An important observation which can be made from the Earls Court by election is just how narrow and socially exclusive a pool of people that the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat candidates were selected from. Both Linda Wade, the Liberal Democrat candidate, and Malcolm Spalding, the Conservative candidate, are committee members of the Earls Court Society. Linda Wade's friend, and colleague in the Liberal Democrat party, Jennifer Ware, is also an officer of the Earls Court Society. It can be said that these individuals come from a similar social milieu and are colleagues and socialise in the same social circles. While this is no crime, and these individuals are perfectly entitled to associate with whom they wish, the observation which this blog has always wished to make is that when individuals are selected for public office from such a narrow pool of people, the parties which select such individuals become increasingly out of touch with the world outside and less and less representative of the people they seek to represent. Once they get elected to the Council, they make the Council less representative and responsive to the needs of the wider community. They tend to have established contacts with the leaders of Residents Associations or other socially exclusive interest groups in their ward and the borough, populated as they are by articulate, often well heeled, individuals, who also have the time to devote to such voluntary organisations. So it came as no surprise that the campaigns of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were dominated by issues of concern to the local residents associations to the exclusion of issues which directly affected those who were dependent on Council social services or who were in private rented or social housing. Issues of housing benefit, security of tenure for social housing tenants, cuts in services and whether they will affect care for the elderly, are just not issues for those who inhabit the rarified atmosphere of such organisations as the Earls Court Society. These issues were not highlighted by either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. The Labour Party did raise the issue of housing benefit cuts but as their campaign in Earls Court was minimal, or rather invisible, this blog believes that a potentially much larger turn out of Labour voters did not transpire. This failure by all of the parties to engage with a wider range of voters is one reason for the low turn out.
Although Kensington and Chelsea is an affluent borough, it is also a remarkably diverse borough in terms of social and ethnic groups and you would not think this if you looked at the Councillors. It is not just in the north of the borough that there are concentrations of residents on a low income, and in social housing or from an ethnic minority. Anyone visiting Earls Court, or Cremorne wards during the by elections would also observe that the borough is not just home for the rich. In Earls Court there is a large concentration of private rented bedsits and in flats in multiple occupancy buildings, as well as social housing interspersed among the owner occupied houses on the leafy streets. There are also some sheltered residences for vulnerable people who need supported living. When the Earls Court by election was announced it was the belief of this blog that there was a vast number of voters who needed to be reached who were previously ignored and who probably didn't vote. These communities of the poor and vulnerable needed to be reached to find out how their Councillor could be more representative and responsive to their needs and concerns. Unfortunately, none of the parties engaged this electorate as to do so would involve more than just putting leaflets through the letterbox.
But the price of ignoring a huge swathe of residents who are inarticulate, poor, or from an ethnic minority, and who do not really fit in with the existing mechanisms of communication with the Council through residents associations or other interest or cultural groups, is that on something as big as housing benefit cuts or cuts in services the political parties and the Council will be oblivious to the impact these policies will have, and their consequences for the community. Contrary to the Daily Mail sensationalist stories of housing benefit claimants living in the lap of luxury in huge houses in Kensington, most claimants in the borough either live in modest private rented accommodation, probably bedsits, or they live in social housing. A cut in housing benefit and in their other benefits is at risk of causing these individuals homelessness, debt, and a worsening of health problems. If the problem is not resolved, residents in the borough can expect an increase in homelessness, prostitution, crime, drugs dealing, and begging on our streets. This problem will affect everybody who lives in the borough, which is why this blog is raising this important issue.
A Council that is out of touch with the concerns of its poorer residents is in danger of storing up problems of social isolation, apathy, and social exclusion which undermines community cohesion. Part of the problem is the limited experience of many of those on the Council, with many Councillors having no experience of poverty or interest in how it affects those communities. The blog is not suggesting that Sir Merrick Cockell should live on a council estate for a month, but it is urging him to consider having his administration give greater consideration to the impact of cuts in spending on the least well off and vulnerable residents in the borough. We are also suggesting greater consultation with local groups, not just residents associations, but also those organisations that work with vulnerable people locally such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, local churches that work with the poor, and so on, as well as housing associations and tenants associations to get as wide a range of opinion as possible on the policies that will affect them.
But all the political parties need to reach out to recruit members from these communities, to listen to their needs, to select candidates for the Council or nominate individuals from a wide variety of social and ethnic backgrounds for other positions in the Council, including the independent members of the Standards Committee. More importantly, the solution will require the socially excluded and ethnic groups themselves to find ways of getting their interests represented at the Council.
Posts
