# Are Lambeth Labour going to get voted back in in 2018?



## teuchter (Feb 25, 2018)

No-one seems to like them but they keep getting voted back in. 

Why?


----------



## Winot (Feb 25, 2018)

teuchter said:


> No-one seems to like them but they keep getting voted back in.
> 
> Why?



At the risk of being circular, isn’t it just that the electorate believes all the other choices are worse?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 25, 2018)

Winot said:


> At the risk of being circular, isn’t it just that the electorate believes all the other choices are worse?


Maybe, but I wonder to what extent people vote based on knowledge of what the council actually does, rather than how the Labour Party presents itself nationally.

All the things we discuss endlessly on here - Cressingham, The arches, Pop Brixton - how much do these kinds of things have any effect on voting at local elections.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Feb 25, 2018)

It's a harder choice for me since Corbyn became leader becuse I want to support what he stands for (and before someone pounces on that, he may not be perfect but better than other options), but at the same time I don't want to give my vote to lambeth labour. And any decrease in local support is seen as a reflection on the party and it's leadership as a whole. Still not sure what way I will vote.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 25, 2018)

Of course they will. They exist as an election winning machine, and little else. This is perhaps the one thing that Lambeth Labour is outstanding at.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 25, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Of course they will. They exist as an election winning machine, and little else. This is perhaps the one thing that Lambeth Labour is outstanding at.



The best that can be hoped for is a decreased majority, which would at least make for a larger opposition block.

What would really help our borough is a referendum on cabinet governance, with the inherent minimalisation of scrutiny it entails. A return to committee governance might be slower, but it would allow alternative opinions, as well as dissent from party lines.


----------



## sealion (Feb 25, 2018)

It's like blind loyalty akin to supporting a football team. Dyed in red or blue but no matter how bad they are, how much they fuck you over, you will still support them for ever more. Imo it's why politics will never change.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 25, 2018)

The local party machine is arrogant about winning elections in Lambeth. It likes to pimp itself out to help other Comrades.



Edit to add: the complacency of Lambeth Labour is only possible because the opposition is so shit. There has been no alternative in the past eight years or so. The Greens are finally getting their arse in gear, but the gains will be small. 

The true opposition comes from the likes of Save Cressingham, the People's Audit and Defend the Ten.

Whatever happened to Reclaim Brixton? I felt that this was a mass of opinion that was worth developing further. After the initial event there was a rather limp discussion gathering on Windrush Square. The enthusiasm had gone.

I'm surprised that Momentum is way behind in the borough when compared to Haringey. I thought that the group would be a lot stronger in Lambeth. They either left it too late to put forward candidates for 2018, or had obstacles put in their way by the Progress wing. Which leaves us with four more years of a Progress Cabinet. Thinking about how much destruction they can create in the next four years is very worrying.


----------



## Slo-mo (Feb 25, 2018)

One issue in Lambeth is that there is no clear opposition, there are three alternatives but none of them are in a very strong position.

The Tories are the 'official' opposition, but they only have three seats, and are weak in London generally at the moment and many Lambeth residents wouldn't dream of voting for them.

The Greens came second in terms of vote share last time, but they've suffered since Corbyn took over as Labour leader and did very poorly in recent opinion polls and last year's general election.

Which just leaves the Lib Dems, who were top of the poll the last time someone other than Labour won in Lambeth. They came second in Vauxhall at the last general election but there is the small matter that they have no council seats at all at the moment. And they may still be in the dog house with some people for propping up the Tories between 2010 and 2015.

Combine the divided opposition with first past the post and it's hard to see anything other than a very easy Labour hold in Lambeth.


----------



## brixtonblade (Feb 25, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> The best that can be hoped for is a decreased majority, which would at least make for a larger opposition block.
> 
> What would really help our borough is a referendum on cabinet governance, with the inherent minimalisation of scrutiny it entails. A return to committee governance might be slower, but it would allow alternative opinions, as well as dissent from party lines.


Agree with this.
The current seat distribution and the cabinet system is very unhealthy.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 26, 2018)

The opposition is disappointing. The green candidates in past years have seemed too flakey. Reclaim Brixton is just a facebook group for shouty people to posture on now, as far as I can see. I'm impressed with what the peoples audit people are doing but they want to be apolitical. Save Cressigham seem well organised but by nature are focussed on a single issue.
It's a shame more people don't stand as independents. In fact there are a couple of posters on here who, although I don't always agree with them, I reckon I'd vote for them if they stood.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Reclaim Brixton is just a facebook group for shouty people to posture on now, as far as I can see.


yeh you'd never be shouty or posture online.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 26, 2018)

teuchter said:


> The opposition is disappointing. The green candidates in past years have seemed too flakey. Reclaim Brixton is just a facebook group for shouty people to posture on now, as far as I can see. I'm impressed with what the peoples audit people are doing but they want to be apolitical. Save Cressigham seem well organised but by nature are focussed on a single issue.
> It's a shame more people don't stand as independents. In fact there are a couple of posters on here who, although I don't always agree with them, I reckon I'd vote for them if they stood.


I think you are not allowing for the incumbency effect.

Many Labour candidates are also flaky - but being able to put Councillor in front of their name adds enormous credibility. 

You are right about independent views being put before the electorate - and of course the present Cabinet system introduced by the Blair government concentrates power in the hands of a possibly unrepresentative élite clique (definitely so in Lambeth I would contend) and squashes the ability of individual councillors to raise constituents concerns.

As it happens Momentum are petitioning about returning to committees in stead of the cabinet model, but personally I would not be particularly happy about returning to committees with Momentum in charge. Wouldn't that be back to the future? - rule by an official Labour group supported by an unofficial Labour group as in 1990-1994.

I think the council is correct to say that most of Lambeth's problems originate with government policy (particularly extreme funding cuts to councils). Changing the councillors will not change the problem, although it is certainly true that Progress Labour's current solution to everything - outsource and destroy - is immoral, unwanted by the electorate and damaging to those council estate leaseholders who will be dispossessed.

Whoever people vote for, it would make sense for Lambeth to have a bigger better opposition to the Lambeth Labour behemoth.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 26, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I think you are not allowing for the incumbency effect.
> 
> Many Labour candidates are also flaky - but being able to put Councillor in front of their name adds enormous credibility.



I'm sure you're right - however, a flakiness of a councillor acting as part of a Labour group doesn't have the same significance as that of a small number making up an "opposition". You don't want your opposition eggs in a flakey basket, as it were, because it makes it very easy for the credibility of any opposition to be written off. There might be very valid criticisms of actions the council are taking but if the only person there to take issue with them is mixing it up with other, more dubious accusations then the whole lot gets disregarded. Same reason I get worked up about online articles that aren't properly fact-checked or objective.


----------



## aka (Feb 26, 2018)

The Lib Dems need to front a proper candidate or two with back-bone and the Greens need to stop talking utter balls. Labour in Lambeth really are there for the taking if any opposition could muster a decent campaign.  The Tories should fund a side campaign to get the LDs under the radar.

"I think the council is correct to say that most of Lambeth's problems originate with government policy"  - nope.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 26, 2018)

aka said:


> The Lib Dems need to front a proper candidate or two with back-bone and the Greens need to stop talking utter balls. Labour in Lambeth really are there for the taking if any opposition could muster a decent campaign.  The Tories should fund a side campaign to get the LDs under the radar.
> 
> "I think the council is correct to say that most of Lambeth's problems originate with government policy"  - nope.



The LibDems in Lambeth problem is that the electorate punished them for national issues. LibDems supporting Tories and the student fee issue.

I'm no LibDem supporter. However the small number of LD Cllrs like Palmer for example were very good Cllrs. They would bring up issues that the average backbench Labour Cllr would , understandably, be afraid to take up. They were wiped out not because they were bad Cllrs but because the electorate punished them for the crimes of that tosser Clegg. ( Do we hear anything of him now?) Imo the LDs were a good opposition. Now there is just one Green Cllr. The Labour group treat him with no respect at all. I consider the Labour group treatment of the one Green Cllr as childish and bullying. From what I've seen the one Green Cllr has been doing a good job despite the abuse from the all powerful Progress Labour group. I don't think I could put up with what he has had to

I also think, as someone who loathes Blairites , that a bit of perspective needs to be reinstated. This government is hammering local Councils Why? It's easy way to pursue " austerity" economics whilst the anger gets deflected onto local Cllrs.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I also think, as someone who loathes Blairites , that a bit of perspective needs to be reinstated. This government is hammering local Councils Why? It's easy way to pursue " austerity" economics whilst the anger gets deflected onto local Cllrs.



Whilst of course central government imposed austerity is of course a key factor, and the mess ends up at local council (and NHS, CCG, etc) level to try and sort, its undeniable that a lot of councillors are often very much part of the same networks and have shared interests as developers and that regularly plays out. We see it with Lambeth, Haringay, and Newham Labour.

When I started getting involved in defend social housing actions, you start to uncover all manner of what ought to be conflicting interests that shouldn't be allowed - so whilst councillors conveniently 'blame it on government cuts', they are also directors and business associates of developers and elaborate regeneration partnerships both utilising public and private money and investment streams (and which seems to pay pretty decent salaries to their self-appointed directors, lots of glossy material, etc) but ultimately don't appear to deliver an awful lot for public benefit. Those councillors are just as much the problem.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 27, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Whilst of course central government imposed austerity is of course a key factor, and the mess ends up at local council (and NHS, CCG, etc) level to try and sort, its undeniable that a lot of councillors are often very much part of the same networks and have shared interests as developers and that regularly plays out. We see it with Lambeth, Haringay, and Newham Labour.
> 
> When I started getting involved in defend social housing actions, you start to uncover all manner of what ought to be conflicting interests that shouldn't be allowed - so whilst councillors conveniently 'blame it on government cuts', they are also directors and business associates of developers and elaborate regeneration partnerships both utilising public and private money and investment streams (and which seems to pay pretty decent salaries to their self-appointed directors, lots of glossy material, etc) but ultimately don't appear to deliver an awful lot for public benefit. Those councillors are just as much the problem.


Surprised you didn't mention Southwark, which seems to be notorious.

Your analysis of conflicting interests is on point. It is a bit of a travesty when Councillors use their political connections as promotional advertising in other work. One thinks of Cllr Hopkins: "Cllr Jack Hopkins oversees some huge regeneration projects in Waterloo and Vauxhall as well as London's best planning department for both small and large development.Jack worked in local government partnerships for a number of years prior to this and brings together a number of different sectors for greater impact for business and communities."
(see Team | Newable)  - this organisation was  formerly Greater London  Enterprise, apparently some sort of Quango now moving towards a more independent and commercial identity.

Anyone know if Cllr Hopkins is actually working for them - or just an "adviser". The fact he is listed on their website as "Cllr" Jack Hopkins suggests possible legacy issues as a borough representative.

Mr Hopkins has loads of interests he has declared.
This ancient Buzz article suggests he is leaving politics, so may being  a Labour councillor was simply a phase, or indeed a transition, in a career of planning and business consultancy (as is very common in Southwark)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 27, 2018)

Jacko is also a Director of Good Plannets Ltd - a "specialist planning consultancy that will give you an expert opinion on what will be acceptable to the local Planning Department."

His wife, Cllr Joanne Simpson, was also listed as being part of the team. She is the current Vice Chair of Lambeth Planning.

The company website has now gone behind closed doors. I'm not sure if the VC of Lambeth Planning is still able to give expert opinions on what is acceptable to the Planning Department.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Jacko is also a Director of Good Plannets Ltd - a "specialist planning consultancy that will give you an expert opinion on what will be acceptable to the local Planning Department."
> 
> His wife, Cllr Joanne Simpson, was also listed as being part of the team. She is the current Vice Chair of Lambeth Planning.
> 
> The company website has now gone behind closed doors. I'm not sure if the VC of Lambeth Planning is still able to give expert opinions on what is acceptable to the Planning Department.


you've seen this of course http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/Declaration_of_Jack_Hopkins.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2018)

CH1 said:


> London's best planning department for both small and large development



Are they talking about Lambeth planning dept and did they have a straight face whilst writing this?


----------



## ricbake (Feb 27, 2018)

This is an odd interest for Councillor Hopkins
Training Labour Ltd is this "Labour" as in Blairite Labour Party and why would he register it at a substantial detached house in Wrexham in August last year?

Correction - not Wrexham - Fakenham


----------



## ChrisSouth (Feb 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> No-one seems to like them but they keep getting voted back in.
> 
> Why?



Because a lot of people can remember how foul the Truesdale/Whelan LibDem-Tory combo was from 2002-2006.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 27, 2018)

ricbake said:


> This is an odd interest for Councillor Hopkins
> Training Labour Ltd is this "Labour" as in Blairite Labour Party and why would he register it at a substantial detached house in Wrexham in August last year?


Has anyone put this up yet for Captain Jack?
 
*Chief Executive*

* 	Company Name: 	Night Time Industries Association  *

* 	Dates Employed 	Feb 2017 – Feb 2018 *

* 	 Employment Duration 	 1 yr 1 mo 	*
The NTIA is the main trade body which supports, protects and enhances clubs, festivals, street food outlets and late night entertainment. We believe deeply that the Night time economy is crucial to the economic wellbeing of Britains towns and cities, as well as providing spaces for cultural and personal exploration and expression. We are changing how the Night time is seen by decision makers, changing licensing, plannng and regulatory policy at a local level and fighting for stronger and more cooperative relationships.


----------



## ricbake (Feb 27, 2018)

Strange that Councillor Simpson doesn't appear register to any declarations of interest to the Planning Committee


----------



## agricola (Feb 27, 2018)

ricbake said:


> This is an odd interest for Councillor Hopkins
> Training Labour Ltd is this "Labour" as in Blairite Labour Party and why would he register it at a substantial detached house in Wrexham in August last year?



Just as an aside, that is Holt in Norfolk and not the Holt on the civilized side of the border.


----------



## ricbake (Feb 27, 2018)

Near FAKEnham ... I stand corrected!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Feb 27, 2018)

ricbake said:


> Strange that Councillor Simpson doesn't appear register to any declarations of interest to the Planning Committee
> 
> View attachment 128606



Maybe she is no longer involved in her husband's business?

She also earns money working in the Planning department at Richmond Council. This apparently doesn't need to be declared, even if you are the Vice Chair of Planning in another London local authority.


----------



## ricbake (Feb 27, 2018)

Her employment appears on the register of interests ...


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Whilst of course central government imposed austerity is of course a key factor, and the mess ends up at local council (and NHS, CCG, etc) level to try and sort, its undeniable that a lot of councillors are often very much part of the same networks and have shared interests as developers and that regularly plays out. We see it with Lambeth, Haringay, and Newham Labour.
> 
> When I started getting involved in defend social housing actions, you start to uncover all manner of what ought to be conflicting interests that shouldn't be allowed - so whilst councillors conveniently 'blame it on government cuts', they are also directors and business associates of developers and elaborate regeneration partnerships both utilising public and private money and investment streams (and which seems to pay pretty decent salaries to their self-appointed directors, lots of glossy material, etc) but ultimately don't appear to deliver an awful lot for public benefit. Those councillors are just as much the problem.



The bigger picture imo is that local Labour party politics would argue this is the only way forward. Central government funding has been cut drastically over years. The only feasible way to get things down is semi privatisation such as Lambeth setting up a "development vehicle" to build housing.

Or take library issue. The "choice" was between different kinds of semi privatisation. The Council gym library with possibly a "community trust" managing at Carnegie. Or Defend the Ten community trust. Both are moving away from Council run services. To services that are partly privatised.

There have been several posts on Cllr Hopkins. He imo wasn't corrupt. He was 100% New Labour. Take Network Rail. NR are bringing a large amount of inward investment to Brixton. It was embarrassing for Council that NR evicted the small shopkeepers.  NR told Council they were going to do that. Hopkins said he knew but decided not to tell Joe Public.I don't think Hopkins was in pay of NR. It's that New Labour see working with big business as the only game in town. There will be vocal protests but they are to be ignored. My problem with Lambeth New Labour Cllrs is that they have moved from representing the people to being the best managers of the local state for business. ( See Hopkins CV. Says it all) In the hope that benefits will  trickle down. Cllr Rachel grew to not being able to stomach this role. For speaking out she was crushed. So what I'm saying is that under New Labour they don't see themselves as having conflict of interest. They see being best managers of capitalism as making them electable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> The opposition is disappointing. The green candidates in past years have seemed too flakey. Reclaim Brixton is just a facebook group for shouty people to posture on now, as far as I can see. I'm impressed with what the peoples audit people are doing but they want to be apolitical. Save Cressigham seem well organised but by nature are focussed on a single issue.
> It's a shame more people don't stand as independents. In fact there are a couple of posters on here who, although I don't always agree with them, I reckon I'd vote for them if they stood.



