'Self' defeating

I've written before about this Southfields case I've been very heavily involved with, but this week's story in the Wandsworth Guardian underlines how badly I feel the Conservatives treat those residents who need services above and beyond the majority of us experience.

As with so many of these stories, the council's peremptory, dismissive reply is usually the last word. Just re-read it from the story above: "In order to qualify for a disabled badge the applicant must have a degree of disability and find it difficult to walk. Fortunately Mrs Self does not have any such problems."

For heaven's sake! She has angina, heart disease, is partially blind AND suffers from Meniere's Disease, which is an inbalance within the ears that prevents her from walking! The only reason she (purportedly) failed the council's test at the town hall - a test so stressful she had an angina attack in the town hall foyer - was that the occupational therapist failed to test her walking unsupported by her husband.

The problem the council gets itself into is the second part of their quote above. After all, they're categorical in the sentence I quoted: that Mrs Self is not eligible for a blue badge. That being the case, why would a council certain of its case offer a repeat assessment? It's not common practice: in fact its abnormal.

This is a Conservative council that refuses to back down when it gets things wrong and would rather pick on an elderly lady in her eighties than accept that they made a mistake. They've even written to us telling us they will not enter into any further correspondence with us unless it is to accept the re-assessment offer.

But why should the family put their mum through such an ordeal again? I'm not sure I'd want my mother to endure such a stressful experience a second time, even if it is for something that will make her life immeasurably easier if she ever, eventually, were to get it. That's the call Mrs Self's family have made and I respect them for it.

I can't say the same for the Conservative council.

Pseudocyesis

...That's the technical name for the medical condition known as false pregnancy.

I thought it an appropriate term to use given the Conservatives claims earlier this week that "In the most deprived areas, 54% are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 19% in the least deprived areas."

In case you haven't heard, the actual figure is 5.4%, not 54%. And when confronted with their amateur mistake, did the Conservatives admit it and apologise? No - they said that a decimal point does not change the basic message they were trying to make, whatever that was.

Well, actually, a decimal place that overstates the teenage pregnancy rate tenfold DOES change the message. And it prompted me to find out what the figures are in our area.

Here they are - in the decade since Labour was first elected, pregnanices among 15 to 17 year olds in Wandsworth fell 14% - in real numbers that's 64 fewer girls becoming pregnant. Nationally, the fall is 10%.

In fact, in every single Inner London borough bar one there are fewer teenage pregnancies now than there were when the Tories left office.

But the fact is that there were still 166 pregnancies in Wandsworth among 15-17s in 2007 and that number is still too high. It's another reason why we need to keep SureStart centres operating, not close 1 in 5 of them as the Conservatives plan to do.

But in their determination to talk Britain down, the Tories won't let the facts get in the way of a headline. We've seen it in the way they manipulated violent crime statistics last week. We've seen it in the way Putney Conservatives have repeatedly lied about burglaries and Police numbers in our area. Now they?re doing the same thing on teenage pregnancies.

I simply don't believe this is the way politics should be done. If the Tories want to debate these issues sensibly, I'm up for that discussion - but to just lie and then, when found out, deny there's anything wrong with what they've done is just contemptible.

United Nations Association meeting on Human Rights

Cold weather payments

With Britain in the grip of one of the coldest winters for nearly 30 years, it's important that anyone who is worried that they may not be able to pay fuel bills makes sure they are in receipt of all the cold weather help they're entitled to.

Labour government cold weather payments of £25 are issued for every seven day period when temperatures are at or below zero degrees centigrade in a given area; and in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields that's been this week and almost certainly next week too.

Most people who are entitled to the payments will get them automatically as part of their tax credit or pension payments, but it's not just pensioners who are entitled to claim them.

You may also be eligible for a Cold Weather Payment for each qualifying week if you are getting Income Support, income-based Jobseeker?s Allowance or income-related Employment and Support Allowance in the assessment phase and have one of the following:

• pensioner premium, higher pensioner premium or enhanced pensioner premium
• a disability premium, enhanced disability premium or severe disability premium
• a disabled child premium
• Child Tax Credit that includes a disability or severe disability element
• a child who is under five in the family

If you want to check whether you're eligible, or whether they've been issued, visit the DirectGov website. That site also now has a postcode search facility to check whether cold weather payments are triggered, which can be found here.

Pensioners also get winter fuel payments each year, and they've been dramatically increased by Labour over the last decade. If you have a query about these payments, you can call 0845 915 1515: lines are open Monday to Friday 8.30am to 4.30pm.

The Fantastic Mr Fox(hunter)

I have just received a remarkable leaflet from a group calling itself The Vetinary Association for Wildlife Management.

VAMW is calling for the repeal of the foxhunting ban - something the Conservative Party supports but which a re-elected Labour Government will prevent. but VAMW uses arguments I've never previously come across, and I'd like to share some of them with you. My comments are in colour underneath.

Claim #1
"No hunting person kills or culls animals for pleasure"

Really? Yet earlier in the pamphlet, they devote a whole paragraph to explaining why "the sporting or recreational element of hunding is irrelevant." So which is it? A jolly jape or a necessary undertaking fearlessly shouldered by those brave and much-put-upon men in scarlet outfits for the salvation of the world?

