Publicity costs in Epsom

When Epsom and Ewell Borough Council posted their annual accounts for public consumption last month, there were some curious omissions. Not least the fact that, for some reason, officers were not keen to detail any publicity costs for the Council over the past year. A few well-placed questions from our local paper later, and the reason becomes more clear. At the same time as cutting services for its residents, our Council is spending £54,000 a year to outsource its newsletter to an external agency…which is then charging them to advertise in their own publication.

A month ago, the Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles announced a toughening up of rules regarding council newsletters. His goal is to ensure that local newspapers are not put out of business by tax payer-funded publications. Indicating that Council-authored papers increase junk mail, and undermine the free press, Pickles said:

"Councils should spend less time and money on weekly town hall Pravdas that end up in the bin, and focus more on frontline services like providing regular rubbish collections.”

I couldn’t agree more. The situation is even more exasperating in Epsom, however, as the company which won the tender to produce our local ‘Borough Insight’ (EM Communications) claims the Council specifically asked them to price advertising separately from the production and distribution costs of the paper. As the Epsom Guardian reports, the Council voted against allowing commercial organisations to advertise in the Insight to drive down costs. Instead, EM Communications only accepts Council-sponsored adverts, charging the Town Hall £150 for each one.

At an approximate cost of £10,000 per issue, the Epsom and Ewell ‘Pravda’ is a luxury this Council can no longer afford. If Eric isn’t looking hard at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council now, I’m guessing he soon will be. I think the Council’s Liberal Democrat Leader Julie Morris put it best:

“Spending £54,000 each year on a publication which, for the most part, is very dull and merely props up the policies of those in control of the council, is no longer appropriate…£54,000 would offset quite a lot of the spending cuts this year, wouldn't it?”

(N.B. - links to Epsom Guardian story to follow once it is posted online)

Council Houses - It's good to talk...

Seems I picked a good time to upgrade my Twitter to Journotwit! Being able to organize searches more effectively by subject has allowed me to enjoy a veritable torrent of ‘nasty’, ‘Thatcherite’, and ‘back to the 80s’ tweets today. It seems that David Cameron’s comments on council housing at a Cameron Direct meeting yesterday have whipped up a particularly virulent storm with the left-wing Tweeters. Reading some of the comments, you’d be mistaken for thinking that the Cabinet are spending their recess running up and down the country, busting in the doors and kicking out the disadvantaged. Oh please…

I fully understand that the concept of a ‘home’ can be a very emotive one, and Government comment on it raises the same hackles as, say, over the BBC or NHS. However, when we find ourselves in a situation where there is not enough affordable housing in this country, but where the economy does not allow us to build more, surely it is a bit much to greet the mention of a potential policy with quite such a howl of horror?

The idea that someone can be granted a Council house ‘for life’ is problematic. Surely it is better to take a look at how an individual’s personal circumstances change over time, and then assess whether they still require the same level of assistance? This is, after all, what happens in terms of employment, incapacity and other housing benefits. Why should council housing be treated any differently?

The Guardian has a story which takes Cameron’s comments in the context of plans for a national house-swap scheme outlined by Housing Minister Grant Shapps today. There are currently 250,000 people in this country living in houses that are too small for their families, and 400,000 living in houses that are too big. This is not good enough, and the Government is failing the quarter of a million people who do not have sufficient room to live.

According to Paul Waugh, sources say that Cameron’s answer was merely an answer to an ‘emotive’ question at the Cameron Direct event; a comment on the benefits of such an idea rather than ‘a set-in-stone policy’. Personally, I hope that this mean that we can finally have a reasoned debate about the state of Council housing in this country and, even better, find a sensible way to move forward with managing it better.