It's difficult to stand as an independent for a borough ward. The sheer size (6,000-8,000 dwellings on average) means that without a sizable canvassing team, you're buggered before you begin, however noble your cause. Even Labour are cherry-picking where they canvass, in my ward. They're aiming at the streets where they didn't poll well in the 2017 GE, and for the homes where there's no reported vote from the polling data.

As for TPA, they don't WANT to be apolitical, they - as shown last Thursday - HAVE to be apolitical in order to not give Lambeth Labour any ammunition - not that Lambeth Labour don't fabricate stuff anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I think you are not allowing for the incumbency effect.
> 
> Many Labour candidates are also flaky - but being able to put Councillor in front of their name adds enormous credibility.
> 
> ...



Committee governance at least allows dissent to be aired more widely than it can be in a cabinet system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Surprised you didn't mention Southwark, which seems to be notorious.
> 
> Your analysis of conflicting interests is on point. It is a bit of a travesty when Councillors use their political connections as promotional advertising in other work. One thinks of Cllr Hopkins: "Cllr Jack Hopkins oversees some huge regeneration projects in Waterloo and Vauxhall as well as London's best planning department for both small and large development.Jack worked in local government partnerships for a number of years prior to this and brings together a number of different sectors for greater impact for business and communities."
> (see Team | Newable)  - this organisation was  formerly Greater London  Enterprise, apparently some sort of Quango now moving towards a more independent and commercial identity.
> ...



Jack the Hand is standing down in May, but his boast about "overseeing" does need scrutiny. He oversees the sum total of dick, unless ward cllrs have some previously unknown and unused oversight powers. , and he's had bugger all to do with the planning dept at Lambeth, unless he's been suborning his missus.

One hilarious thing about Jacko is his membership of both Progress and Momentum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 27, 2018)

ChrisSouth said:


> Because a lot of people can remember how foul the Truesdale/Whelan LibDem-Tory combo was from 2002-2006.



And Fitchett's _off piste_ exertions on the "auctioned local authority properties" market.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 28, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> And Fitchett's _off piste_ exertions on the "auctioned local authority properties" market.


Who cooked this one up? The real cost of regeneration
Just asking - coz it looks like it started under the Lib Dem/Tory régime and was consummated by Labour. Matthew Bennett gets several mentions. Maybe Zoe Williams got most of it from him.

It does suggest though what I have believed for many years - it doesn't matter too much which councillors are in officer, its actually the council officers who run the council.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 28, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Who cooked this one up? The real cost of regeneration
> Just asking - coz it looks like it started under the Lib Dem/Tory régime and was consummated by Labour. Matthew Bennett gets several mentions. Maybe Zoe Williams got most of it from him.



She got most of it from resident groups. 90% of the Bennett stuff is retreads of publicly-available comments.



> It does suggest though what I have believed for many years - it doesn't matter too much which councillors are in officer, its actually the council officers who run the council.



That's definitely the case, in my experience. I've dealt with many senior officers (as you probably know, the only way to get stuff done in Lambeth is to hassle the heads of the directorates, not their minions), and I'd say that they're 30% nice people who acknowledge that they're public servants, and 70% utter bastards who don't give a shit for the public, just about executing policy.

The cabinet is effectively a rubber-stamp institution, and an institution that senior officers love, because there are fewer people they need to cultivate, as opposed to the more-difficult-to-manipulate committees. Many cabinet members very obviously don't read the papers - even the short briefing - for the meetings. At cabinet meetings I've attended, I've seen cabinet members look utterly puzzled when a member of the public speaks, and raises a point about a proposal. Whether this is a function of cabinet governance _per se_, or merely an artifact of a lazy, complacent Labour administration, is open to debate.


----------



## bimble (Mar 1, 2018)

Got this today (in an envelope with my name on it). I was pretty sure i live in Coldharbour ward and not herne hill but posting here in case not everyone who might want to vote for him received the same thing.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Got this today (in an envelope with my name on it). I was pretty sure i live in Coldharbour ward and not herne hill but posting here in case not everyone who might want to vote for him received the same thing.
> View attachment 128934
> View attachment 128935


I would expect you are in Herne Hill ward. If it has your name/address they've used the electoral register to address it.

I thought you lived on the Camberwell side of the railway? If so you are definitely in Herne Hill ward. The boundaries changed around the year 2000.

Angell Ward used to stretch from Brixton Road to the Lambeth portion of Denmark Hill (but not Moorlands Estate which was then in Herne Hill - as was that part of Railton Road/Saltoun Road etc which is now in Coldharbour).

I was very sorry to see Angell ward renamed to Coldharbour. Angell is much more elegant - and always used to be top of the list when looking for the results.


----------



## bimble (Mar 1, 2018)

You’re right CH1 i didn’t realise the ward boundary here is the railway line (a few steps from my window).


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 1, 2018)

bimble said:


> Got this today (in an envelope with my name on it). I was pretty sure i live in Coldharbour ward and not herne hill but posting here in case not everyone who might want to vote for him received the same thing.
> 
> 
> View attachment 128934
> ...



I'm getting confused here. The candidate says he stood as Green candidate. Plus organised the Green campaign in Herne Hill.

Now he is standing as "independent". But is supported by Lambeth democracy campaign group. Who I've googled and cannot find website for. Anyone know who they are?

He's not saying he is endorsed as candidate by the Defend the Ten group. Or the Herne Hill Forum.

Nor does he explain why he fell out with Green party. Some of whom I've meet and are ok.

Imo Greens have a chance in Herne hill. Now various candidates are appearing. Vote will be split. Labour will get back in.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 1, 2018)

The correspondence we have had at Buzz with Lambeth Democracy has been sent by Joseph Healy. He has stood previously as a candidate for the Green party.

Lambeth Democracy held a discussion event at the Temple Bowling Club in SE5 last week. Speakers were invited from Save Cressingham, Defend the Ten and The People's Audit.

But like you say Gramsci - the only outcome here is allowing Nu Labour back in once again at Herne Hill.

Sometimes I despair of the Left.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'm getting confused here. The candidate says he stood as Green candidate. Plus organised the Green campaign in Herne Hill.
> 
> Now he is standing as "independent". But is supported by Lambeth democracy campaign group. Who I've googled and cannot find website for. Anyone know who they are?



This is the website given at the head of the flyer

Home - Herne Hill Community and Libraries Campaign


----------



## CH1 (Mar 2, 2018)

teuchter said:


> This is the website given at the head of the flyer
> Home - Herne Hill Community and Libraries Campaign


Looks like this is a "splitter" as Alexi Sayle would say.

I know Joseph Healey - who Green parliamentary candidate for Vauxhall in the 2010 General Elecion - but fell out with the party bigtime, including Peter Tatchell - for what reason I don't know.

My favourite Trot for Vauxhall was Ian Driver (1997 General Election) - Socialist Labour. When asked what to do about the scandal of drugs in Brixton he said "Yes it is scandalous what people have to pay. They should be put on the NHS!"


----------



## CH1 (Mar 2, 2018)

A leaflet for the Wednesday discussion meeting referred to above was handed out at the Cressingham meeting. i had assumed it was a Green party event - clearly not so.

Looks like the factional left are now clustering around the issues of Cressingham Gardens and Carnegie Library - which may or may not affect the Greens and Labour.

If this guy is expecting more that 200 votes he has probably peaked a bit early.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 2, 2018)

Joseph's Healy's campaign back in 2010 was very much based around an International Green agenda, rather than local issues in the constituency. It seemed a little... distant. The current Green lot in Lambeth are very much active in local campaigns.

There was the usual lone SWP seller outside the People's Audit meeting a couple of weeks ago 

Lambeth Labour must be loving all of this.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 2, 2018)

Green have got their campaign up and running early in HH.  I havent been canvassed but have had a load of leaflets and thought they were all fairly good.  Labour haven't done as much but have started distributing leaflets with - er - "interesting" perspectives on their work to improve Carnegie Library and protect the park from over commercialisation.

I dont think anyone else is targeting he ward.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 2, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Joseph's Healy's campaign back in 2010 was very much based around an International Green agenda, rather than local issues in the constituency. It seemed a little... distant. The current Green lot in Lambeth are very much active in local campaigns.
> 
> There was the usual lone SWP seller outside the People's Audit meeting a couple of weeks ago
> 
> Lambeth Labour must be loving all of this.


HH Library Camapign was registered as a political party last September.
No mention of Dr Joseph Healy (as he likes to style himself).

Treasurer is Dr Nicholas Edwards (who is the candidate himself)
Nominating officer is Olga Stelmakh

Anyone know any more? I guess they may be concerned local residents - but in  that case why use a British Monomarks post box?
View registration - The Electoral Commission
Registered party emblem:


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 2, 2018)

It will be interesting to see the full slate of candidates across the wards when they appear in about a months time. Some of those Progress / Labour majorities aren't that big.

I'm expecting to see the LibDems and Greens both getting territorial though and fighting it out in some of the winnable wards. I totally get the idea that you need to give your party members on the ground a candidate to vote for. But actively campaigning against one another just eliminates you both. This is already happening in Oval.

Where *cough* genuine Indie candidates emerge, I really hope that their spirit of independence isn't wiped out by an over-crowded election slate. This is one way to guarantee another one-party borough for the next four years. This isn't good for anyone - including the Progress group who will just retreat up their own arses even further.


----------



## newbie (Mar 2, 2018)

in a one party state the internal machinations of that party matter.  Is anyone up to speed on the power struggles within Streatham and Vauxhall LPs, and the effect that will have on candidate selection?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 2, 2018)

Regarding the Herne Hill situation, Nick Edwards has been an active member of the Friends of Carnegie library for some time, as his leaflet says.
Contact and trustees

He also seems to write most of the articles on the Friends of Carnegie Library website. It is a mystery to me why he has decided to stand as an independent. Surely they can see that it would be better for them to have three Green councillors than 2 with a Labour one - probably Jim Dickson at that.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 2, 2018)

newbie All Lambeth ward branches got their Progress ducks lined up well ahead of Momentum making any noise. One of the questions asked by the Lambeth Campaigns Forum during the interview process was:

"What do you understand by the concept of the party whip?"


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Looks like this is a "splitter" as Alexi Sayle would say.
> 
> I know Joseph Healey - who Green parliamentary candidate for Vauxhall in the 2010 General Elecion - but fell out with the party bigtime, including Peter Tatchell - for what reason I don't know.
> "



He fell out with Green party over Brighton council not opposing austerity cuts.

He was member of Green Left in the party. 

Why I resigned from the Green Party


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2018)

CH1 said:


> HH Library Camapign was registered as a political party last September.
> No mention of Dr Joseph Healy (as he likes to style himself).
> 
> Treasurer is Dr Nicholas Edwards (who is the candidate himself)
> ...


i'm told you don't have to go to holborn to pick up the post, that they will forward it on. it's not like po boxes are secure - there's a simple weird trick to finding out the address of whoever's used their address to get a po box. bm won't - as i understand it - tell people where you live.


----------



## newbie (Mar 2, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> newbie All Lambeth ward branches got their Progress ducks lined up well ahead of Momentum making any noise. One of the questions asked by the Lambeth Campaigns Forum during the interview process was:
> 
> "What do you understand by the concept of the party whip?"


oh  
thanks


----------



## BusLanes (Mar 3, 2018)

brixtonblade said:


> Green have got their campaign up and running early in HH.  I havent been canvassed but have had a load of leaflets and thought they were all fairly good.  Labour haven't done as much but have started distributing leaflets with - er - "interesting" perspectives on their work to improve Carnegie Library and protect the park from over commercialisation.
> 
> I dont think anyone else is targeting he ward.



Lib Dems are about in Herne Hill, as are the Tories.  Probably one of the more fought over wards this time around, although that doesn't mean the result will necessarily be different


----------



## BusLanes (Mar 3, 2018)

The problems of course are that Labour is polling well across city/England, has incumbency advantages and loads of volunteers. Any opposition parties have to husband their resources, focus on targets and heavily use their activists. Whereas Labour could probably just whip their councillors to do all the campaign work and that would be almost enough.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 3, 2018)

I notice his snippet from our old friend Ben Morgan in Wednesday's Evening Standard.

It's a bit surprising this is still rumbling on - or is it?

Anyone at the Cressingham Rotunda meeting (chaired by Kate Hoey) will surely recall Councillor Ed Davie (Chair of the Scrutiny Committee) complaining that a major reason for the council's spending being out of control is the costs of schools - which are largely not set by the council.

Surely Ben Morgan is right to point out the extraordinary shenanigans at Durand School/Academy. Anyone using Google will easily find that Cllr Kevin Craig's PR lobbying firm PMLR was on a retainer from the school, and that enquiries about this led to major ructions - lurid articles in the Daily Mail, and writs issued by M'learned friends at Carter Ruck.

Even the Brixton Buzz reported stuff - including the fact that Kevin Craig had been Kate Hoey's agent.
Lambeth Cllr and Agent for Kate Hoey MP criticised in report for taking payments from Stockwell school
Of course Lambeth Labour is going to win. Swamp draining is not the fashion in Lambeth.


----------



## BusLanes (Mar 4, 2018)

Craig is an interesting person. I know people who know him but have never met him myself. I've sort of been assuming he's been positioning himself for a run at Vauxhall at some point


----------



## CH1 (Mar 4, 2018)

BusLanes said:


> Craig is an interesting person. I know people who know him but have never met him myself. I've sort of been assuming he's been positioning himself for a run at Vauxhall at some point


If he's Kate Hoey's agent he must know it inside out.


----------



## editor (Mar 6, 2018)

I really hope Rachel Heywood stands as an independent, as has been rumoured.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 14, 2018)

MORNIN' JIMBO

"There’s been a revealing exchange of views taking place on the message boards of a popular local online forum over the past couple of weeks. It has the timely subject line *‘Are Lambeth Labour going to voted back in 2018’*?"

Strangely no mention of why *some* in the borough might believe that their children will get a better education across the borough border in Southwark.

Fancy that.


----------



## Sue (Mar 14, 2018)

So who's Jim DIckson? Fess up...


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 14, 2018)

Sue said:


> So who's Jim DIckson? Fess up...



James Rowan Chatterton Dickson, Practice Director at Four Public Affairs, former Leader of Lambeth Council, lost the Council in 1998, now Herne Hill Cllr and Progress Cabinet member. Saviour of the Carnegie library.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2018)

If Jim Dickson were really brave, and confident of his position he'd come on this thread and discuss the points he raises directly, instead of from the safety of the Lambeth Labour website.


----------



## Sue (Mar 14, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> James Rowan Chatterton Dickson, Practice Director at Four Public Affairs, former Leader of Lambeth Council, lost the Council in 1998, now Herne Hill Cllr and Progress Cabinet member. Saviour of the Carnegie library.


No, I meant who's he on here...


----------



## Rushy (Mar 14, 2018)

He concludes:



> _
> I’m clear we only want another 4 year term if Lambeth residents think we genuinely deserve it. _




Well done Jim. Usual glib nonsense.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

Sue said:


> No, I meant who's he on here...



You can view the posts on this section of Urban without being a member of Urban.

Other sections are not viewable.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2018)

Anyway, while it would be brave of Jim Dickson to engage directly on here, I'm not surprised he doesn't. Why would he, on a site where the moderators ban individual posters from discussing or mentioning certain publicly available journalistic pieces on local issues.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 14, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> James Rowan Chatterton Dickson, Practice Director at Four Public Affairs, former Leader of Lambeth Council, lost the Council in 1998, now Herne Hill Cllr and Progress Cabinet member. Saviour of the Carnegie library.



Some more info on Four Communications over on the 35percent site.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 14, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> James Rowan Chatterton Dickson, Practice Director at Four Public Affairs, former Leader of Lambeth Council, lost the Council in 1998, now Herne Hill Cllr and Progress Cabinet member. Saviour of the Carnegie library.