Claim #2
"Hunting performs a vital search and dispatch function...no other method of culling performs this function and, now that hunting is banned, the welfare implications for all hunted species will be profound"

Hmm. So hunting is the critical ingredient to the survival of the species is it? Odd then that the pamphlet then goes on to say that "80% of foxes detected elude hounds due to the scent being lost". So let's consider the odds. 8 in 10 foxes that happen to suffer the misfortune of having their scent picked up escape. But the vast majority of foxes will live their lives without encountering a hunt in the first place.

The statistical reality that foxhunting is utterly immaterial to the natural evolution and containment of our fox population.

Claims #3, #4, #5 and #6

"Foxes are not hunted to the point of physical exhaustion and collapse...the average pace of a hunt often amounts to little more than a brisk walk"

"After initial flight hunted animals appear remarkably unconcerned and simply keep ahead of the hounds."

"For the major part of any hunt the quarry is under no abnormal stress. Stress in the short final stage of a hunt is equivalent to no more than that of strenuous exercise."

"The subsequent dismemberment of the carcass, if it occurs, is of no consequence to the dead animal"

The authors really should have told us that their pamplet was written by Dr Doolittle, because unless they have asked a fox how its feeling at these various stages of its death (and I guarantee that there have been no scientific studies recording heartrate, brainwave function and stress levels in quarry) these "veterinary opinions" are no more significant than any of ours.

So to summarise VAWM's claims:

• Foxhunting is fun for the foxes but not for the hunters
• Being chased for miles by packs of dogs isn't remotely stressful
• It's of no consequence how foxes are treated after they're dead

Oh, and if that hasn't convinced you to back foxhunting, I leave you with claim #7, which is the knockout punch that will leave you reeling at the sheer genius of their arguments:

"To state that hunting is 'not acceptable in a civilised society' is to totally misunderstand wildlife. Wild animals do not live in a civilised society."

They don't. We do. We determine how we behave - what is and is not civilised conduct for responsible adults in 21st century Britain. That's why I was one of the first to sign the Vote Cruelty Free manifesto, and why as Putney's Labour MP I'll vote to keep the ban on foxhunting.

Poverty and the Conservatives

The Conservatives have recently been trying to present themselves as the champions of the poor. You may be someone who's been a bit surprised by this Damascean interest in poverty by the Conservatives, but in case you're thinking "That David Cameron bloke seems sincere on this issue, so let's give him a whirl", here's what he's also on the record as saying on the subject...


"Labour?s plans for minimum wages, the Social Chapter and large increases in spending and taxes would send unemployment straight back up."

David Cameron, The Chronicle (Stafford), 21 February 1996

"I long for a chancellor who stands up and introduces a Budget which abolishes all of Brown's endless reliefs and credits - and uses the money to cut tax rates at the same time. 'My Budget has no title', the peroration would go, 'it's your money, spend it as you choose.' Am I alone?"

David Cameron, GuardianUnlimited, 18 April 2002

"Unravelling Labour?s tax credit system will be a complex and long-term task."

David Cameron, Speech in Devon, 1 September 2005. He now wants to scrap the Child Trust Fund for those earning over £16,000 and tax credits for couples who each earn over £25,000.

"The Government should stop new spending on Child Trust Funds for better off families? [Tax credits would be kept for families] in receipt of Child Tax Credit and have a household income in 2009/10 (as calculated for CTC purposes of £16,040 or less)"

Conservative Party Press Release, 6 October 2009

"The Government should stop paying tax credits to households with incomes over £50,000 by starting to means-test the Family Element of Child Tax Credit at a lower threshold." Conservative Party Press Release, 6 October 2009

You see, it's really easy to say "poverty is bad and I'm against it" - but it's action that counts. And David Cameron - and his Conservatives - have a track record of voting against Labour action that has helped the least affluent the most: the minimum wage; tax credits; child trust funds; initiatives like SureStart that provide the support that enable parents to return to work.

Labour's record stands - proudly - in stark contrast:

• 900,000 pensioners lifted out of relative poverty since 1998 - pensioners now less likely to be living in poverty than the population as a whole.
• Since 1997 we have spent around £100 billion more in total on pensioners (in current price terms) than if we had maintained the policies of the last Tory Government.
• On average the poorest third of pensioner households are around £2,100 a year (or £41 a week) better off on average as a result of our tax and benefit changes they would have been if the Tory system had continued.
• In 1997 the poorest pensioners lived on what would be the equivalent of £98 a week (in today's prices). Today Pension Credit means no-one aged 60 or over has to live on less than £130 a week.
• We have lifted 500, 000 children out of relative poverty since 1997
• We have enshrined in law a duty to eradicate child poverty by 2020

I still come across people who say that the political parties are just the same. Even today, when the Conservatives would wreck the economy by taking us down a path no other major international power has chosen. And even today, when the Conservatives claim to care about the poor but vote against their interests every chance they get.

