A FURIOUS political row flared at a meeting of Warrington Borough Council with the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives accused the ruling Labour group of using the disabled to score cheap political points – and Labour accusing opposition councillors of burying their heads in the sand.The row broke out after Labour councillors Hitesh Patel and Maureen McLaughlin tabled a motion – reported by Warrington-Worldwide last Saturday – condemning the Coalition Government for cuts alleged to be having an unjust impact on disabled people in Warrington.
They claimed the Government’s decision to withdraw the requirement for conducting equality assessment would further disadvantage disabled people in Warrington.
Lib Dem group leader Cllr Ian Marks, proposed an amendment which deleted the attacks on the Government but retained points praising the work of local disability campaigners and the importance of taking account of the needs of disabled people.
He said, “There are many criticisms we can throw at the last Labour Government but two are pertinent for this debate. Many are familiar with Labour Minister Liam Byrne’s letter to his successor as Chief Secretary to the Treasury – ‘I’m afraid that there is no money’.
“Poll after poll shows that the public to not have confidence in Labour being able to clear up the financial mess they left us.”
Cllr Marks said Labour had also burdened the country with bureaucracy and red tape such as the equality assessments.He asked how Labour squared its commitment to on-going, expensive equality assessment with the comments of newly appointed Shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves, who had said Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives on cutting the benefits bill.
After the meeting Cllr Marks said: “Several of my colleagues were disgusted at the suggestion by one of the Labour speakers that we did not care about disabled people. The accusations were a disgrace.”
Conservative leader Cllr Paul Kennedy also attacked Labour for the comments,
He said all members and officers of Warrington Borough Council had always worked hard to do the best they could for those those less fortunate than themselves.
The Labour motion indulged too much in national party politics and in his view, the matter was far too important for such politicisation.
Residents had a right to expect better from their councillors.
“Our amendment took the politics out of the original motion and could and should have been supported across the whole chamber.”
Cllr Kennedy said he feared more similar motions as part of a “General Election campaign” between now and May 2015.
He sensed residents would not be impressed by such political “knockabouts.”
But Labour slammed local coalition councillors for failing to support the motion highlighting just how badly disabled people were being hit by the Coalition Government’s policies.
Cllr Patel said: “When residents start crying at my councillor surgeries because of the bedroom tax and other government policies you know something is really wrong.
“Independent research by the Centre for Welfare Reform has proved that disabled people in Warrington are being hit the hardest by the Coalition Government’s policies.
“By 2015, as a direct result of cuts to benefits, legal aid, social care support, disabled people will see their income drop by £8,832 in real terms, That’s 19 times more than the rest of the population who will see a reduction of just £467.”
He claimed the motion had been a “rallying call” for councillors of all polital persuasions to stand together for the sake of Warrington residents.
“ Instead the Tories and their Lib Dem bedfellows chose to bury their head in the sand and abstain.”
Pictured: Cllr Marks (right) and Cllr Kennedy (left)
Political row flares at council
66 Comments
Share.
6 Comments
I too have had vulnerable residents crying when I have visited them on this issue. The first was over twelve months ago when an old lady on dialysis received her letter from her housing association informing her that she had to pay.
Being in poor health she was very fearful of having to move away from her friends and neighbours, she loved her house and her community. She also wondered how she was going to manage to get to hospital for her regular treatment if she was forced to move away.
She decided that she would have to pay because she didn’t want to leave her home and felt that it was a fait accompli.
Only time will tell how she gets on!
A drop of £8,832 seems very accurate, would councillor Patel like to show how this figure was arrived at?
BTW, this much derided ‘bedroom tax’ seems to be getting people off benefits and back to work all over the country ……. but perhaps not in Warrington?
The electorate are not as simple as our local politicians would like to think or have us believe. None of the participants in last night’s debate in the Town Hall will make a fig of difference to any decisions made by MPs in the Commons, many of which will impact adversely and possibly unreasonably on councils and people across the country.
Debating motions of criticism and censure of Common’s decisions locally in the Town hall along party lines are therefore meaningless and a waste of valuable Council time that could be devoted more productively to matters on which our local politicians are better place to resolve. These local debates are therefore a needless distraction from the real reason we elected our councillors. Some might reasonably argue they are also a smokescreen put up to conceal local political shortcomings and there is an ever increasing list of those waiting to be dealt with.
Why don’t our councillors stick to dealing with dog fouling, over-pruned trees and sorting out the wilderness that is the town centre?….talk about having ideas above their stations
“…cheap political points…”
“…burying their heads in the sand.”
Heh, sounds like just another cliche ridden day on the WWW forum.
No evidence for that – there is plenty of evidence that it has increased rent arrears. Pity you perpetuate the myth that in work means not receiving benefits. The vast majority of those receiving working age benefits are in work. A more effective way to reduce benefit expenditure would be to make the minimum wage a living wage. The biggest scroungers are employers who rely on the payment of benefits to their workforce to subsidise their wage bill.