To be accurate Jim Dickson was leader of the Labour Group in a hung council 1994-98. Labour won control in the 1998 election, but ditched Jim Dickson as leader in favour of the nauseating Tom Franklin in 2000.
PROFILE: Tom Franklin, Lambeth Council - Young gun goes in blazing at Lambeth. Tom Franklin has rolled up his sleeves and is ready to set the council straight


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, while it would be brave of Jim Dickson to engage directly on here, I'm not surprised he doesn't. Why would he, on a site where the moderators ban individual posters from discussing or mentioning certain publicly available journalistic pieces on local issues.



You know if you and certain other posters are so pissed off with this site you could go off and start your own Brixton forum.

It's been done before. Go on show us all how it should be done.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, while it would be brave of Jim Dickson to engage directly on here, I'm not surprised he doesn't. Why would he, on a site where the moderators ban individual posters from discussing or mentioning certain publicly available journalistic pieces on local issues.



Btw you and Mr Retro have got this site for free for years. Unless I'm wrong and you have donated money to the server fund. No adverts. No using your personal info like Facebook. Yet you can't resist a swipe at this site.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> MORNIN' JIMBO
> 
> "There’s been a revealing exchange of views taking place on the message boards of a popular local online forum over the past couple of weeks. It has the timely subject line *‘Are Lambeth Labour going to voted back in 2018’*?"
> 
> ...



I read this today. This evening went to have a look at the links in article. Of course you are right it's the Urban75 thread Jim is referring to. Yet in article he has no link to the relevant thread nor does he say its Urban75.

As you read this forum Jim I really think if you write an article based on a local website you should put in link to it. Especially as your article is rebuttal of some of the comments/ views expressed.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

From Jim's article:




> - to a frustrated conclusion that splits on the Left and* national trends* are likely to mean that an undeserving Labour administration is reelected to run Lambeth council again on May 3rd.



National trends. That is Nu Labour Cllr speak for the Corbyn effect. Last election all local MPs did well. Including Corbyn haters like Chuka.

Jim can't bring himself to mention the "C" word.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

Jim not mentioning the Corbyn effect partly explains his swipes at people being "ideological". He does this in the case of the parks. People being "ideological" when opposing private events in parks. Saying it's "privatisation". From my reading that's one factor but hardly only reason. Jim in his article is putting forward the old chestnut that the "silent" mainstream majority aren't "ideological" like the park protesters. That he talks to them on doorstep and they, as reasonable people, understand that more events are necessary. It's only those who as he puts it read the minutiae of reports and turn up to meetings who oppose this administration. That's all very well but these people don't represent the silent majority of the mainstream. For the silent majority this Nu Labour administration has produced financial stability and a Council that's not going to go back to the days of the hard left.

For Jim the Labour party isn't ideological. It's believes in common sense "fairness". It's the party of ordinary decent people.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 14, 2018)

My problem with Jim position is that when I have chats on "doorstep" most people I know support Labour party but loath the Nu Labour Lambeth administration.

People I chat to are well aware of library issue and park issue ( they do read Brixton Buzz for example). It's not just as anoraks or those with an "ideological" axe to grind. They might not follow all the details. But they aren't happy.

Jim imo underestimates ordinary people awareness of what happening in local area.


----------



## Mr Retro (Mar 15, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Btw you and Mr Retro have got this site for free for years. Unless I'm wrong and you have donated money to the server fund. No adverts. No using your personal info like Facebook. Yet you can't resist a swipe at this site.


Edit cba


----------



## CH1 (Mar 17, 2018)

The elections are on 3rd May.

There is no information on Lambeth's website for people wishing to stand as candidates. Maybe they are fed up with independents and want to ensure only the professional Labour, Lib Dem, Tort and Greens are standing?

In any case can anyone say when nominations close - better still give a link showing this on Lambeth's website.

I can only imagine that Lambeth Electoral Services are so traumatised by moving from Kennington Lane to Our Nu Town Hall that they have gone into shock. They had better wake up - only six weeks to go.


----------



## newbie (Mar 17, 2018)

the legal position


Electoral Commission | Candidates and agents at local elections in England


----------



## CH1 (Mar 17, 2018)

newbie said:


> the legal position
> View attachment 130224
> Electoral Commission | Candidates and agents at local elections in England


Thank you. So we will know all the candidates by 5 pm on Friday 6th April I guess.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You know if you and certain other posters are so pissed off with this site you could go off and start your own Brixton forum.
> 
> It's been done before. Go on show us all how it should be done.



Gramsci, if you don't like reading what "certain posters" have to say on here, why don't *you* go and start your own forum where you can enforce an even narrower monoculture than here?

That's only a rhetorical question of course - I don't want you to go away because there's plenty of what you write here that I like to read.

The quality and breadth of discussion in the Brixton forum has been going downhill for some time now. I think it's directly as a result of the moderation team's approach. You might disagree. Readers can make up their own mind. But why do you object to me stating a simple fact: posters are selectively banned from discussing or mentioning certain things in a way that is not transparent to all readers? Maybe you think that's just one of those ideologically untidy but necessary things they have to do. But I plan to continue mentioning it now and again until I have a new rule imposed on me that I am not allowed to mention anything in any way related to anything to do with anything about urban75, or whatever they come up with next.

That's my public service announcement over - now we can continue discussing Lambeth Labour.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 17, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci, if you don't like reading what "certain posters" have to say on here, why don't *you* go and start your own forum where you can enforce an even narrower monoculture than here?
> 
> That's only a rhetorical question of course - I don't want you to go away because there's plenty of what you write here that I like to read.
> 
> ...



I know you think you are fighting the good fight here to defend free speech from ideologically motivated people who want to impose a "monoculture" on Brixton forum. But no I don't agree thats happening here. 

Your little dig at Brixton forum in post 68 was uncalled for. No one on this thread had done anything to provoke that little outburst. 

If anything the culture here is more middle of the road than the politics forums. And more middle of the road than the views of  lot of people I know offline in Brixton area. So no I don't see a problem here for posters. 

I get plenty of "monoculture" from everyday media. I come on Urban (not just this forum) to get a left of centre viewpoint.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 17, 2018)

Actually my "dig" was at Jim Dickson for responding to comments on here from his own blog - instead of coming and engaging directly.

On reflection I decided that wasn't entirely fair, because it would be foolhardy for anyone with a public persona to post on here, for the reasons I mentioned. Why engage in a discussion where your right of reply might suddenly be removed?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Actually my "dig" was at Jim Dickson for responding to comments on here from his own blog - instead of coming and engaging directly.
> 
> On reflection I decided that wasn't entirely fair, because it would be foolhardy for anyone with a public persona to post on here, for the reasons I mentioned. Why engage in a discussion where your right of reply might suddenly be removed?



No one's right to engage in meaningfully engage here is "suddenly" removed to enforce a "monoculture" here.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

In fact Cllrs have come on this site occasionally. They didn't have any problems here.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 18, 2018)

Spare me teuchter's concern trolling and whining  One of those who created an atmosphere where for a prolonged period Ed could barely even offer an opinion on something happening locally he was concerned about without being subject to a 'tag team' of hostile snipes and derailing.

Where is this culture of people having 'right to reply' removed that keeps getting insinuated? Posters rock up here and say what they want and the banhammer doesn't come out particularly readily. I suspect you're confusing that with people coming on with shit politics or badly thought-out positions, who will get challenged and found out for having shit politics or badly thought-out positions. 

Besides, Lambeth Labour will certainly have an easier ride here on the Brixton forum than P&P


----------



## Casaubon (Mar 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> My problem with Jim position is that when I have chats on "doorstep" most people I know support Labour party but loath the Nu Labour Lambeth administration.
> 
> People I chat to are well aware of library issue and park issue ( they do read Brixton Buzz for example). It's not just as anoraks or those with an "ideological" axe to grind. They might not follow all the details. But they aren't happy.
> 
> Jim imo underestimates ordinary people awareness of what happening in local area.



Let's never forget that when he was leader of the council Jim Dickson used huge amounts of our money destroying the communities of Rushcroft Rd and Clifton Mansions.

Vote for him? I wouldn't cross the road to piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.

Edit: I’ve just noticed that the mealy-mouthed cunt is now ‘Joint Cabinet Member for Healthier & Stronger Communities’.   

I don’t think Nu Labour does irony, so I’ll just take this as another indicator of their contempt for the people of Lambeth.


----------



## Sue (Mar 18, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Besides, Lambeth Labour will certainly have an easier ride here on the Brixton forum than P&P


I'm sure people would be delighted to engage in a full and frank discussion of their politics in P&P.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You know if you and certain other posters are so pissed off with this site you could go off and start your own Brixton forum.
> 
> It's been done before. Go on show us all how it should be done.


People only get banned/put on mutual ignore as a last resort to ensure that important debates and discussions can continue for everyone else without being constantly sidetracked by personal vendettas. The rules are clear on this.

And for some perspective, the total amount of people to whom this particular ban applies in this forum is one out a total of over 50,000 registered users.


----------



## editor (Mar 18, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> Spare me teuchter's concern trolling and whining  One of those who created an atmosphere where for a prolonged period Ed could barely even offer an opinion on something happening locally he was concerned about without being subject to a 'tag team' of hostile snipes and derailing.
> 
> Where is this culture of people having 'right to reply' removed that keeps getting insinuated? Posters rock up here and say what they want and the banhammer doesn't come out particularly readily. I suspect you're confusing that with people coming on with shit politics or badly thought-out positions, who will get challenged and found out for having shit politics or badly thought-out positions.
> 
> Besides, Lambeth Labour will certainly have an easier ride here on the Brixton forum than P&P


Couldn't agree more and it perfectly illustrates the point I was making in my last post about threads being disrupted. 

And I'm struggling to think of any post that has been removed from this forum for anything other than spam.

To suggest any mod is in the habit of arbitrarily removing posts or stopping people posting is simply untrue.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

Casaubon said:


> Let's never forget that when he was leader of the council Jim Dickson used huge amounts of our money destroying the communities of Rushcroft Rd and Clifton Mansions.
> 
> Vote for him? I wouldn't cross the road to piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.
> 
> ...



Good point. And ur right. I'd forgotten he was leader of Council.

What gets me about some of these Cllrs like Jim is that the political landscape has changed. New Labour "Third Way" is finished. 

I think these New Labour people like Jim think at some point Corbyn will lose poll ratings. I think politicians like Jim would rather the Labour party under left wing leadership lose badly at elections. They don't get it that it's not Corbyn but it what he represents. Ballots on estate "regeneration" are case in point.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 18, 2018)

Sue said:


> I'm sure people would be delighted to engage in a full and frank discussion of their politics in P&P.



For all the complaining about enforced " monoculture" on the the Brixton Forum "some" posters here should try out the politics forums.

Right wing trolls like Spam misery wouldn't last on politics forums.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 19, 2018)

Michael Groce is standing as a Green in Coldharbour.

Which is interesting.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

CH1 said:


> A leaflet for the Wednesday discussion meeting referred to above was handed out at the Cressingham meeting. i had assumed it was a Green party event - clearly not so.
> 
> Looks like the factional left are now clustering around the issues of Cressingham Gardens and Carnegie Library - which may or may not affect the Greens and Labour.
> 
> If this guy is expecting more that 200 votes he has probably peaked a bit early.



The factional left can cluster around Cressingham all they like, but they've all been told in no uncertain terms that the majority of residents are behind the Green Party, not least because two Cressingham residents (who are also Urbanites) are standing for the Greens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Michael Groce is standing as a Green in Coldharbour.
> 
> Which is interesting.



I did choke somewhat when I heard that. I asked my interlocutor "do you mean 'Michael Groce who had connections to Brixton Green?' ". They were a bit dis-chuffed that that particular bit of history hadn't been disclosed to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

brixtonblade said:


> Green have got their campaign up and running early in HH.  I havent been canvassed but have had a load of leaflets and thought they were all fairly good.  Labour haven't done as much but have started distributing leaflets with - er - "interesting" perspectives on their work to improve Carnegie Library and protect the park from over commercialisation.
> 
> I dont think anyone else is targeting he ward.



Labour's newsletters borough-wide are "interesting", in that they avoid taking any responsibility for bad shit (it's all "Tory cuts!" and similar "it wasn't me guv, honest" responsibility-avoidance), and credit-grabbing for virtually anything else they can claim to be associated with. In Herne Hill, as you note, this meant the Carnegie being re-opened before it had working toilets, disabled access or emergency exits, and while construction work was still taking place, plus the unedifying sight of Jim Dickson and Co claiming credit for seeing off Lovebox, when it was actually the masses of Herne Hill and Tulse Hill residents that did that.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 20, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> plus the unedifying sight of Jim Dickson and Co claiming credit for seeing off Lovebox, when it was actually the masses of Herne Hill and Tulse Hill residents that did that.



That's odd.

This FOI [pdf] suggests a very different view of Lovebox by local Cllr's:

"A presentation to the local ward Councillors then followed on 20 November and again, MAMA received very positive feedback from them.

Indeed, MAMA met again with some of the Councillors on 5 December... which received a positive response from most of the Councillors."

The FOI goes as far as naming Cllr Mary Atkins as the only Councillor who "openly objected."

But there's plenty to object to regarding Cllr Atkins away from Lovebox.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> It will be interesting to see the full slate of candidates across the wards when they appear in about a months time. Some of those Progress / Labour majorities aren't that big.
> 
> I'm expecting to see the LibDems and Greens both getting territorial though and fighting it out in some of the winnable wards. I totally get the idea that you need to give your party members on the ground a candidate to vote for. But actively campaigning against one another just eliminates you both. This is already happening in Oval.



TBF, Greens and Lib-Dems have tried to reach a _modus vivendi_, but you only need one person on either side to act like a twat, for everything to fail.


Where *cough* genuine Indie candidates emerge, I really hope that their spirit of independence isn't wiped out by an over-crowded election slate. This is one way to guarantee another one-party borough for the next four years. This isn't good for anyone - including the Progress group who will just retreat up their own arses even further.[/QUOTE]

The sad thing is that all the fractions and factions see the need for a solid opposition, but everyone thinks THEY have what's needed to be that opposition. In Tulse Hill ward, the three obviously electable parties are Labour, Greens and Lib-Dems, although the Lib-Dems (and I'm sure that brixtonblade will grudgingly  back me up on this) still Labour under the weight of their poor GE performance, and their local history (everyone who has spent the last 20 years in the borough seems to have a "that Fitchett was a total cunt" story). That leaves Labour and the Greens. Do the Greens have a chance? Only if people look beyond so-called "tribal" voting, and vote on the issues instead, That's issues like: 

the repayments on a £300 million loan that the children of Lambeth residents have just been landed with (the loan is to realise phase 1 of Lambeth's estate regeneration program a phase that should have meant 275 new social homes, but now means only 34).
A bill for "Your New Town Hall" that is now officially twice the original projected cost of £52-54 million, but may reach three time the original, or more - all repayable from the same *projected* (at a time when the market was higher for rental office space) savings of £4.5 million per year.
A £100 million Public Works Loan Board loan to compensate children abused in Lambeth's childrens' homes over the last 50-60 years.
The findings of The Peoples' Audit around poor accounting, missing invoices and bad tendering and contracting practices.
A £200 million-plus overspend on "Lambeth Housing Standard" works - ironic given the high complaint rate about poor/botched installations.
If people just roll their eyes at the above, and still vote Labour, then Progress will be laughing. If not, then maybe the habitual smirks of the likes of Matthew Bennett and Ed Davie can be wiped off, like shit from a shoe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> That's odd.
> 
> This FOI [pdf] suggests a very different view of Lovebox by local Cllr's:
> 
> ...



I canvassed her for the Greens recently - and Marcia Cameron.  My comment: "What's up? Don't want to vote for a socialist party?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> I really hope Rachel Heywood stands as an independent, as has been rumoured.



She appears to be going to the wire on this, which is actually a good tactic if she is going to stand. Makes it harder for Labour to monster her early on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> MORNIN' JIMBO
> 
> "There’s been a revealing exchange of views taking place on the message boards of a popular local online forum over the past couple of weeks. It has the timely subject line *‘Are Lambeth Labour going to voted back in 2018’*?"
> 
> ...



