The Conservative Party’s “reckless” manifesto pledge could have devastating consequences for families in Brent. Sir Andrew Dilnot, a leading national expert who provided an independent report to the Government on social care has described the Tory proposals as the biggest stealth tax in history. Despite government previously saying they would consult with the public on the best way forward, this high-cost policy has come out of the blue. While many families from many backgrounds will be affected, South Asian communities, who often live together across generations, could be hit particularly hard, with Tory proposals leaving them at risk of becoming homeless.
At present, social care is means tested and the value of the property that people are living in is not taken into account as part of that calculation. The proposal announced in Theresa May’s Conservative manifesto will include the value of a person’s home. If this damaging policy goes ahead, equity in the family home will be eaten into and after the cared for individual passes away, the home will have to be sold. As too many families know, the costs of caring for someone with dementia can be catastrophic and with people living longer and dementia prevalence rising, more people will need social care for longer.
These proposals have not been properly thought through. They raise more questions, cause more problems and quite simply fail to deliver much needed solutions for the social care crisis. What happens if there is a partner still living in the property when the person receiving social care passes away? Will they have to be thrown out of their own home so the remaining social care bill can be paid? Even if the issue of property and living partners is resolved by delaying the debt payment until they have passed away too, the policies outlined in the manifesto will cause devastation to large sections of the Brent population and South Asian communities in particular.
In Brent and other areas, South Asian communities choose to live in the same family home and it is not uncommon for up to four generations of a family to be living in the same property. The housing crisis has also meant that families are even choosing to build and expand their home and live together rather than enter the housing market. It is ironic that the section of the manifesto that this proposal appears in is under the heading ‘a restored contract between the generations’ as their approach completely ignores the intergenerational dependencies of families who strive to care for each other.
When elderly relatives pass away after receiving social care, their children could find themselves homeless. The Tories say that families will be able to keep £100,000 of equity in the family home. The average price of a property in Brent is £535,803 meaning that their children will have to try and find on average £435,000 to try and keep their family home.
On top of bringing the social care system to the brink of collapse over the last seven years, the current Tory thinking looks to create even more problems rather than solutions to the crisis.
At the Council AGM on Wednesday, the Brent Council Leadership team was confirmed.
The cabinet has been cut down by 20% to just 8 now. With the Council faced with number reductions at Director and staff level, it was only right that this was reviewed too.
The full cabinet
Leader of the Council – Cllr Muhammed Butt
Deputy Leader – Cllr Michael Pavey
Adults, Health and Wellbeing – Cllr Krupesh Hirani
Children and Young People – Cllr Ruth Moher
Employment and Skills – Cllr Roxanne Mashari
Environment – Cllr Keith Perrin
Regeneration and Housing – Cllr Margaret McLennan
Stronger Communities – Cllr James Denselow
Cllr Kana Neeharathan will be the Mayor of Brent and Cllr Lesley Jones will serve as Deputy Mayor. Chair of Scrutiny is Cllr Aslam Choudry and Cllr Sarah Marquis will now Chair the Planning Committee.
The Tories probably stole the show on the night as it emerged that they would split into two political parties – the Brondesbury Park Conservative Group and the Conservative Party.
It seems bizarre as it was only a couple of weeks ago that residents in Brondesbury Park voted in three Conservative Councillors.
Yesterday was the first reading of the Budget in the Brent Town Hall Council chamber.
There is a bit of a gloomy outlook with Brent having to make further cuts to the Budget as part of the wider £104 million that Brent has to make over the comprehensive spending review period.
Tory Liberal Councillors did their best to let the bankers off scot-free and set the blame on the previous Labour Government.
However, I spoke and made a contribution saying that regardless of whether you believe that the international banking crisis or the previous Labour Government and Gordon Brown is to blame for the country’s deficit and deficits of USA, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Germany, France and many more…. why don’t we think about Brent for a second.
Even if you believe that the cuts are necessary and that the debt should be tackled within one Parliament, is it fair that Brent Council has to make cuts in the region of 27-28% of our controllable budget whilst other Councils are getting more money?
How can the Brent Tory Liberals defend Brent losing out on resources while other areas are having Budget increases?
I have blogged about this before LINK.
Why should Brent have to cut more than others? If Tory Liberal Councillors do blame Labour for creating the deficit and the Coalition Government are holier than thou, are they still defending the level of cuts to Brent compared to others and supporting the damage made to Brent while other Councils are being given more money?
Brent Labour received an overwhelming positive response this weekend as we were joined by Labour Students and Labour Young Labour on the streets of Brent with our petition calling for our local MP to vote against the proposed rise in tuition fees and not to scrap EMA, which would affect 4,000 children in Brent.
We have the petition online and you can sign it here: LINK
One individual I spoke to in particular, who lives in Kensal Green, voted for Sarah Teather at the 2010 general election and vented that she was disgusted with herself and felt physically sick that she had been swayed by her.
Not everyone however was in support of our campaign. I did speak to a Willesden Green resident who I learned used to be vice-chair of a local Conservative Ward. He was pleased because throughout all of these years, he had always wanted a Tory MP and now in Sarah Teather he finally has one. But hey, you can’t win them all.