Send me to Parliament and I'll be a genuine voice who not only speaks up for but acts to help the least affluent in our community.

The Blue Badge shame of Wandsworth Tories

On Saturday I brought a Southfields constituent, Christine Walker, to meet with Sadiq Khan MP, Minister for Transport and MP for next-door Tooting.

Mrs Walker's mum suffers from some serious disabilities, including Meniere's Disease which affects balance meaning that sufferers often cannot walk without falling over. More than a year ago, after being assessed for Attendance Allowance, the Department of Work & Pensions assessor set the ball rolling to get her a disabled person's blue badge so that she can be driven around more easily by her husband.

As is usual and right, Wandsworth Council invited Mrs Walker's mum in for an assessment, to make sure she wasn't attempting to fraudulently obtain a badge. Having failed to adequately test her - at no time, for example, was she asked to walk unaided (which she can't) to demonstrate the severity of her Meniere's problems - and then subjected her to a rigorous interview, the council denied her claim for a badge on the grounds that she wasn't sufficiently disabled. So badly treated was she that she had an angina attack in the foyer of the town hall.

That's when Mrs Walker asked for my help - and as a result of repeated interventions the council eventually consented to review the decision, but only if her mother was willing to undergo another medical test and interview. Understandably, the family was unwilling to put their mum through this ordeal again - and have made the fair point that either the council believes it was right, and should therefore stick to its guns, or that it thinks it's wrong and is trying to save face by agreeing to a retest when instead they should just accept their mistake and issue the badge.

This nonsense has been grinding on for over a year now. The council still has not backed down, and that's despite representations from her GP and consultants, from the Department of Work & Pensions which recognises the severity of her disability; from the Local Government Ombudsman and from local legal advice organisations.

When people like me talk about the carelessness and callousness of the Tory regime in Wandsworth we do so because we've seen at first hand the sharp end of Wandsworth Conservatism - a far cry from the soft-centred Conservatism David Cameron would like you to believe characterises his party. And it's examples like this that go to the heart of our criticism of how the Tories treat anyone who actually needs help from the council.

I'm in politics because I believe we have a duty to those who need help - we should never walk on by when we see people whose lives could be immeasurably transformed with just a little support and intervention. This outlook isn't shared by Putney Conservatives. They clearly couldn't care less about Mrs Walker's mother.

What do you have to do to get a disabled Blue Badge around here?

The case reported yesterday in the Wandsworth Guardian, above, is one I've been asked to get involved in.

I'm not going to say too much about it at this stage simply because I want to see what the council has to say for itself in response to my enquiry before I do. But I hope it is better than the quote they issued above because, frankly, it beggers belief.

"In order to qualify for a blue badge, an applicant must have a degree of disability and find it difficult to walk. Happily, Mrs Self does not have any such problems" they say.

This 81 year old lady has coronary heart disease, angina (including an attack she had immediately following her interview with the Council as part of her application for the Blue Badge), is blind in one eye and, most clear-cut of all, suffers from Meniere's Disease. So there's the "degree of disability" box ticked.

Meniere's Disease is a defect within the ear that seriously disrupts balance. Those suffering from it cannot walk straight: they either fall over or walk into walls. She can only walk (or more accurately: shuffle) with the support of her 82 year old husband. So there's the "difficult to walk box" ticked.

The Council's press office really should have checked the facts of this case a little more thoroughly before rushing out with such an unconvincing comment - it makes the council look callous, thoughtless and wrongheaded - which some of us recognise as the reality of Wandsworth's Conservative Council - but which isn't the appearance press officers get paid to present.

Cold Weather Payments

With weather this week set to fall several degrees below zero, Labour Government Cold Weather Payments have been triggered.

Labour increased the Cold Weather Payment last year from £8.50 to £25 a week. You should be eligible for a Cold Weather Payment for each week of this cold spell if you receive Pension Credits or if you are getting Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and have a child under five. There are other possible eligibility criteria, which you can check here.

Cold Weather Payments are triggered when the average temperature where you live is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees Celsius or below over seven consecutive days during the period from 1 November to 31 March.

You should recieve your CWP automatically but if you haven't received it or want to check whether you're eligible, contact either the Pension Service or Jobcentre Plus on 0800 055 6688.

Is FairTrade really immoral? Tories say "yes"

During an extraordinary debate a couple of weeks ago, Conservative Councillors removed any reference to teaching children about what Fairtrade is, why it exists or why it is a good thing. They also struck from their Children & Young People's Plan the need to teach local kids about the importance of reducing our carbon footprint. The suggestion to include these two important issues came from members of the public during a consultation on what should be included in the plan.

In the midst of it, one of their supposedly "rising stars", Russell King (no relation!) apparently described Fairtrade, which ensures some of the poorest farmers in the world get a fair price for their goods and access to international markets, as "immoral".

I don't know why it is that a fairly large part of those on the right-wing of politics have difficulty with common sense ideas like Fairtrade, or reducing carbon emissions; or even recognising that human-accelerated climate change is a reality. Scarily, such people are heavily represented among Putney and Wandsworth Conservatives.