Jim Dickson showing why he's a partner in a Public Relations firm - he shaves every point to make it reflect Lambeth Labour well, and avoids taking responsibility for any of the shit he and his ilk have rained down on us.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

Casaubon said:


> Let's never forget that when he was leader of the council Jim Dickson used huge amounts of our money destroying the communities of Rushcroft Rd and Clifton Mansions.
> 
> Vote for him? I wouldn't cross the road to piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.



Would you do him a service, and kick his burning teeth out, though? 



> Edit: I’ve just noticed that the mealy-mouthed cunt is now ‘Joint Cabinet Member for Healthier & Stronger Communities’.
> 
> I don’t think Nu Labour does irony, so I’ll just take this as another indicator of their contempt for the people of Lambeth.



It does appear to be contempt, given that the grinning arsenugget hadn't given any thought to the physical and mental repercussions of Lambeth Labour's regeneration program.


----------



## brixtonblade (Mar 20, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, Greens and Lib-Dems have tried to reach a _modus vivendi_, but you only need one person on either side to act like a twat, for everything to fail.
> 
> 
> Where *cough* genuine Indie candidates emerge, I really hope that their spirit of independence isn't wiped out by an over-crowded election slate. This is one way to guarantee another one-party borough for the next four years. This isn't good for anyone - including the Progress group who will just retreat up their own arses even further.



The sad thing is that all the fractions and factions see the need for a solid opposition, but everyone thinks THEY have what's needed to be that opposition. In Tulse Hill ward, the three obviously electable parties are Labour, Greens and Lib-Dems, although the Lib-Dems (and I'm sure that brixtonblade will grudgingly  back me up on this) still Labour under the weight of their poor GE performance, and their local history (everyone who has spent the last 20 years in the borough seems to have a "that Fitchett was a total cunt" story). That leaves Labour and the Greens. Do the Greens have a chance? Only if people look beyond so-called "tribal" voting, and vote on the issues instead, That's issues like:

the repayments on a £300 million loan that the children of Lambeth residents have just been landed with (the loan is to realise phase 1 of Lambeth's estate regeneration program a phase that should have meant 275 new social homes, but now means only 34).
A bill for "Your New Town Hall" that is now officially twice the original projected cost of £52-54 million, but may reach three time the original, or more - all repayable from the same *projected* (at a time when the market was higher for rental office space) savings of £4.5 million per year.
A £100 million Public Works Loan Board loan to compensate children abused in Lambeth's childrens' homes over the last 50-60 years.
The findings of The Peoples' Audit around poor accounting, missing invoices and bad tendering and contracting practices.
A £200 million-plus overspend on "Lambeth Housing Standard" works - ironic given the high complaint rate about poor/botched installations.
If people just roll their eyes at the above, and still vote Labour, then Progress will be laughing. If not, then maybe the habitual smirks of the likes of Matthew Bennett and Ed Davie can be wiped off, like shit from a shoe.[/QUOTE]
I think those arguments make a dent in persuading people - lots of people comment about the need for the council to be held more to account. 

Im expecting Greens and Lib Dems to target different wards.


----------



## bimble (Mar 20, 2018)

Grim. Not a single council home built (instead, minus 75 achieved in the past year).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

bimble said:


> Grim. Not a single council home built (instead, minus 75 achieved in the past year).
> View attachment 130521



Bennett should be asked whether he means "council rent" or "council-level rent", as the first means a secure council tenancy, and the second means an assured tenancy (i.e. bugger-all security).


----------



## CH1 (Mar 20, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> The factional left can cluster around Cressingham all they like, but they've all been told in no uncertain terms that the majority of residents are behind the Green Party, not least because two Cressingham residents (who are also Urbanites) are standing for the Greens.


Quite likely so - but to be realistic it is unlikely that Labour will lose control unfortunately. The best that can be done is to try to get some more opposition councillors elected.

It seems strange to me that this council has seen rather few by elections. I don't know if you were around in the period 1986 - 1994 but there seemed to be a by election every few months then. At that time dissatisfaction with the Lambeth Labour group was high, and there was incessant news of "council corruption" much of it coming from council officers in official council reports.
Such an atmosphere led to continual Lib Dem gains (more than half from Streatham wards which had been Conservative). Can't see any scenario like that happening this time round. The officers and councillors are up each others arses as you might say - not a cigarette paper between them.

The Green Party seems to have taken on board the social housing council estate regeneration issues. I expect the Lib Dems to go on the EU, though I am not in touch with any active Lib Dems in Lambeth currently. I do hope brixtonblade is right that the Greens and Lib Dems will allow each other to target their best prospects.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 20, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Quite likely so - but to be realistic it is unlikely that Labour will lose control unfortunately. The best that can be done is to try to get some more opposition councillors elected.



That is the strategy - to produce an opposition of a size that can hold Lambeth Labour and Lambeth Council to account more effectively than the current over-worked 5 opposition cllrs can



> It seems strange to me that this council has seen rather few by elections. I don't know if you were around in the period 1986 - 1994 but there seemed to be a by election every few months then. At that time dissatisfaction with the Lambeth Labour group was high, and there was incessant news of "council corruption" much of it coming from council officers in official council reports.
> Such an atmosphere led to continual Lib Dem gains (many from Streatham wardss which had been Conservative). Can't see any scenario like that happening this time round. The officers and councillors are up each others arses as you might say - not a cigarette paper between them.



I was around then, and it did seem that there were several by-elections per year. Not surprising really, as a lot of the more avowedly socialist cllrs stood down as Labour became increasingly riven by identity politics.

As you say, there is a rather repulsive synergy between Labour cllrs and Lambeth officers - a synergy made worse by the confluence of interests that some cllrs and senior officers have.



> The Green Party seems to have taken on board the social housing council estate regeneration issues. I expect the Lib Dems to go on the EU, though I am not in touch with any active Lib Dems in Lambeth currently. I do hope brixton Blade is right that the Greens and Lib Dems will allow each other to target their best prospects.



TBF, the Greens can't avoid regen - One of their primary target wards is affected, and many of their secondary targets are. I think the Lib-Dems can make a good play on the EU issue in the more affluent wards - certainly a better play than Lambeth Labour can make, given that the current shower can't agree on the subject.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 20, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, the Greens can't avoid regen - One of their primary target wards is affected, and many of their secondary targets are. I think the Lib-Dems can make a good play on the EU issue in the more affluent wards - certainly a better play than Lambeth Labour can make, given that the current shower can't agree on the subject.



I thought Green party was pro EU as well. I've heard Caroline Lucas on radio about EU.

Green Party | Brexit announcement: Greens give voters chance to stay in EU

It's also an issue for working class in London. Chatting to neighbor yesterday and she was saying Brexit was disaster. All the people I work with are pro EU. Or didn't see it as an issue. Go outside London and it's different. As I found when I went back to my hometown Plymouth.

So in London it's not just issue for affluent areas.


----------



## T & P (Mar 20, 2018)

In the last few days i’ve received hand-delivered letters from both the Lib Dems and Labour- in the former’s case, with a hand-written address on the envelope to boot- trying to get my vote as a EU citizen by pushing their pro EU-citizens credentials.

Even though I’m under no illusions about how little the Lib Dems have in common with left wing policies, i’m actually tempted to vote for them. Partly because Labour in Lambeth are a disgrace, and partly because i’m still extremely fucking angry about Brexit and the Lib Dems have been the only mainstream party to fully represent my views on the issue. Not that it will make any difference of course...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I thought Green party was pro EU as well. I've heard Caroline Lucas on radio about EU.
> 
> Green Party | Brexit announcement: Greens give voters chance to stay in EU
> 
> ...



Greens aren't whipped, so candidates are free to hold whatever views they choose, within the general scope of mainstream party politics. I've probably met a greater number of committed socialists in the Greens, than I have in Labour, at least in Lambeth.  Most Greens, however, tend to be pragmatic enough to go where the electorate wants, and that's pro-EU in London, and in many urban constituencies in the SE.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 21, 2018)

T & P said:


> In the last few days i’ve received hand-delivered letters from both the Lib Dems and Labour- in the former’s case, with a hand-written address on the envelope to boot- trying to get my vote as a EU citizen by pushing their pro EU-citizens credentials.
> 
> Even though I’m under no illusions about how little the Lib Dems have in common with left wing policies, i’m actually tempted to vote for them. Partly because Labour in Lambeth are a disgrace, and partly because i’m still extremely fucking angry about Brexit and the Lib Dems have been the only mainstream party to fully represent my views on the issue. Not that it will make any difference of course...



I've been recommending to people to look at the previously by-election votes, and GE votes for their ward, to see who came out 2nd-best. That's usually a good indicator of where to place your vote, if you aren't a tribal Labour or Tory voter.


----------



## buscador (Mar 21, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> She appears to be going to the wire on this, which is actually a good tactic if she is going to stand. Makes it harder for Labour to monster her early on.


I was told today that she is going to stand and that the Greens will only put two candidates in that ward.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2018)

buscador said:


> I was told today that she is going to stand and that the Greens will only put two candidates in that ward.



I'm glad to hear it. I'd heard that the Greens and Lib-Dems were trying to reach an accord - both parties believe that Cllr Heywood is worth stepping aside for - but you can bet that Lambeth Labour will swamp the ward with canvassers, and quite possibly use the same tactics they did in the Gipsy Hill by-election 2 years ago, which was to ask voters to vote for anyone except candidate X. In Gipsy Hill they asked people to vote for anyone but the Green candidate, Pete Elliot (who despite everything came within 18 votes of winning the seat), and in Coldharbour, Labour will undoubtedly ask people not to vote for Rachel.


----------



## happyshopper (Mar 22, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> ... you can bet that Lambeth Labour will swamp the ward with canvassers, ... and in Coldharbour, Labour will undoubtedly ask people not to vote for Rachel.



Hardly surprising that Labour would ask people not to vote for someone standing as an independent. And I don't think that most Labour activists in Lambeth, many of whom have some sympathy with Rachel, will be that concerned about one seat in one ward. They are more set on working to help take control in Wandsworth and Westminster.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 22, 2018)

happyshopper said:


> Hardly surprising that Labour would ask people not to vote for someone standing as an independent. And I don't think that most Labour activists in Lambeth, many of whom have some sympathy with Rachel, will be that concerned about one seat in one ward. They are more set on working to help take control in Wandsworth and Westminster.



While they may - probably by a whisker - manage Wandsworth, Westminster is going to be a difficult proposition, given the usual amount of expensive unofficial campaigning done by Tory sympathisers for previous local elections.
I kind of disagree about Rachel, though. Lambeth's Progress tendency see her as a very visible thorn in their side - a scar on their pretence to omnipotence - and they fulminate about her at length. Activists are one thing, but our Progress cllrs and their enablers? They're another thing altogether.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 22, 2018)

The thing about Cllr Heywood is that she knows where the Progress bodies are buried.

If you see what I mean...


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2018)

happyshopper said:


> Hardly surprising that Labour would ask people not to vote for someone standing as an independent. And I don't think that most Labour activists in Lambeth, many of whom have some sympathy with Rachel, will be that concerned about one seat in one ward. They are more set on working to help take control in Wandsworth and Westminster.




Rachel has worked hard for her constituents over the years. And really cares about *people.*

Yes that's ordinary people not getting the Labour party machine reelected.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 22, 2018)

In fact I know ordinary Labour party members who won't be voting Labour in Lambeth as it's so right wing.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 23, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Rachel has worked hard for her constituents over the years. And really cares about *people.*
> Yes that's ordinary people not getting the Labour party machine reelected.


I wish my doctor was like her.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 25, 2018)

*waves to Jim Dickson*

How's 'squaring' stuff like this: Tackling Lambeth's housing crisis - Lambeth Labour with this: Mayor quietly signs off funding for 34 estates, dodging new ballot rules - Sian Berry AM working out?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 25, 2018)

stethoscope said:


> *waves to Jim Dickson*
> How's 'squaring' stuff like this: Tackling Lambeth's housing crisis - Lambeth Labour with this: Mayor quietly signs off funding for 34 estates, dodging new ballot rules - Sian Berry AM working out?


Having Matthew Bennett sandwiched between those two left wing MPs shows that Lambeth Labour - indeed national Labour - is still the past master at obfuscation, victim blaming and general tosser-ship.

How Matthew Bennett Jeremy Corbyn and John Healey can be in the same room together is beyond me, let alone pose for promotional photo.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 26, 2018)

ViolentPanda said:


> While they may - probably by a whisker - manage Wandsworth, Westminster is going to be a difficult proposition, given the usual amount of expensive unofficial campaigning done by Tory sympathisers for previous local elections.
> I kind of disagree about Rachel, though. Lambeth's Progress tendency see her as a very visible thorn in their side - a scar on their pretence to omnipotence - and they fulminate about her at length. Activists are one thing, but our Progress cllrs and their enablers? They're another thing altogether.


Rachel did a good thing in standing up for her principles with regards putting her constituents before her party loyalty, but she was one out of 59 councillors. They honestly don’t sit around chatting about her as if she represented a major dissident movement within the local party , because she doesn’t. She was never seen as a vocal left winger arguing against mainstream thought, she simply took herself outside the whip so she could support the residents in her ward against change delivered from above. That’s an admirable stance, but ultimately Lambeth Labour is larger and more active than its ever been. It’s highly effective election machine will crank up, and independent candidates along with rival parties will be facing a far larger campaign than they have in the past. The best place for genuine left wingers wanting to bring Lambeth Labour in line with the national party is inside the party where Corbyn supporters can out vote progress supporters in the future if we continue to recruit at the rate we are so far. Rachel will become a local hero to a localised part of the Borough, but In the end an irrelevance no matter how justified her stance. 
Where I live in the North of the Borough, most people including activists have never heard of her. Unfortunately the same would go for the cressingham gardens regen. It’s a massive Borough and what goes on in Herne hill is not news for most voters in Waterloo, Vauxhall or Norwood. Labour will target it’s support base  as it always does, many tenants are extremely happy with their newly refurbished flats, excellent schools, green flag status  parks, the state-of-the-art library in Clapham etc etc, and Labour will continue to harvest enough  votes as they did last time, to secure a massive majority. I believe they only way to change the direction Lambeth Council  have taken in the past is to apply pressure from within. The majority of the current councillors are right wing, but very few are actually ideological progress supporters. We’re a whisker away from pulling the local parties away and Getting then in line behind Corbyn. Unfortunately the post Corbyn surge in Lambeth was matched by a right wing push for members meaning there is still all to fight for within the party.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Rachel did a good thing in standing up for her principles with regards putting her constituents before her party loyalty, but she was one out of 59 councillors. They honestly don’t sit around chatting about her as if she represented a major dissident movement within the local party , because she doesn’t. She was never seen as a vocal left winger arguing against mainstream thought, she simply took herself outside the whip so she could support the residents in her ward against change delivered from above. That’s an admirable stance, but ultimately Lambeth Labour is larger and more active than its ever been. It’s highly effective election machine will crank up, and independent candidates along with rival parties will be facing a far larger campaign than they have in the past. The best place for genuine left wingers wanting to bring Lambeth Labour in line with the national party is inside the party where Corbyn supporters can out vote progress supporters in the future if we continue to recruit at the rate we are so far. Rachel will become a local hero to a localised part of the Borough, but In the end an irrelevance no matter how justified her stance.
> Where I live in the North of the Borough, most people including activists have never heard of her. Unfortunately the same would go for the cressingham gardens regen. It’s a massive Borough and what goes on in Herne hill is not news for most voters in Waterloo, Vauxhall or Norwood. Labour will target it’s support base  as it always does, many tenants are extremely happy with their newly refurbished flats, excellent schools, green flag status  parks, the state-of-the-art library in Clapham etc etc, and Labour will continue to harvest enough  votes as they did last time, to secure a massive majority. I believe they only way to change the direction Lambeth Council  have taken in the past is to apply pressure from within. The majority of the current councillors are right wing, but very few are actually ideological progress supporters. We’re a whisker away from pulling the local parties away and Getting then in line behind Corbyn. Unfortunately the post Corbyn surge in Lambeth was matched by a right wing push for members meaning there is still all to fight for within the party.



I don't find this clear at all.

Your arguing to get rid of what you call right wing Cllrs with local parties coming under control of Corbyn supporters. Yet you argue the record of Labour in Lambeth under control of these right wing Cllrs is a good one.

