive residential care when this is essential – it would be targeted on the most vulnerable
More people could benefit from Extra Care housing
Service users would be equipped to do more for themselves, supported in alternative ways, and receive less funded support through ‘care at home’ services
Greater reliance on families and communities to support older, vulnerable people
Service users may need to contribute more funding to meet the cost of the care and support they receive

Adults with learning disabilities and/or mental health support needs
Potential service change
To reduce the cost of services provided to adults with learning disabilities and/or mental health support needs by:
Investing more in supported living
Creating increased opportunities for employment and supported employment
Enabling people to do more for themselves and developing opportunities for people to find a greater level of support in their local communities
Potential impacts
Fewer service users would be supported in residential care and day opportunities – as these services would be reduced and alternative provision identified for the most vulnerable
Service users may need to contribute more to meeting the cost of the care and support they receive

Libraries
Potential service change
To make reductions to opening hours at most libraries, to avoid library closures
Potential impacts
All 48 County Council-run libraries would remain open
All libraries (apart from Winchester Discovery Centre) would close no later than 5pm Monday - Saturday and close all day on Sunday, when libraries are least used
Most libraries would see a reduction in opening hours of two to four hours a week to save costs, which equates to keeping five small libraries open - representing a 6.8% total reduction in opening hours
Customers would still be able to access a broad range of online resources 24/7 (which have seen an increase of over 20% in the last year)

Street Lighting
Potential service change
To further dim, or switch off, street lighting on residential streets in Hampshire where there are lower levels of traffic
Potential impacts
Reduced energy used by street lights
Residential streets would be darker for drivers and pedestrians
Some full switching off of streetlights may occur, but this would be limited to the middle of the night, and only in certain locations
Brighter lighting may also be provided at specific times and locations, where needed
Road signs and markings would continue to be visible as they are retroreflective and appear bright in vehicle lights

School Crossing Patrols
Potential service change
To either reduce the school crossing patrol service that is currently provided, or to stop providing this service altogether. Alternatively, the County Council could continue to provide the service if it could be fully funded, without financial contribution from the County Council
Potential impacts
A reduction in the number of schools with a crossing patrol service
Schools and academies and/or local communities may decide to cover the cost – if County Council funding was removed

Kerbside recycling and treatments of waste
Potential service change
To either reduce costs or increase income by seeking opportunities to recycle more materials and to process waste in a different way. This includes attempting to maximise the amount of waste within the system that can be recycled, and improving the efficiency of waste management processes
Potential impacts
Variations may be needed to the types of waste collected from households so that householders are able to recycle more of their waste, and recycling rates in Hampshire improve

Household Waste Recycling Centres (also known as ‘tips’)
Potential service change
To close some, and/or alter, operating hours at Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) or, subject to legislative change through Parliament, introduce a nominal fee for access to HWRC sites (currently not permitted by law)
Potential impacts
Some Hampshire residents may have to travel further to reach an HWRC site to dispose of their waste
Those sites that do remain open would be busier, although this could be mitigated through enhancements to these sites
Were a change in the law permitted, residents could be charged a nominal fee (£1-2 approximately), each time they accessed an HWRC site to deposit waste, meaning that sites would not need to be closed
In either case, residents may seek alternative disposal routes for their waste – for example hiring skips

Bus Subsidies and Community Transport
Potential service change
To either reduce or stop providing:
Subsidies for bus routes which are commercially non-viable
Community transport services, including specific services for elderly and disabled residents, which are currently delivered in partnership with the voluntary sector and other funders
Potential impacts
Choice and/or frequency of bus services would be reduced, and some areas may lose public transport services
Residents living in rural and remote locations may become more reliant on private transport options
Elderly and disabled residents may need to find alternative access to public and other services
There may be greater demand for transport provision from community and voluntary providers, such as community car schemes
Some currently supported services may be retained by commercial operators without subsidies

Winter Maintenance of Highways
Potential service change
To reprioritise activities, which would reduce the number of road routes that are routinely salted during winter months, in the event of forecast ice, frost or snow
Potential impacts
Salting activities would not happen on some Hampshire roads which are currently treated during the winter months
More of the Hampshire road network would be less accessible to vehicles during sub-zero weather conditions, and residents may have to make alternative travel arrangements
Salting activities on major roads carrying most traffic within Hampshire would not be impacted

More not actually news klaxon

[[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-movement-farmers-benefit-brandon-lewis-tory-mp-admits-a7823556.html Brexit: Farmers will benefit from freedom of movement until Britain leaves EU, admits Tory minister
Independent]]

Anything but the softest of Brexits will harm the economy at least in the short-medium term
So even more poverty.

It's all very well for some confortable Leavers to say the short term pain is worth it, but
a) it may not just be short term
b) the poorest suffer the worst - they will pay for Brexit

As Hammond said: "No one voted Brexit to become poorer"
So the politicians must find a way to make sure people don't get poorer

• that is probably the true will of the people, not Brexit / Remain, just "don't make us poorer"

On the subject of pay caps, someone suggested to me the other day that MPs pay should be be linked to average earnings, so they only get a pay rise when we do. I thought this sounded pretty reasonable.

And so it starts. Fraud being uncovered in respect to fire alarms and emergency lighting, same company that fitted out Grenfell.. Am not surprised, there will be much more if this uncovered before the investigation is over. So panels and now fire alarms. Next will be gas refurb. Look how our society is and weep.

bigly - MPs' salary used to be linked to the Grade 6 (what used to Senior Principal or Assistant Director in old money) civil servant salaries, but along the way of various reforms of both MPs and civil servant salaries the link has been lost.

That list from Hampshire CC is interesting, particularly in its breadth. To slightly play devil's advocate, some of the things that they propose that are suggested to lead to better outcomes are things that they should have been doing anyway. Almost all of the public sector has already been cut to the bone, and it is scary to think where the next round of savings will hit, but there are still some pockets who cannot think radically about how to deliver in a different way.

