David Cameron on a visit to Hammersmith in 2011. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the Tories lost David Cameron’s favourite council

The Conservatives' shock loss of Hammersmith and Fulham last week rocked the party. Why did the celebrated Tory borough swing to Labour?

When Labour clinched control of Hammersmith and Fulham Council last week, it was the chief success story of the local elections amid largely lacklustre results for the party nationwide.

It was the killer headline Labour needed. After all, Hammersmith and Fulham was not only a “safe” Tory stronghold; it also happened to be David Cameron’s “favourite council”.

Even the local Labour party seemed surprised at their triumph. Lisa Homan, a Labour councillor in the borough since 2006, told me yesterday that while local activists had campaigned hard: “Quite frankly we didn’t know if we would win until the count.”

Contesting a Conservative majority of 16 councillors, Labour wrested 11 seats from their rivals. Popular support for the Tories appeared to have melted away, despite a last-minute visit from the prime minister just a week before the election to bolster the local vote.

Cameron’s affection for the borough mirrored a widespread and vocal celebration of Hammersmith and Fulham among Tories nationwide. It had come to be seen as an austerity success story – Conservative policies working effectively on a local level. The council was taking steps to reduce the deficit and make efficiencies, but also sharing those savings with residents by slashing council tax year-on-year.

The Tory-led council also demonstrated economic ingenuity by collaborating with two other Conservative-controlled councils in London – Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster –  in order to achieve economies of scale.

The “tri-borough” arrangement, established three years ago, subsumed children’s services, adult care and libraries under one shared authority to cut costs. As of last September Hammersmith and Fulham also shared a chief executive with Kensington and Chelsea to preside over further joint efficiencies. The national party swiftly woke to the marketing value of the area as a microcosm of Conservative policies in action.

Government affection for Hammersmith and Fulham only grew after its enthusiastic uptake of education secretary Michael Gove’s flagship policy. Hammersmith was the site of the country’s first free school in 2011, when journalist Toby Young founded the West London Free School. With six new free schools opening in the borough, it has become the champion of Conservative education policy.

So why did Hammersmith and Fulham, the Tories’ treasured borough, swing so conclusively to Labour last week?

Certainly a number of high-profile local issues dominated the election campaigns, into which both parties had poured heavy resources. The election agenda included the shake-up of local hospitals, including Charing Cross Hospital; the redevelopment of Shepherd’s Bush market; and the approval of the controversial Earl’s Court development plans, which will see the iconic events venue torn down to make way for luxury flats.

In many senses these local issues played into the national narrative. The emphasis on executive flats, coupled with a lack of affordable housing is a widespread source of anger against the government throughout the UK. But in Hammersmith and Fulham, the frustration was heightened and the suspicion of a Tory agenda against affordable and social housing was compounded by a 2009 paper co-authored by former Conservative council leader Stephen Greenhalgh calling for a move to “near market rents” and an end to lifelong secure tenancies for social tenants.

The south-east and London-centric problem of executive housing being sold off to foreign investors before being offered on the domestic market was also epitomised by Hammersmith and Fulham, where, according to Labour figures, as much as 80 per cent of new developments were sold overseas.

Homan said that concern about housing ranged from property-owning middle classes to social tenants. She said: “Better-off people began to see their children can’t afford to live in the borough where they were born and grew up.”

She added: “People were fed up with the way they were treated and not listened to. Especially people on housing estates, the elderly, and all those with the least voice.”

Labour's new council leader Stephen Cowan told me that the Conservative-led council’s approval of the demolition of Charing Cross hospital also played into a wider narrative about the public mistrusting the government to look after healthcare and local hospitals.

Pointing out that Labour had achieved a 15 per cent swing in the wealthy ward of Fulham Broadway, Cowan added: “The liberal intelligentsia, of which there are many in Hammersmith and Fulham, have come back to us with a passion because Labour has rejuvenated. We’re offering a credible democratic alternative to Osborne’s austerity and they see that.”

The Labour Party is certainly pleased to have won back the council.  Labour MP for Hammersmith Andy Slaughter’s relief was palpable when he said last week’s triumph was “the most fantastic result we've had in London for years”.  Although he won a 3,500 vote majority in the last general election, Labour’s grip on the constituency was felt to be threatened by Conservative council policies perceived to be aimed at attracting rich professionals and investors, and pushing out poorer tenants.

Labour should now reflect not only on how it managed to carve inroads into Conservative heartland in wealthy West London, but whether such success is replicable elsewhere in next year’s general election.

Lucy Fisher writes about politics and is the winner of the Anthony Howard Award 2013. She tweets @LOS_Fisher.

 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.