My experience of Council tenants in my area is that they will vote Labour but aren't pleased at all with this administration. In Loughborough Estate which is near me they have just finished years long battle with Council. Who were trying to rid of the EMB. Whilst tenants aren't that happy with the EMB they supported the EMB as they didn't trust a Labour Council with direct control of the estate.

On recent works on Council housing. These have been of variable quality. I know I'm a Council tenant.

The green flag parks. This is straight out of the Councils campaign literature. In LJ an issue has been lack of ongoing maintenance of open spaces. They have got a lot worse. If it wasn't for efforts of local unpaid volunteers they would be in worse state.

I could go on. The adventure playground in LJ is another ongoing issue ( see thread here).

I don't think my experience of my local area is that different to what is happening in other parts of the borough. From talking to people I know.

You implication that Rachel can be written off as a political irrelevance just shows what a machine minded politico you come across as. This is one reason why people don't want to be in politics.

I think Rachel changed over time. No she never was left winger. But imo she was actually on the right track. Not that she planned it. She sensed from her close involvement with local community and her large amount of casework that the Progress/ New Labour way of doing things no longer worked. That her constituents felt increasingly alienated by the Third Way. And it's important to remember that Cold harbour Ward is a poor ward. It is working class despite what's happened to central Brixton.

So what I'm saying is that she , unconsciously, had her finger on the pulse. The Corbyn election was a surprise. Him doing well at polls was surprise to mainstream media. Rachel sensed that Labour was out of touch before this. Her tragedy is that she was pushed out of Labour just at this time. She is just the sort of Cllr that Corbyn supporters should support. Not dismiss as political irrelevance. Which shows your lack of understanding of politics on a human level.

Btw you are factually wrong. She didn't take herself out of the whip.  Why do you say this when  you must know it's not true? She was expelled for six months from Labour group. When that ended she could not face having to go through a public recantation of her views. That's what she told me the whip said she had to do. Go in front of another meeting and recant.

She would have preferred to stay as backbench Labour Cllr. She never went against the budget or main manifesto issues.


----------



## BusLanes (Mar 27, 2018)

Loads of chatter out on streets bad about the Labour Council from Labour members / voters- but that doesn't mean they won't hold their noses and vote red all the same, or not vote at all.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> She would have preferred to stay as backbench Labour Cllr. She never went against the budget or main manifesto issues.


Had she wanted to create an upset she could have defect to the Greens - at the time she was suspended. The fact she hasn't suggests she has issues about certain aspects of Lambeth Labour group policy - but not prepared to traumatically jump to a different party.

Which in my view is a pity, because it might have led to a larger,more effective progressive opposition.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Had she wanted to create an upset she could have defect to the Greens - at the time she was suspended. The fact she hasn't suggests she has issues about certain aspects of Lambeth Labour group policy - but not prepared to traumatically jump to a different party.
> 
> Which in my view is a pity, because it might have led to a larger,more effective progressive opposition.



I think she has done the right thing standing as an independent Labour candidate.

If she had joined Greens the Lambeth Labour would have said she never was truly Labour. Plus her stance on road closures means imo that she can't really be in Greens. Would make the Greens look a bit stupid.

Notice how are Labour party poster SouthLondon above spends time saying she is political irrelevance without mentioning she is standing. What SouthLondon is saying in post is likely the line that Lambeth Labour will peddle.

The line that she took herself out of the Labour whip and is not relevant politically now.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I don't find this clear at all.
> 
> Your arguing to get rid of what you call right wing Cllrs with local parties coming under control of Corbyn supporters. Yet you argue the record of Labour in Lambeth under control of these right wing Cllrs is a good one.
> 
> ...


I spoke as a council tenant when I said the vast majority of people on my esteere very happy with the enhanced decent homes standard work. Mine is excellent and so are my neighbours. The parks might be held together by volunteers, but they are still high standard, so to most voters up my end they appear just  as well kept as they were before. Our local library is still open and vibrant and full of happy users. As i said it’s a large Borough and most people only look around their locality as their home area and base their vote on that
When Heywood voted against the party she was in effect walking away from the whip. She knew what she was doing and what would result. I agree with her however as i said she then lost any ability to influence from within. She can be written off not because I’m a machine minded whatever it was you called me, but because the local party is far larger than it was at the last election. - Vauxhall now -Vauxhall’s alone has doubled its membership, which means more canvassers on the streets, and  as I pointed out, what might be disatisfaction  in one part of the constituency, isn’t the case universally. There is no political party that would support an independent candidate at the expense of their own one, and a Labour Government will make a real difference to my life so I have no intention of jumping ship to support one local councillor who had been good in some areas, but was never a Corbyn supporter nor a left winger.  At the last election coldharbour was deemed safe so the activists went to other wards. If this time they feel it’s wobbling they will flood it with local activists.  I live on the 2nd largest estate in Lambeth, with over 20% living in poverty, and I can tell you support for Labour is stronger than I’ve ever known it.The local councillors for all their faults are a hell of a lot better than the Tory or liberal alternative would be. I have lived and worked in Tory Boroughs and I can tell you there is far worse than a Labour vouncil. I can’t cplaon about our parks. And when I come to brockwrll park for events my first being the RAR carnival my last being the country fair, I love that too and ca see it’s well looked after like my parks are. All schools in Lambeth are good as are housing services ( I can only speak for my part of the Borough for that. ). If more left leaning people join labour rather than leaving it to right wing Corbyn-stoppers, it can become a party more representative of its leadership.
And as for people being put off politics - the Labour Party has never had so many members, and locally it’s one of the biggest jumps in the country. Kate massively increased her majority in the general despite it being a Lib Dem target seat, and wish what you want but the locals will confirm Lambeth as being solidly behind Labour again so realistically change will have to come from within .


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon when you talk about "change from within" what changes would you like to see, and how would they be brought about?


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Southlondon when you talk about "change from within" what changes would you like to see, and how would they be brought about?


I have t got time at moment to go into detail, but I’d like the local party to reflect the Make up of the National Party. I’m of the Corbyn wing, so estate ballots before regeneration is obviously one. Up this end I joined the fight to prevent the transfer of a neighbouring estate againstvthe majority of residents wishes. I found it a travesty to have to fight against my own local councillors. But realistically the only way to try to challenge them was from within the party . Labour get over half of all the votes cast in my ward, so voting for an alternative party evennifvthere was a socialist alternative is fruitless.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

M


Southlondon said:


> I have t got time at moment to go into detail, but I’d like the local party to reflect the Make up of the National Party. I’m of the Corbyn wing, so estate ballots before regeneration is obviously one. Up this end I joined the fight to prevent the transfer of a neighbouring estate againstvthe majority of residents wishes. I found it a travesty to have to fight against my own local councillors. But realistically the only way to try to challenge them was from within the party . Labour get over half of all the votes cast in my ward, so voting for an alternative party evennifvthere was a socialist alternative is fruitless.


my point is that taking Lambeth to be a one party state with no viable challengers then I think socialists that want change in  Lambeth are best off fighting from within , rather than compromising beliefs still further to vote for liberals ( a totally wasted vote at both the general and the last locals), or the greens. For all the pockets of incompetence across the Borough, there are still many satisfied residents, - enough to carry them over the line.  That was my point.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> When Heywood voted against the party she was in effect walking away from the whip. She knew what she was doing and what would result.



But that's not what happened, is it?

Cllr Heywood spoke for her residents at the library campaign held in Windrush Square. She didn't vote against the party.

The Progress machine was so angry that she was sticking up for her residents that it made the move to withdraw the whip. She didn't have the chance to vote against party policy - Progress pulled this option away from her.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2018)

Plus to add that Cllr Heywood didn't resign her Labour party membership. She deliberately took the title of 'independent Labour,' the same as Cllr Kingsley Abrams when Progress tried to frame him.

It would have been all to easy to sign up as a Green. But Cllr Heywood is a proud Labour party member. She has been for decades. She has tried to work within the party, much as you have argued for Southlondon.

In the end she was given no choice. Three more Progress ducks were chosen for Coldharbour. The party de-selected her.

How does your 'change from within' stance work when Progress are paranoid about anyone who doesn't have a poster of Tony Blair on their bedroom wall? You try and remain in the party, but they will work as a machine to boot you out.

Personal experience talking here...


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 27, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Plus to add that Cllr Heywood didn't resign her Labour party membership. She deliberately took the title of 'independent Labour,' the same as Cllr Kingsley Abrams when Progress tried to frame him.
> 
> It would have been all to easy to sign up as a Green. But Cllr Heywood is a proud Labour party member. She has been for decades. She has tried to work within the party, much as you have argued for Southlondon.
> 
> ...


Kingsley was a good Socialist and an example of how the party worked to suppress the left successfully up until corbyn. The way the local party will change is the same way it’s chabged across the country, from greater numbers of lefty’s joining and changing the ideological make up of the party. To me that’s the best way of influencing progressive change in the Borough. There is no way any rival party has a hope in hell of raising an effective opposition through competing with it. The local labour parties  have had a huge influx of new activists, and that along with the advantage of incumbency - every bit of councillor casework is a potential voter won over, and the fact that the greens and the Lib Dem’s are unlikely to form a working pact, and just as Kate’s hugely increased majority at the last election came through despite the Brexit situation, so Too will a decisive labour victory in Lambeth. That means another term of a council without an effective opposition and more progress ideology unless it’s challellenged from within


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2018)

As for the 'crime' of voting against the party? It sums up all that wrong is wrong with poxy party politics - especially at this level of local government.

We elect Cllr's to represent residents, and not their party. Internal debate is good for democracy. It's hilarious that Progress can't handle any internal criticism when it has 59 out of 63 Cllr's. It reduces the role of ward Cllr's to voting fodder.

Cabinet is all powerful at this level. And even then there are cliques within the Progress Cabinet. Whatever less than half a dozen Cllr's say gets pushed through as Lambeth Labour policy.

Change from within, you say?

What, and look like Jimbo?

No thanks.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> There is no way any rival party has a hope in hell of raising an effective opposition through competing with it.



Of course they don't. It will be another Progress landslide, for all the reasons you have stated.

Which is no reason for propping up a shit system.

Cllr Scott Ainslie has done a decent one man show of shining a light on how Progress runs Lambeth.

More of the same, please.


----------



## happyshopper (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> ... Kate’s hugely increased majority at the last election came through despite the Brexit situation, ...



Although she was easily re-elected, the Vauxhall result was significantly worse for Labour than in any other comparable London constituency.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Kate’s hugely increased majority at the last election came through despite the Brexit situation



And despite half of the CLP not out door knocking for her. You should talk to Kate about what it is like trying to "change the party from within."

*although her BONKERS Brexit position probably deserved the response tbh*


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Plus to add that Cllr Heywood didn't resign her Labour party membership. She deliberately took the title of 'independent Labour,' the same as Cllr Kingsley Abrams when Progress tried to frame him.
> 
> *It would have been all to easy to sign up as a Green.*



Hopefully not, given her support for the anti-pedestrian & cyclist lobby, and her help in scuppering efforts to reduce air pollution.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Hopefully not, given her support for the anti-pedestrian & cyclist lobby, and her help in scuppering efforts to reduce air pollution.



As you and I know the Greens went quiet when there was the furore over the road closures. One would have thought they would have supported them. Greens in Lambeth are quick to criticize Council on air pollution. But when it came down to road closures the Greens sat on the fence and cynically let the New Labour administration take the flack. I was not impressed.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Plus to add that Cllr Heywood didn't resign her Labour party membership. She deliberately took the title of 'independent Labour,' the same as Cllr Kingsley Abrams when Progress tried to frame him.
> 
> It would have been all to easy to sign up as a Green. But Cllr Heywood is a proud Labour party member. She has been for decades. She has tried to work within the party, much as you have argued for Southlondon.
> 
> ...



Are you and Ainslie still banned from joining the party?

You are right the party deselected her.

Even if she had somehow got back into the Labour group I wonder if she would have been reselected.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Are you and Ainslie still banned from joining the party?
> 
> You are right the party deselected her.



I received a two year ban after posting up this story to Buzz.

I submitted a Subject Access Request to the Labour party. After much delay it returned an email exchange between Vauxhall CLP and Labour party HQ.

It included the quote from a redacted Vauxhall Labour official:

"What can we do to keep this one out?"

Labour HQ responded:

"Don't worry - we are already on to this one."

I'm not sure that I want to join a party that acts like twats.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Kingsley was a good Socialist and an example of how the party worked to suppress the left successfully up until corbyn. The way the local party will change is the same way it’s chabged across the country, from greater numbers of lefty’s joining and changing the ideological make up of the party. To me that’s the best way of influencing progressive change in the Borough. There is no way any rival party has a hope in hell of raising an effective opposition through competing with it. The local labour parties  have had a huge influx of new activists, and that along with the advantage of incumbency - every bit of councillor casework is a potential voter won over, and the fact that the greens and the Lib Dem’s are unlikely to form a working pact, and just as Kate’s hugely increased majority at the last election came through despite the Brexit situation, so Too will a decisive labour victory in Lambeth. That means another term of a council without an effective opposition and more progress ideology unless it’s challellenged from within



Ok. I think I've been harsh. Reading your recent posts. You aren't machine politico. I take that back. You are clearly trying a way to move the Labour party back to being a socialist party. And doing that in difficult circumstances in Lambeth.

Also London wide. Reading Evening Standard today. Big time they are trying to smear Corbyn and Momentum. Hard left on politics boards here also are criticising Corbyn. Which make for imo depressing reading.Bit of a reality check for me.

The left turn in Labour party is still fragile. Morning Star has been right imo. This is the time to rally around Corbyn. Anti Semiticism smears are from the right. It's not about anti Semiticism imo its about getting rid of Corbyn and the turn to the left in the party.

However as Tricky Skills local Cllrs are thereto represent there communities first. I think being a local Cllr is much underrated position. They are , if they are any good, more intimately related to there communities than MPs. Why it gets personal. I am fully aware Rachel isn't a lefty. But then my experience of the Labour party is that it's not that ideological. ( Which imo is a weakness). Sticking up for your working class community and following the Progress line ended up being to much for Rachel. Understandably. She couldn't do both.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Also London wide. Reading Evening Standard today. Big time they are trying to smear Corbyn and Momentum.


I took that to be a pre-emptive attack on Wandsworth Labour - seems to indicate the Wandsworth Tories are edgy (but not in a good way).


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> As for the 'crime' of voting against the party? It sums up all that wrong is wrong with poxy party politics - especially at this level of local government.
> 
> We elect Cllr's to represent residents, and not their party. Internal debate is good for democracy. It's hilarious that Progress can't handle any internal criticism when it has 59 out of 63 Cllr's. It reduces the role of ward Cllr's to voting fodder.
> 
> ...


I have fought within the party for over 40 years along with many others, and at last we have a leader I value and hope will overcome the all out assaults from the Tory/liberal media and become prime minister.
You are wrong about party’s - when you canvass you discover just how tribal most people are when it comes to voting. I guarantee that the majority of voters do not even know the name of their councillor unless they have conducted case work for them, they vote for the party. The floaters are small in number


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Ok. I think I've been harsh. Reading your recent posts. You aren't machine politico. I take that back. You are clearly trying a way to move the Labour party back to being a socialist party. And doing that in difficult circumstances in Lambeth.
> 
> Also London wide. Reading Evening Standard today. Big time they are trying to smear Corbyn and Momentum. Hard left on politics boards here also are criticising Corbyn. Which make for imo depressing reading.Bit of a reality check for me.
> 
> ...


They are there to represent their constituents yes, but also have opted to join a party, which in turn has covered all expenses and provided volunteer activists to ensure the defeat of their opponents. That’s why I believe it’s imperative we fight from within the party to force it round to a more working class resident focus, and to allow for minority positions to be held by individual councillors without the removal of the whip
You are spot on about the assaults on Corbyn, and sad to see leftish keyboard warriors on here joining the detractors and thus aiding the Tory/lindems


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Plus to add that Cllr Heywood didn't resign her Labour party membership. She deliberately took the title of 'independent Labour,' the same as Cllr Kingsley Abrams when Progress tried to frame him.
> 
> It would have been all to easy to sign up as a Green. But Cllr Heywood is a proud Labour party member. She has been for decades. She has tried to work within the party, much as you have argued for Southlondon.
> 
> ...