To slightly play devil's advocate, some of the things that they propose that are suggested to lead to better outcomes are things that they should have been doing anyway.

I felt the same myself e.g. something which keeps the elderly out of residential homes with support in their own, would almost certainly be welcomed by many of the elderly people.

Other things, like charging to go to the recycling centre, will be a false economy, because there will just be more fly tipping which will cost to clean up.

Norfolk council announced yesterday that they have to make cuts because of £140million cut from government funding. Trouble is they can't cut much else.

Norfolk council announced yesterday that they have to make cuts because of £140million cut from government funding. Trouble is they can't cut much else.

Much the same happened in Oxfordshire, with Cameron's mother weighing in about cuts to Library services. She was told rather tartly by the Tory Leader of the Council that it was her son's Government's policies which were the cause. Now in the 19th Century, wealthy people like the Camerons would have been happy to endow a Library with the money they have.

I absolutely agree olennas. What makes the local government austerity issue difficult to discuss at times is that the sad truth is local councils (and I say this having worked in them for over 10 years, part of that in transformation teams) are often very slow to modernise and there are often a lot they could do better. Working in the local government is often a very frustrating experience for this reason.

However, it is worth remembering that this is a model Tory council who will be trying to make all this sound as painless as possible in the hope of remaining a Tory council. A liberal sprinkling of reasonable improvements is par for the course to try and even out the actual removal of services in a consultation of this type. I was actually surprised when reading it about how honest they are about the impacts. A lot of similar consultations I have seen are much more vague and wooly.

I was trying to find some other councils plans, but couldn't find any other current consultations running that had as much detail as Hampshire has. A lot of them did their budget consultations earlier this year and don't have the full info up anymore. Council consultations are a great way to see what is really happening on the ground though.

I felt the same myself e.g. something which keeps the elderly out of residential homes with support in their own, would almost certainly be welcomed by many of the elderly people.

The problem with that worthy aim is these impacts:
Service users would be equipped to do more for themselves, supported in alternative ways, and receive less funded support through ‘care at home’ services
Greater reliance on families and communities to support older, vulnerable people

Which leaves me concerned that elderly people would not be judged worthy of residential care, but would instead end up at home alone and with reduced home care and reliant on the good will of neighbours to help them. Join the dots with reduced busses to rural areas, reduced library opening hours and reduction in grant funding for voluntary groups and it all becomes a bit dicey, leaving elderly people in a very isolated and vulnerable position.

LH - wrt Farage's no growth economy..
I suspect all free/capitalist economies grow or recede and are never static. I have an inkling that only economies that are centrally planned are close to static, or at least separate from the normal assumptions about growth, etc. An example would presumably be the Soviet system if retooled a bit to be less of a disaster for the environment or diverted into production for the arms race, or Marx's 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need(s)'

It could be that Marx was spot on, and we are moving naturally into a communist economy. (Feudal->Capitalist->Communist if my dim memory of history is correct). Maybe Corbyn is closer to the truth of it than we realise ?

I haven't read the Tim Jackson book, but from the description provided I wonder about his thoughts on innovation and whether 'the iron cage of consumerism' might be a plus for that.

Yes, Bigly, I agree - hence the support needs to be put into place. Which it probably won't be.

And that in a nut shell is the problems with making these changes to save money as part of an austerity agenda rather than to provide a better service. Yes, we should be trying to help people live where they are most comfortable, but to do that we need to have the money to provide the support they need in those places, including public transport and infrastructure. This is not compatible with the hard drive to cut costs.

Bigly it's the same in the NHS where I work - change always seems to be about doing things more cheaply instead of doing them better - and most of the time, better would actually be cheaper too.

Our trust's use of SERCO as a provider of IT support is a case in point. I don't want to know how much they're charging for the unplanned 'upgrades' they're having to do now in order to repair the damage done by their latest 'improvement' to our server infrastructure.

My experience of Hampshire is that they are fine words that cover up a pretty dire situation on the ground.

There are processes in place that are supposed to make sure all the agencies work together to ensure vulnerable people are supported. Old People are often too proud to admit they are vulnerable and not coping. That system is broken in Hampshire, doctors, paramedics etc. are not bothering to highlight what should be trigger points in the process, eg attending old people who have fallen, often on multiple occasions, who are manifesting clear signs of advancing dementia etc. People in neighbouring Councils regard Hampshire as failing in this area, one way to reduce the burden of care. I would put it as strongly that people are dying prematurely as a result. (I am conscious this is in print but I have the evidence if anyone wants to challenge me legally on it)

Then there is the issue of who they are funding in residential care. If they are only funding the most desperate cases already then a reduction is going to see people left in their homes who will then be vulnerable to accidents, abuse etc. My sense is not that people are being sent into residential care who want and would be better cared for in their homes, quite the opposite. Remember that the majority of carers of those with dementia are elderly themselves and struggle to cope without damaging their own health.

Where things are already working reasonably well, there is a good chance that any change will make things worse, and the larger the change the more likely the results are to be damaging. Same in the private sector. Where I work we've had consultants in, a new IT system (that doesn't work in at least one quite important way) and a reorganisation and lots of us are wondering when to sell our shares ;)

It's like genetics - small mutations can sometimes be beneficial, big ones are almost always catastrophic.

Much the same happened in Oxfordshire, with Cameron's mother weighing in about cuts to Library services. She was told rather tartly by the Tory Leader of the Council that it was her son's Government's policies which were the cause. Now in the 19th Century, wealthy people like the Camerons would have been happy to endow a Library with the money they have.

Ah, but I think in the 19th Century, they would have paid fuck all tax.