Why on earth would she want to leave labour and join the greens? She is a social democrat not a green. Totally different politics. I’m a socialist but should the Labour Party ever disappear, I can’t possibly  imagine wing able to reconcile my ideological beliefs with the Green Party. Lots of respect for Peter Tatchel - a great and brave campaigner,but I could never understand why he jumped into the greens


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> I received a two year ban after posting up this story to Buzz.
> 
> I submitted a Subject Access Request to the Labour party. After much delay it returned an email exchange between Vauxhall CLP and Labour party HQ.
> 
> ...


You choose not to fight to be in the party. That’s cool, we have over half a million people that do, including many others that were suspended like myself. I see potential to get a Corbyn-led Government, which will be a battle but if it comes about life for me and other working class people will improve immeasurably so I choose to contribute towards that goal. You don’t which is cool. The real world isn’t in these forums or in party meetings, however debate is important , but we have to take that debate  beyond the chattering lefty’s and keyboard moaners, and  see being part of a political party as an important aid to that end.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> As you and I know the Greens went quiet when there was the furore over the road closures. One would have thought they would have supported them. Greens in Lambeth are quick to criticize Council on air pollution. But when it came down to road closures the Greens sat on the fence and cynically let the New Labour administration take the flack. I was not impressed.


The greens - like the Labour Party are a wide coalition of ideals. Some great Socialists amongst them, but equally I’ve met some incredibly middle class years that wouldn’t seem out of place in a liberal meeting. They sure as hell aren’t left wing socialists


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> You choose not to fight to be in the party. That’s cool, we have over half a million people that do, including many others that were suspended like myself. I see potential to get a Corbyn-led Government, which will be a battle but if it comes about life for me and other working class people will improve immeasurably so I choose to contribute towards that goal. You don’t which is cool. The real world isn’t in these forums or in party meetings, however debate is important , but we have to take that debate  beyond the chattering lefty’s and keyboard moaners, and  see being part of a political party as an important aid to that end.



Absolute bollocks.

I chose to fight to be in the party. That was 'cool.' I appealed against my two year ban - a lengthy process that went on for almost a year itself with plenty of stress and time taken in preparing the case. That wasn't so cool.

My Progress Cllr Alex Bigham and the Progress whip Cllr Paul Gadsby did all that they could to keep me out.

I would have loved to take the debate beyond the "keyboard moaners' but the arseholes wouldn't let me. My Subject Access Request was quite clear that Bigham and Gadsby would do everything they possibly could to keep me out of the party.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

This is shifty - publishing a VOTE FOR ME puff piece on the eve of purdah.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> And despite half of the CLP not out door knocking for her. You should talk to Kate about what it is like trying to "change the party from within."
> 
> *although her BONKERS Brexit position probably deserved the response tbh*


Kate garners a huge amount of support  in Vauxhall based on her effective case work and her high levels of community engagement. She has an enormous amount of support within the party locally, which is why she survived her trigger ballot which the blairittes hoped and anticipated would deselect her. It was almost unanimous with only 1 or 2 branches voting against her. An enormous number of party members canvassed with her, the libdems made it a National target seat yet she still massively increased her majority. Brexit was not the main issue on the doorstep, I would say local issues and council related issues came top. The fact that the inept opposition in Lambeth fail to provide an opposition of substance ( the lonely green does a valiant job, but one man and a few Tories can’t cover all the committees of a large authority), kate is seen as the default opposition. The person to turn to when the council needs challenging. She fulfills that role well, and still holds substantial majority support from within Vauxhall party, as will be evidenced the next time the councillors trigger her


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Absolute bollocks.
> 
> I chose to fight to be in the party. That was 'cool.' I appealed against my two year ban - a lengthy process that went on for almost a year itself with plenty of stress and time taken in preparing the case. That wasn't so cool.
> 
> ...


You gave up. Appeal now if you choose to rejoin the party, or you’re in danger of sounding like some sort of hand wringing martyr. Of course they tried to keep you out. They did that to thousands of us. But we have a secure left wing leadership now, and a new head of compliance. If you believe in something you fight for it. Your posts  suggest you don’t believe in the party and you enjoy your chosen position of arguing for change and criticising from outside. The real battle is within


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> You gave up. Appeal now if you choose to rejoin the party, or you’re in danger of sounding like some sort of hand wringing martyr. Of course they tried to keep you out. They did that to thousands of us. But we have a secure left wing leadership now, and a new head of compliance. If you believe in something you fight for it. Your posts  suggest you don’t believe in the party and you enjoy your chosen position of arguing for change and criticising from outside. The real battle is within



Stop talking bullshit. I did appeal. I didn't give up. I am still serving my suspension. What the fuck do you know?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Stop talking bullshit. I did appeal. I didn't give up. I am still serving my suspension. What the fuck do you know?


Your suspension must be up by now if it was for 2 years and started in 2015?


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Stop talking bullshit. I did appeal. I didn't give up. I am still serving my suspension. What the fuck do you know?


I know that plenty of people who the blairittes got suspended fought tooth and bail to get back in to provide internal support for Corbyn. There were left wing barristers available to assist those of us who were finding it an uphill task, and most of us succeeded after a hard fight. I assume you no longer want to be a part of the Labour Party, otherwise you don’t seem to be the sort of person who would give up. It’s easy to criticise from out side , far harder to fight for real change from within.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Your suspension must be up by now if it was for 2 years and started in 2015?



Back dated to the time of the appeal.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> I know that plenty of people who the blairittes got suspended fought tooth and bail to get back in to provide internal support for Corbyn. There were left wing barristers available to assist those of us who were finding it an uphill task, and most of us succeeded after a hard fight. I assume you no longer want to be a part of the Labour Party, otherwise you don’t seem to be the sort of person who would give up. It’s easy to criticise from out side , far harder to fight for real change from within.



Once again - please stop 'assuming' that you know shit about me.


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Once again - please stop 'assuming' that you know shit about me.


I haven’t claimed to but I have some understanding of the party’s suspension and appeal process- I went through it myself. I mean blimey, even ted knight has managed to still be a party member. Of course, they won’t let people in who openly call for support for opposition parties - why would any party, but beyond that, it’s a secure Corbyn leadership, backed by a supportive NEC, and a brand new head of compliance, so if you did want to try again you might well find your successful. But that would mean abiding by the rules, as it would for any political party or indeed any club or membership organisation. If Corbyn is yo have a chance at the next election, we need a strong and responsive party membership and Corbyn is supportive of that. Blair wanted the opposite. A small disempowered party.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is shifty - publishing a VOTE FOR ME puff piece on the eve of purdah.


It's a masterpiece. Humanising. Daddy what do you do all day?
Then the stats - 70% of 42% of all new homes are at social rent.
So would that be 18 new homes then?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> I haven’t claimed to but I have some understanding of the party’s suspension and appeal process- I went through it myself. I mean blimey, even ted knight has managed to still be a party member. Of course, they won’t let people in who openly call for support for opposition parties - why would any party, but beyond that, it’s a secure Corbyn leadership, backed by a supportive NEC, and a brand new head of compliance, so if you did want to try again you might well find your successful. But that would mean abiding by the rules, as it would for any political party or indeed any club or membership organisation. If Corbyn is yo have a chance at the next election, we need a strong and responsive party membership and Corbyn is supportive of that. Blair wanted the opposite. A small disempowered party.


I find it difficult to understand why someone would want to belong to a party that suspended them. Labour seem to think they have the right of excommunication like the mediaeval popes. At least the Popes claimed a divine right - what right do these Labour Party officials really have?


----------



## Southlondon (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Once again - please stop 'assuming' that you know shit about me.





CH1 said:


> I find it difficult to understand why someone would want to belong to a party that suspended them. Labour seem to think they have the right of excommunication like the mediaeval popes. At least the Popes claimed a divine right - what right do these Labour Party officials really have?


It was the desperate attempts of the blairittes that actiobed the suspensions. My grand parents, parents and I have all been lifetime members. I and many others held firm and fought back, refusing to be driven from our party. the left have finally wrested control of the NEC and that in part was facilitated by returning members who got their suspensions overturned. They no longer control the compliance procedure so bit by bit the left are securing the party with the aim of returning power to the membership. 
Any membership organisation will have rules to be followed, and a mechanism to suspend/revoke membership. This process was abused by the former party executive, and that is being rectified. However there is no party that I know of that would not Sanction members that promote voting for competition over their own candidates. That should always be a red line


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> However there is no party that I know of that would not Sanction members that promote voting for competition over their own candidates. That should always be a red line



Apart from Lambeth Labour. Former Labour Cabinet member Sally Prentice was a LibDem Cllr in Prince's ward. She not only promoted for voting for competition - she WAS the competition.

But once she repented her sins then she was swiftly promoted.

Phew.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 28, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Apart from Lambeth Labour. Former Labour Cabinet member Sally Prentice was a LibDem Cllr in Prince's ward. She not only promoted the voting for competition - she WAS the competition.
> But once she repented her sins then she was swiftly promoted.
> Phew.


You neglect to note that Sally Prentice's spiritual director as it were is Roger (Lord) Liddle, himself erstwhile Lib Dem leader on Lambeth Council.

My own theory on why Sally is so unpopular is nothing to do with politics - she somehow managed in her youth to learn to speak the Queen's English as the Queen speaks it. All this claptrap about revisionist tendencies of the far right order is really a matter of estuary English versus received pronunciation!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 28, 2018)

Whilst Lambeth Labour welcomed ex-LibDem Cllr Prentice with a Cabinet seat, the party wasn't so gracious when one of their own went off in a different direction.

I'm reminded of the time when Labour's Cllr Betty Evans-Jacas decided that she wasn't cut out for the Third Way nonsense within the party and decided to join the Tories instead.

Council Leader at the time Steve Reed (remember him?) wasn't happy. He used his personal blog to slag off Betty and reveal details of her personal financial situation. This led to Reed being called up in front of the Standards Sub-Committee.

The verdict:

"All councillors and co-opted members to advise on necessary vigilance on tweets and blogs."


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 29, 2018)

Meet the candidates!

...including the Publisher of the 'independent community newspaper' Lambeth Life, standing in Bishops.

Which kinda explains the puff piece crap like this.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 30, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Meet the candidates!
> 
> ...including the Publisher of the 'independent community newspaper' Lambeth Life, standing in Bishops.
> 
> Which kinda explains the puff piece crap like this.


I see three wards have vacancies. Or maybe they couldn't afford photos?


----------



## CH1 (Mar 31, 2018)

Valete Michelle

Seems we are no longer going to have the pleasure of seeing Cllr Michelle Agdomar (through retirement) according to the list posted by Tricky Skills.

I must admit to a soft spot for Michelle Agdomar. She was another Councillor like Rachel Heywood who was happy enough to turn out for a visitation by the Bishop of Woolwich, or to hear LJAG expound on the virtues of growing your own greens.

The most surprising thing I found out about Michelle Agdomar was her interest (as a law student) in copyright as applied to geographical foods - e.g. Feta cheese and Champagne which I am given to understand is some kind of French sparkling wine. (I didn't mention Champagne socialism!)


----------



## CH1 (Apr 1, 2018)

I have mixed feelings about this - we do not have proportional representation unfortunately so in a one party borough to me it makes sense to combine forces against Mamon rather than dividing the vote


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 2, 2018)

Wait, so are Lambeth for Democracy now some sort of party?


----------



## CH1 (Apr 2, 2018)

BusLanes said:


> Wait, so are Lambeth for Democracy now some sort of party?


No - they are not registered with the Electoral Commission.

If Nick Edwards is their candidate, he registered a party called the Herne Hill Community and Libraries Campaign back on 12th September last year. He can stand under the name of a registered party, but not as as Lambeth for Democracy. Rachel Heyward couldn't stand as "Independent Labour" but can stand as Independent: The rules are clear see page 5 of Electoral Commission guidance for candidates:

• A description – if you want the word ‘Independent’, and/or ‘Annibynnol’ in Wales, to appear on the ballot paper underneath your name, you need to state this on the nomination form. No other descriptions are allowed for candidates who are not standing on behalf of a registered political party. Alternatively, you may choose not to have a description at all by leaving this part of the form blank.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2018)

BusLanes said:


> Wait, so are Lambeth for Democracy now some sort of party?



Posts on Page Two of this thread explains more.

Basically they are people who formerly were in Green party.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 2, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Posts on Page Two of this thread explains more.
> Basically they are people who formerly were in Green party.


Quite right. And Nick Edwards election address is in the name of his party.
Do you expect Rachel to join it - or (if she stands) simply stand as "Independent"?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2018)

CH1 said:


> Quite right. And Nick Edwards election address is in the name of his party.
> Do you expect Rachel to join it - or (if she stands) simply stand as "Independent"?



I'm assuming she will stand as independent. I didn't know one cannot say Independent Labour. That's a real handicap.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 3, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> I'm assuming she will stand as independent. I didn't know one cannot say Independent Labour. That's a real handicap.



I think the rule dates back to this person Richard Huggett - Wikipedia

Mr Huggestt made a habit of standing in elections using spoof descriptions such as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament" when he was in reality a spoiler candidate.

As far as I know there is nothing to stop Rachel using the description Independent Labour on leaflets, web blogs etc. Its just you can't do it on the ballot paper itself.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 3, 2018)

If Cllr Heywood does decide to stand as an Indie then she would do well to put as much distance between herself and any 'Labour' tag in Lambeth.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 4, 2018)

In case anyone is interested, Lambeth Democracy (which isn't a political party, it says) has been putting a second leaflet out in Herne Hill over Easter.

This leaflet does not say it is from Nick Edwards - but says it supports Nick Edwards. It also says that Lambeth Labour councillors refused to support Nick's motion for 40%+ social housing in any Lougborough Junction housing development. Which is a bit odd since Nick is not a councillor, and councillors motions have to be introduced by councillors.

As it happens nominations have not closed, so these glossy leaflets will not have to be accounted for (financially). After Friday April 6th any leaflets supporting "Nick" will have to be on "Nick's" campaign expenses, whether by Nick himself or by "Lambeth Democracy".

Further point - election leaflets MUST have an imprint, to indicate who is legally responsible (this is the candidate's agent - who also has to submit an account of expenditure)

I'm pee'd off enough about the Cambridge Analtyica, Vote Leave, Beleave fraud to think we could do without the same crap in Herne Hill. Meanwhile read and admire the Lambeth Democracy contribution to wiping out any viable opposition on the council. Why didn't they do this Thornton Ward where Lib Peck and Ed Davie - two stalwarts of the Progress evil empire could have been called to account?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 4, 2018)

And a Brixton Buzz pic has been nicked for use in the leaflet 

Not a good start.

With you on Thornton, CH1. Don't forget the third Third Way Musketeer in Jane the Abstain Edbrooke.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 10, 2018)

How do I find all the candidates?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 10, 2018)

Nanker Phelge here we go.

Buzz update on Rachel Heywood's five year ban.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Apr 10, 2018)

Ta


----------



## teuchter (Apr 10, 2018)

I don't see how anyone could expect any other outcome from standing in opposition to a party that you're supposed to be a member of.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 10, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't see how anyone could expect any other outcome from standing in opposition to a party that you're supposed to be a member of.



But why a two year ban for Kingsley, yet a five year one for Rachel? Both broke Labour party rules in the exact same way - standing against the established party candidate.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2018)

teuchter said:


> I don't see how anyone could expect any other outcome from standing in opposition to a party that you're supposed to be a member of.



She supports Corbyn. Lambeth Labour are unreconstructed Blairite scum. 

She is more Labour in a real sense than the likes of Peck and Captain Jack. 

Look at my posts on who are you going to vote for thread.

Rachel is real Labour unlike the scum who run Lambeth Labour. Peck ( Captain Jack  ( Pop and arches) , Edbrooke ( gym/ libraries). 

As I said in who will you vote for thread I heard Blair on radio this morning moaning that the "centre ground" no longer is political mainstream. It's alive and well in Lambeth sadly. If there was real justice Rachel would be Labour candidate. Peck and the rest of them would be expelled for not representing Labour. Which they don't.

The Blairite project was always a middle class one that didn't like the working class. Or in Tony's view they were dying out and with  "Globalisation" they were on the way out. 

Rachel from her direct experience was starting to see things differently. Coldharbour being one of the most deprived wards. Despite wanky New Labour flagship schemes like Pop.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 11, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> Look at my posts on who are you going to vote for thread.



Oh, hadn't realised a copyc virtually duplicate thread had been started. Heh.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 11, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> here we go.


just notice that Jim Dickson et al in Herne Hill are listed as the 'Labour and Co-operatice Party' - is that new?   I thought he was just plain 'Labour Party' at least that is what it said on their flyer.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 11, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> just notice that Jim Dickson et al in Herne Hill are listed as the 'Labour and Co-operatice Party' - is that new?   I thought he was just plain 'Labour Party' at least that is what it said on their flyer.



It's something that many Labour candidates like to add to their election nominations. They soon drop it once they are in.

It would be more truthful to list the party of Jimbo and his pals as officially being Progress tbh.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> just notice that Jim Dickson et al in Herne Hill are listed as the 'Labour and Co-operatice Party' - is that new?   I thought he was just plain 'Labour Party' at least that is what it said on their flyer.



It is one of the quirks of Labour party history. The Cooperative party is a separate party. Being going for years. It was around in the early days of the Labour party. But smaller than Labour party. Since 1927 the Cooperative party has had an electoral pact with Labour party. So one can be member of Labour party and the smaller Cooperative party. Then stand as a Labour and Cooperative party candidate.

The Cooperative party to this day is still a separate party. It main support financially is the Cooperative wholesale society CWS. To you and me the Coop shop we may use.

The Cooperative party did and still does promote Cooperative societies and enterprise.

Interestingly the Communist party of GB also tried to affiliate to Labour party in similar way but was turned down several times. Bit to radical for Labour party.

Home


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> It's something that many Labour candidates like to add to their election nominations. They soon drop it once they are in.
> 
> It would be more truthful to list the party of Jimbo and his pals as officially being Progress tbh.



I've never really understood the position of Progress in the Labour party. One can join Progress as a member. But appears to me that everyone denies they are a member if asked. That when asked Lambeth Labour deny Progress has anything to do with them. Yet Progress was in Blair's day highly influential.


----------



## brixtonblade (Apr 12, 2018)

* puts tin hat on *

What Lambeth Lib Dems stand for


----------



## CH1 (Apr 12, 2018)

brixtonblade said:


> * puts tin hat on *
> What Lambeth Lib Dems stand for


Can't see much wrong with that. I would have thought the bit about parks would be popular here.

I happened upon a Labour leaflet in Herne Hill yesterday (though it was quite generic - may be going out in Coldharbour too). Made me feel quite queasy. Pictures of Lambeth Councillors and opposition parliamentary spokespeople who hate each others guts. (Might post later if I find it).


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 12, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> It is one of the quirks of Labour party history. The Cooperative party is a separate party. Being going for years. It was around in the early days of the Labour party. But smaller than Labour party. Since 1927 the Cooperative party has had an electoral pact with Labour party. So one can be member of Labour party and the smaller Cooperative party. Then stand as a Labour and Cooperative party candidate.
> 
> The Cooperative party to this day is still a separate party. It main support financially is the Cooperative wholesale society CWS. To you and me the Coop shop we may use.
> 
> ...


So are Mr Dickson and pals members of the co-operative party? how do they square that with Lambeth's tear-it-down-and-sell-it-to-property-developers approach to local housing?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 12, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> So are Mr Dickson and pals members of the co-operative party? how do they square that with Lambeth's tear-it-down-and-sell-it-to-property-developers approach to local housing?



It's a Co-operative Council, innit.

Progress co-operate with big business and developers.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 12, 2018)

friendofdorothy said:


> So are Mr Dickson and pals members of the co-operative party? how do they square that with Lambeth's tear-it-down-and-sell-it-to-property-developers approach to local housing?



Playing devils advoca byte here.

There is in New Labour a critique of the top down post war welfare state. Which wasn't particularly democratic and was the state telling one what to do. With the growth of sixties consumerism and individualism in 60s this top down nanny state became out of date. Instead of modernising itself the Labour party stuck to a Statist conception of socialism. Leaving the political space open to Thatcher. Not was Labour supportive on new identities around gender, race and sexualities.

I actually think the Blairites had a point and still do. If you look at Progress website it's now updating there political positions.

After all the post welfare state was product of Beveridge (a decent liberal) and the imo awful Fabians.

I heard Blair on radio few days ago. Thing is he has an intellect. Comes across even if one does not agree with him.

In the end in practical politics New Labour had nothing to offer the working class. Blair and the Third Way was premised on what they saw as working class as a political subject ending. This hasn't happened.

Working class has changed but not gone away.

Blair's projects had a lot to do with not upsetting the middle c!ass and giving them a choice to vote for. Unfortunately that meant alienating swathes of the working class who felt no one represented them any more.

Heard Ian Duncan Smith on radio recently. He said when he was leader of Tory party when Labour were in power the differences were over policy not ideology. He said now difference are ideological. I think his observation is right. Class is back. Well it never went away.

Some may find this distasteful. Blair gave sections of middle class a party to vote for that wasn't quite as nasty as Tories. That didn't "put people off" with talk of class.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Apr 12, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> It's a Co-operative Council, innit.
> 
> Progress co-operate with big business and developers.


In name only as far as I can tell - because they don't seem to want to co-operate with their own constituents.


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 13, 2018)

brixtonblade said:


> * puts tin hat on *
> 
> What Lambeth Lib Dems stand for



It is manifesto season!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is shifty - publishing a VOTE FOR ME puff piece on the eve of purdah.



It's Ed Davie. He's a cunt. What do you expect?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2018)

brixtonblade said:


> * puts tin hat on *
> 
> What Lambeth Lib Dems stand for



Tin hat? You need one made out the same stuff as Captain America's shield, mate!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2018)

Two Cressingham residents standing for the Green Party in Tulse Hill ward.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2018)

Leaflets from labour and the greens have been coming through the letterbox at quite a rate over the past few days.

Polling station seemed quite quiet just now.

The only candidate standing outside was one of the Green Party ones.


----------



## shakespearegirl (May 3, 2018)

We only had one leaflet through for the Green Party, nothing at all for any of the others


----------



## Winot (May 3, 2018)

Only leaflet we’ve had (Brixton Hill) is Women’s Equality Party.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2018)

Green party still at it now - on the door buzzer asking if I've voted yet.


----------



## Smick (May 3, 2018)

Winot said:


> Only leaflet we’ve had (Brixton Hill) is Women’s Equality Party.


I was talking to them this morning. Very nice people although not running in my ward. I would definitely have given them a vote otherwise.


----------



## newbie (May 4, 2018)

Winot said:


> Only leaflet we’ve had (Brixton Hill) is Women’s Equality Party.


not far from you, we had one from Labour and nothing else.


----------



## bimble (May 4, 2018)

newbie said:


> not far from you, we had one from Labour and nothing else.


How odd. i think we must've had about 15+ leaflets in all (herne hill ward) with several very expensive ones from the greens, in handwritten envelopes.


----------



## newbie (May 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> How odd. i think we must've had about 15+ leaflets in all (herne hill ward) with several very expensive ones from the greens, in handwritten envelopes.


envelopes? will no-one think of the trees?

Much as I'd like to think this has suddenly become a marginal, I suspect all the activists went off to other wards where their efforts might be more productive.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 4, 2018)

Smick said:


> I was talking to them this morning. Very nice people although not running in my ward. I would definitely have given them a vote otherwise.


Not bothered about increasing the minimum wage, not bothered about the cuts, but at least they care about the women directors of the FTSE100 getting paid _fairly_. Lovely people.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> How odd. i think we must've had about 15+ leaflets in all (herne hill ward) with several very expensive ones from the greens, in handwritten envelopes.


I guess you're same ward as me. Also quite a few from the independent guy, also handwritten envelopes.


----------



## CH1 (May 4, 2018)

Winot said:


> Only leaflet we’ve had (Brixton Hill) is Women’s Equality Party.


I would have voted for them - the candidate I saw at hustings meetings was very down to earth and sensible.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 4, 2018)

At the count.

In answer to the original question: yes.


----------



## bimble (May 4, 2018)

From tricky skills Twitter it seems herne hill count is where the excitement is at , so maybe that’s why so many leaflets they knew it might be close.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

That's definitely why so many leaflets! It's the carnegie effect mainly.


----------



## Cold Harbour (May 4, 2018)

Please just 1 Green in Coldharbour too


----------



## snowy_again (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> That's definitely why so many leaflets! It's the carnegie effect mainly.



Voter count at St Judes was a massive 340 total at 6pm last night.

I took one for the team and sat in the pub to count the number of potential voters going to St Judes for the next hour or so.


----------



## CH1 (May 4, 2018)

I see normal service has resumed in Coldharbour (i.e. no service)


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Are they still counting then?


----------



## snowy_again (May 4, 2018)

Herne Hill x2 greens - I was right in my random pub prediction last night.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

snowy_again said:


> Herne Hill x2 greens - I was right in my random pub prediction last night.


Impressive result. They certainly put the work in for it.


----------



## Southlondon (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Impressive result. They certainly put the work in for it.


Impressive result? 2/63 seats ?


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> Impressive result? 2/63 seats ?


In Herne Hill ward. Going from 0/3 to 2/3.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Actually looks like x1 not x2


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

So Rachel Heywood lost her seat. Why? I thought she was supposed to be very popular. Or is that only when viewed from the U75 bubble?


----------



## bimble (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> So Rachel Heywood lost her seat. Why? I thought she was supposed to be very popular. Or is that only when viewed from the U75 bubble?


She’s coldharbour. Are those results in?


----------



## planetgeli (May 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> She’s coldharbour. Are those results in?



Yes she lost, she got 660 votes. Three Labour Party machine winners in the high 1000s/low 2000s I think.
Lambeth Council Election Count 2018 – LIVE blog

Scroll down to 16.27pm


----------



## bimble (May 4, 2018)

Shit.
Nobody even close to the lab votes. I don’t understand why bother to vote at all for more of same.
I’m really disappointed, I know people haven’t got time to read about the individuals standing but thought enough people would recognise her from local activism stuff.

Anyone clever enough to figure out what turnout % was if the top 3 all got about 2000 votes probably from same voters?


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Big contrast to the Herne Hill results where the other two greens were not far off the Lab votes at all.

As pointed out elsewhere, split the votes for the independent guy between them and we could have had 3 greens.

I thought the greens made a mistake in not suggesting who you vote for in 1,2,3 order, if you don't want to give all three to greens. That way they might have quite easily got 2 in.


----------



## Ratface (May 4, 2018)

CH1 said:


> I see normal service has resumed in Coldharbour (i.e. no service)



Good result.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Cressingham sadly doesn't seem to have had much impact on the vote in Tulse Hill with 3 Labour councillors well out in front of all the others.


----------



## bimble (May 4, 2018)

I make it (v roughly) about 15% turnout in coldharbour ward if the winning 3 were mostly voted for by the same voters. A decidedly underwhelming democratic experience all round.


----------



## planetgeli (May 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> I make it (v roughly) about 15% turnout in coldharbour ward if the winning 3 were mostly voted for by the same voters. A decidedly underwhelming democratic experience all round.



Dunno how you’ve calculated that but I suspect it’s a bit low. Overall turnout for Lambeth was 34% and I’d expect that to be fairly uniform across all wards, give or take.


----------



## bimble (May 4, 2018)

planetgeli said:


> Dunno how you’ve calculated that but I suspect it’s a bit low. Overall turnout for Lambeth was 34% and I’d expect that to be fairly uniform across all wards, give or take.


The fact that you who live very far away now are studying lambeths results makes me feel better about my late onset local politics nerdism. My number probably wrong yes.


----------



## planetgeli (May 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> The fact that you who live very far away now are studying lambeths results makes me feel better about my late onset local politics nerdism. My number probably wrong yes.



Once a Brixtonite, always a Brixtonite? Plus psephology has always been a strong weak point of mine.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> So Rachel Heywood lost her seat. Why? I thought she was supposed to be very popular. Or is that only when viewed from the U75 bubble?



The bubble you are in.

Typical nasty swipe from you.

Unlike you who enjoys internet swiping from the safety of your keyboard I went out with others to distribute leaflets for her in the real world.

Unlike you who lives in internet bubble. My life extends outside it.

It was always going to be uphill struggle.

You really come across as nasty unpleasant poster.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2018)

bimble said:


> Shit.
> Nobody even close to the lab votes. I don’t understand why bother to vote at all for more of same.
> I’m really disappointed, I know people haven’t got time to read about the individuals standing but thought enough people would recognise her from local activism stuff.
> 
> Anyone clever enough to figure out what turnout % was if the top 3 all got about 2000 votes probably from same voters?



Thing is on the large estates in Coldharbour none were under threat. There was nothing that controversial going on in Coldharbour. 

Labour didn't bother doing campaigning in Coldharbour ward. Only people I saw where Greens and Rachel supporters. 

Its still despite gentrification of Brixton still a working class ward. People vote Labour full stop. Our New Labour party take that for granted.

Rachel didn't do to badly. But standing as Independent was always going to be a handicap. 

For me it means I will have to deal with these people over Rec and adventure playground.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The bubble you are in.
> 
> Typical nasty swipe from you.
> 
> ...


How about responding to the content of my posts instead of these personal attacks? I've never had a go at you personally have I? You're not coming across as a very pleasant poster yourself at the moment.


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2018)

Rachel Heywood got fewer votes than either of the green candidates. Barely a quarter of the top two labour candidates. My impression is that she's had a relatively high profile. She's been there on most of the big issues in that ward over the past few years. The road closures. The arches. (At least the ones we talk about here. And I often get lectures on here from certain posters on how the stuff that gets talked about on u75 is not niche but what is important to all the 'ordinary people' out there). She was there talking at the Windrush thing the other week. She's also not an unknown but someone who people will already know as a councillor. So, seriously, I'm surprised that she got so few votes. Even accounting for u75 bubble distortions. Doesn't look like I'm the only one a bit surprised either.


----------



## Ratface (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 134450
> 
> Rachel Heywood got fewer votes than either of the green candidates. Barely a quarter of the top two labour candidates. My impression is that she's had a relatively high profile. She's been there on most of the big issues in that ward over the past few years. The road closures. The arches. (At least the ones we talk about here. And I often get lectures on here from certain posters on how the stuff that gets talked about on u75 is not niche but what is important to all the 'ordinary people' out there). She was there talking at the Windrush thing the other week. She's also not an unknown but someone who people will already know as a councillor. So, seriously, I'm surprised that she got so few votes. Even accounting for u75 bubble distortions. Doesn't look like I'm the only one a bit surprised either.



The Windrush "Thing".


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> How about responding to the content of my posts instead of these personal attacks? I've never had a go at you personally have I? You're not coming across as a very pleasant poster yourself at the moment.



Sorry did I miss something? Your post was yet another of your swipes at Urban. The "content" of your post was attack on those in the Urban "bubble". Like Spam you know exactly what you are doing. So don't come all this is not personal attack nonsense on me. I know who that post was aimed at.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 134450
> 
> Rachel Heywood got fewer votes than either of the green candidates. Barely a quarter of the top two labour candidates. My impression is that she's had a relatively high profile. She's been there on most of the big issues in that ward over the past few years. The road closures. The arches. (At least the ones we talk about here. And I often get lectures on here from certain posters on how the stuff that gets talked about on u75 is not niche but what is important to all the 'ordinary people' out there). She was there talking at the Windrush thing the other week. She's also not an unknown but someone who people will already know as a councillor. So, seriously, I'm surprised that she got so few votes. Even accounting for u75 bubble distortions. Doesn't look like I'm the only one a bit surprised either.



You mean me?

You really come across as tiresome, small minded and resentful.

I do do notice you don't go down so well on politics boards.

My bringing up on boards ( and politics boards recently) of what local people say to me is to get away from the internet "bubble" you so often here complain about.


----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> You really come across as tiresome, small minded and resentful.



More personal stuff.


----------



## Mr Retro (May 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 134450
> 
> Rachel Heywood got fewer votes than either of the green candidates. Barely a quarter of the top two labour candidates. My impression is that she's had a relatively high profile. She's been there on most of the big issues in that ward over the past few years. The road closures. The arches. (At least the ones we talk about here. And I often get lectures on here from certain posters on how the stuff that gets talked about on u75 is not niche but what is important to all the 'ordinary people' out there). She was there talking at the Windrush thing the other week. She's also not an unknown but someone who people will already know as a councillor. So, seriously, I'm surprised that she got so few votes. Even accounting for u75 bubble distortions. Doesn't look like I'm the only one a bit surprised either.


I expected her to skate in. As you say she had a genuinely high profile for a councillor.

It surprises me in general the lack of Independents in british politics. In the last Irish election there were I think 18 elected to the Dail (parliament). That’s nearly 10% of the total.

About 20% of local councillors are independent.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 5, 2018)

Here's the Buzz post-election wrap.

Think I'll go t sleep now.

For another four years...


----------



## bimble (May 5, 2018)

Mr Retro Just interested: Any theories as to why its so different here and seemingly impossible to get anywhere if you stand as independent?


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> So Rachel Heywood lost her seat. Why? I thought she was supposed to be very popular. Or is that only when viewed from the U75 bubble?


If you compare the case of Anna Tapsell (Larkhall 1998) it is rather similar. The deselected Tapsell (who had been Labour group leader in 1994) got 413 standing as independent whereas the official Labour got 1357 (Craig) 1252 (Bawden) 1112 (McCaulay Green). The party label is incredibly important in British politics.

Getting 660 is a big achievement for an independent candidate - and in line with the Green vote in Coldharbour Ward (despite no overt cooperation).

For the record when I stood as independent in Coldharbour I got exactly 100 votes. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2018)

Mr Retro bimble surely Irish elections are all done on STV (single transferable vote)?
Under that system you put your candidates in order of preference, and if they don't get in the vote transfers to the next preferred candidate.
Not one vote is wasted - and the result is perfectly in accordance with the wishes of the electorate.

Could never have that here - MPs have repeatedly said its too complicate for British voters to understand.


----------



## bimble (May 5, 2018)

tbf CH1 maybe the MPs are right, I don't understand.


----------



## aka (May 5, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I expected her to skate in. As you say she had a genuinely high profile for a councillor.
> 
> It surprises me in general the lack of Independents in british politics. In the last Irish election there were I think 18 elected to the Dail (parliament). That’s nearly 10% of the total.
> 
> About 20% of local councillors are independent.


Rachel really didn't declare early enough.  The second she was booted she should have been campaigning.  Hindsight I guess.


----------



## Winot (May 5, 2018)

I am surprised about Rachel too - she seems a really good councillor and it was courageous to do what she did.

I guess one factor that we must take into account is that most of the electorate aren’t interested in Politics (even if they are interested in issues which are inherently political). Most people didn’t vote. And of those that did, I’m guessing a lot voted on traditional party lines. We get the politicians we deserve.


----------



## Southlondon (May 5, 2018)

Rachel must have been a well respected councillor to do as well as she did, but people like myself voted for the Labour Party candidates because we support the Labour Party and want to see Corbyn as Prime minister. Members like myself have remained members and campaign to bring the local party more in line with the national party, despite the pressure from the dominant new labour remnants. If we had all walked away or stood as opponents there would be no Corbyn and zero chance of a Labour government. The turnout Is always low in locals, as most people won’t vote if they are happy with the way things are in their locality, and the fact that Lambeth labour have won 4 elections in a row for the first time ever, and post-Corbyn membership has doubled and is still growing, shows that across the Borough there is a lot of support for the party. For us Corbynites the challenge is to recruit left wing members at a faster rate than the right wing are currently achieving in the Borough. The way to change Lambeth labour is to fight from within not to support greens/libdems  who have a track record of supporting Tories when they get a sniff of power. The anyone but labour crowd sound desperate and marginal, and Rachel unfortunately put herself in that camp
QUOTE="Winot, post: 15545440, member: 27689"]I am surprised about Rachel too - she seems a really good councillor and it was courageous to do what she did.

I guess one factor that we must take into account is that most of the electorate aren’t interested in Politics (even if they are interested in issues which are inherently political). Most people didn’t vote. And of those that did, I’m guessing a lot voted on traditional party lines. We get the politicians we deserve.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bimble (May 5, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> ..The way to change Lambeth labour is to fight from within..


By returning the same faces to the same seats? How does this help your stated goal of Corbyn becoming pm anyway.


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> tbf CH1 maybe the MPs are right, I don't understand.
> View attachment 134473


You don't need to know all that when you vote. You just put the candidates in order of preference - like a competition on a cornflake packet.
Even I can do that.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 5, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> people like myself voted for the Labour Party candidates because we support the Labour Party and want to see Corbyn as Prime minister.



So you voted for stooges who campaigned heavily to remove Corbyn


----------



## editor (May 5, 2018)

aka said:


> Rachel really didn't declare early enough.  The second she was booted she should have been campaigning.  Hindsight I guess.


The trouble with that tactic would be that it would have given plenty of time for Labour to do their utmost to discredit and destroy her in the lead up to the election.


----------



## Southlondon (May 5, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> So you voted for stooges who campaigned heavily to remove Corbyn


The only way they will go, Is when we can out vote them and select candidates more in line with the national party. Only the membership can achieve that. Leaving the party for the fringe groupletts only serves to strengthen them. With a huge tribal support base in Lambeth, standing candidates against the party is fruitless change will come from within as it has nationally. Lefties leaving the party or standing against them is exactly what they want.


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2018)

editor said:


> The trouble with that tactic would be that it would have given plenty of time for Labour to do their utmost to discredit and destroy her in the lead up to the election.


The other thing is cost. I reckon her double-sided glossy colour leaflet could have cost £400 or more - assuming say 8,000 were printed to leaflet the whole ward and hand out on the street.

If you were to do a run of several leaflets it would obviously cost multiples - plus unless carefully worded "early" leaflets would also come into election expenses which are limited to about £500 per candidate.

Yet another reason why a party ticket scores - the leaflets and other expenses are divided between the three candidates.


----------



## Mr Retro (May 5, 2018)

bimble said:


> Mr Retro Just interested: Any theories as to why its so different here and seemingly impossible to get anywhere if you stand as independent?


It needs somebody with better political knowledge than me to give the right reason but I suspect Proportional Representation has a lot to do with it like CH1 said. Also along with PR there is more than 1 seat in each constituency. For example in my old constituency 5 seats are up for grabs so you can vote for an independent and your party and they might all be successful. 

There is also a thing in Ireland where in some areas independents live on through a party that’s been wound up. So people are voting historically for the party who the independent has links to. I was trying to find reference to that online but couldn’t.


----------



## Mr Retro (May 5, 2018)

Tricky Skills said:


> Here's the Buzz post-election wrap.
> 
> Think I'll go t sleep now.
> 
> For another four years...


I was following yesterday’s blog in the afternoon. Really enjoyed the updates and reporting.


----------



## Slo-mo (May 5, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> The way to change Lambeth labour is to fight from within not to support greens/libdems  who have a track record of supporting Tories when they get a sniff of power.



I'm no fan of the Greens but I don't think you can put them in the same category as the LibDems in terms of supporting the Tories.

I'm really struggling to think of an example of the Greens supporting the Tories, actually, and the only one I can think of was a long time ago and a long way from Lambeth.


----------



## Southlondon (May 5, 2018)

They formed a coalition with the Tories in Leeds a while back, and acted like Tories in Brighton where they cut workers wages by thousands. Abroad the greens have supported right wing coalitions in Ireland.
 I was thinking 





Slo-mo said:


> I'm no fan of the Greens but I don't think you can put them in the same category as the LibDems in terms of supporting the Tories.
> 
> I'm really struggling to think of an example of the Greens supporting the Tories, actually, and the only one I can think of was a long time ago and a long way from Lambeth.





Slo-mo said:


> I'm no fan of the Greens but I don't think you can put them in the same category as the LibDems in terms of supporting the Tories.
> 
> I'm really struggling to think of an example of the Greens supporting the Tories, actually, and the only one I can think of was a long time ago and a long way from Lambeth.


----------



## CH1 (May 5, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> They formed a coalition with the Tories in Leeds a while back, and acted like Tories in Brighton where they cut workers wages by thousands. Abroad the greens have supported right wing coalitions in Ireland.
> I was thinking


As has been already pointed out to you Lambeth Labour are happy enough to do deals with Cineworld despite the long running dispute under their nose.


----------



## Slo-mo (May 5, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> They formed a coalition with the Tories in Leeds a while back,



Yeah that's the only example I'm aware of, but a long time ago and not in Lambeth.


> Abroad the greens have supported right wing coalitions in Ireland.



And indeed in Germany, but those are totally different parties, completely unrelated to the English and Welsh Green Party.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2018)

aka said:


> Rachel really didn't declare early enough.  The second she was booted she should have been campaigning.  Hindsight I guess.



In hindsight I agree that was a factor.

I think she was hoping to be allowed back into the Labour Group after her six month suspension from the group. This wasn't punishment enough and she was told she would have to go in front of another Labour Group committee to admit her errors and show contrition.

Its not as if she went against Labour group manifesto. So imo she left matters as they were.  She never really publicly advertised that she was an Independent. Problem being that meant she had no chance of re selection.

So I don't think she really wanted to stand against official Labour candidates.

It was late in the day when she finally decided to stand.

She had a lot of support from ordinary Lambeth Labour party members. I know some and heard amongst ordinary members there was a lot of sympathy for Rachel.

So imo whilst she was highly critical of the leadership and the dictatorial way the Labour group was run she wasn't criticising the Labour party. In fact she, unlike the Lambeth Labour party leadership, openly supported Corbyn.

So in a way she didn't see herself as an Independent.

It was a difficult message to get across. When leafleting I met someone who recognised Rachel. Took a lot of explaining to get message across.

Southlondon makes point that one should stay in Labour party, even in Rachels case, and work to get these New Labour Cllrs deselected. Its easy to see who they are as they didn't vote for Corbyn.

Also use Labour party rules to get control over ward parties even if Cllrs are New Labour.

In hindsight Rachels campaign was to nice. Look at the leaflets. Maybe campaign should have been more upfront on saying what she had been saying at hustings. But a more aggressive campaign would have met with the same from Labour Group possibly.

I got distinct feeling that lack of canvassing/ leafleting in Coldharbour ward can be partly attributed to ordinary members not wanting to do canvassing against Rachel.

It doesn't help that the candidate to replace Rachel was no where to be seen during the election period. The candidate parachuted in as safe pair of hands.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2018)

Southlondon said:


> The only way they will go, Is when we can out vote them and select candidates more in line with the national party. Only the membership can achieve that. Leaving the party for the fringe groupletts only serves to strengthen them. With a huge tribal support base in Lambeth, standing candidates against the party is fruitless change will come from within as it has nationally. Lefties leaving the party or standing against them is exactly what they want.



The tribal support was a factor in Coldharbour ward. I know the ward and it has always been Labour.

To move Lambeth Labour away from New Labour/ Third Way is going to mean that ordinary members will have to be as ruthless as the existing right wing leadership. I don't see it happening without an internal war in the  Lambeth party that doubtless the right wing press like Evening Standard will jump on.

It does surprise me but New Labour people/ Cllrs in Lambeth I've met  are also tribal. They really believe in what they are doing is the best for the party.


----------



## Southlondon (May 6, 2018)

Gramsci said:


> The tribal support was a factor in Coldharbour ward. I know the ward and it has always been Labour.
> 
> To move Lambeth Labour away from New Labour/ Third Way is going to mean that ordinary members will have to be as ruthless as the existing right wing leadership. I don't see it happening without an internal war in the  Lambeth party that doubtless the right wing press like Evening Standard will jump on.
> 
> It does surprise me but New Labour people/ Cllrs in Lambeth I've met  are also tribal. They really believe in what they are doing is the best for the party.


Of course they believe in their policies. They are just as ideological as the left. It won’t be a blood bath anymore than it has been elsewhere, it just needs numbers to out vote them. When people choose to leave the party they are no longer able to affect the balance within the party and thus the right wing become that little bit stronger every tine. People leaving or voting against the party doesn’t weaken the blairittes it strengthens them.


----------



## Southlondon (May 6, 2018)

Slo-mo said:


> Yeah that's the only example I'm aware of, but a long time ago and not in Lambeth.
> 
> 
> And indeed in Germany, but those are totally different parties, completely unrelated to the English and Welsh Green Party.


A lot of the left wing green members left to join labour when Corbyn became leader ( and indeed helped to get him elected). A lot of greens I meet seem to be the more liberal and less socialist variety. I’m sure there are some good ones left but when I look at the mess they made of Brighton with the way they treated the unions, I’m glad they will never be more than a fringe group in London


----------



## aka (May 7, 2018)

editor said:


> The trouble with that tactic would be that it would have given plenty of time for Labour to do their utmost to discredit and destroy her in the lead up to the election.


no such thing as bad publicity.  it was a mistake to not go early and hard - worst case she loses - which is what happened.


----------



## Jonti (May 7, 2018)

Hindsight is easy and the decision must have been agonising for poor Rachel. We'll never know what would have happened had she declared and fought as a Corbynista, framing the inevitable attacks from the Blairites as just that.  My guess is that Coldharbour (my ward) is more Corbynista than nuLabour and the message would have gotten through.


----------



## Smick (May 7, 2018)

Mr Retro said:


> I expected her to skate in. As you say she had a genuinely high profile for a councillor.
> 
> It surprises me in general the lack of Independents in british politics. In the last Irish election there were I think 18 elected to the Dail (parliament). That’s nearly 10% of the total.
> 
> About 20% of local councillors are independent.


A lot of the Irish independent TDs are


CH1 said:


> Mr Retro bimble surely Irish elections are all done on STV (single transferable vote)?
> Under that system you put your candidates in order of preference, and if they don't get in the vote transfers to the next preferred candidate.
> Not one vote is wasted - and the result is perfectly in accordance with the wishes of the electorate.
> 
> Could never have that here - MPs have repeatedly said its too complicate for British voters to understand.


A lot of the independents in Ireland top the vote. Some have former connections to parties like Lowry with Fine Gael and the Healy-Raes have inherited the political influence of their father, who was an FF man.


----------



## stevebradley (May 8, 2018)

Smick said:


> A lot of the Irish independent TDs are
> 
> A lot of the independents in Ireland top the vote. Some have former connections to parties like Lowry with Fine Gael and the Healy-Raes have inherited the political influence of their father, who was an FF man.



Irish politics has a significantly more parochial element than in Britain, and also has a history of dynastic politics. People getting votes just on the basis of who their elected father is/was (it's almost always a male relative).

Some of the independents elected to the Dail are frankly an embarrassment (e.g. the Healy-Rae's), but get in because they're 'big characters' who are well known in parts of the country where it's not hard to become well known (e.g. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan). Irish politics is much closer to America than Britain in how it functions culturally - particularly in its use of patronage (e.g. the old Tammany Hall system in new York). 

The main reason why independents get elected in Ireland and elsewhere is the voting system. FPTP entrenches a two-party system - even if the particular two parties involved differ by area.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2018)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 134450
> 
> Rachel Heywood got fewer votes than either of the green candidates. Barely a quarter of the top two labour candidates. My impression is that she's had a relatively high profile. She's been there on most of the big issues in that ward over the past few years. The road closures. The arches. (At least the ones we talk about here. And I often get lectures on here from certain posters on how the stuff that gets talked about on u75 is not niche but what is important to all the 'ordinary people' out there). She was there talking at the Windrush thing the other week. She's also not an unknown but someone who people will already know as a councillor. So, seriously, I'm surprised that she got so few votes. Even accounting for u75 bubble distortions. Doesn't look like I'm the only one a bit surprised either.



In terms of canvassing, it appears - from reports from local branch members - that Labour pulled out all the stops on the estates in the week running up to the election, with the usual "Labour will get you a new kitchen/bathroom" balls, alongside "if you vote for Heywood, the Tories will get in". A couple of acquaintances apparently walked away from canvassing, when told to chat that shit on the doorstep. They were always going to run a spoiling campaign against her, it was just a matter of how intense it would be.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 8, 2018)

bimble said:


> Mr Retro Just interested: Any theories as to why its so different here and seemingly impossible to get anywhere if you stand as independent?



Because we use FPTP, rather than PR.


----------



## xsunnysuex (May 8, 2018)

Twitter reporting an acid attack on a young girl in Electric Avenue.


----------

