# Lambeth local elections 2010 thread



## se5 (Mar 30, 2010)

I think it is time for thread about the Lambeth local elections to be held on 6 May 2010. I know there is one elsewhere in the Brixton section (see http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=283864) but that was started more than a year ago.

I got my polling card in the post today so am definitely registered to vote so bring it on 

If you are not registered to vote you have until 5pm on 20 April to do so - download the form on the Lambeth website - http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/...yElections/ElectionsVoting/RegisterToVote.htm and send it off. If you're going to be away you have until 20 April to register for a postal vote and until 27 April to register for a proxy vote.

In 2006 the results of the election were Labour: 39 seats, Liberal  Democrats: 17 seats, Conservatives: 6 seats and Green:1 - since then Labour have lost one seat to the Lib Dems and retained one seat in byelections. Individual ward results are at http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...E52330ADFAAA/0/LambethElectionResults2006.pdf or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Council_election,_2006 

For what its worth I think what I said on the other thread a year or so ago still remains - Labour will retain control and may even gain the odd seat  with the Lib Dems squeezed because of increased popularity of the Conservatives. I think the Greens may also gain the odd seat but this is not guaranteed and they may in fact lose all their seats. 

What do others think?


----------



## se5 (Mar 30, 2010)

And Labour have unveiled their manifesto -  see http://www.lambethlabour.com/?p=337


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 30, 2010)

Assuming that the General Election is on the same day, then turnout is likely to be higher, with a lot of people turning out who will mostly vote on national issues in both polls.

That might just be enough to save Labour's bacon in a few wards that they would otherwise lose on a normal local turnout on local issues such as the disastrous transfer of housing to Lambeth Living, and the ongoing fiasco of closed swimming pools and other stalled "regeneration" projects.

However, overall I still expect Labour to lose seats to both the Lib Dems and to the Tories.   

The Greens need to pull their fingers out and deliver some recycled literature in Herne Hill if they are to hold onto that seat and gain the other two.  I fear a large swathe of the anti-Labour protest vote in that ward will otherwise go Tory!


----------



## malice (Mar 30, 2010)

I've had a green leaflet on Brixton Hill, and it looks like they're focusing on there (as well as Herne Hill maybe)?


----------



## charcol (Mar 30, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Assuming that the General Election is on the same day, then turnout is likely to be higher, with a lot of people turning out who will mostly vote on national issues in both polls.
> 
> That might just be enough to save Labour's bacon in a few wards that they would otherwise lose on a normal local turnout on local issues such as the disastrous transfer of housing to Lambeth Living, and the ongoing fiasco of closed swimming pools and other stalled "regeneration" projects.
> 
> ...



I would agree with all that, although to slightly complicate matters the Lib Dems are vulnerable to Labour in Oval. The same is true for the Tories with Labour in Gipsy Hill.

Now, if the Greens put up a full slate of 3 candidates in all wards that could make things interesting. In the past they have only done this in stronger areas such as Coldharbour and Herne Hill, but having a General Election on the same day might change that.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 31, 2010)

No sign of them managing a last minute deal with the TMOs (tenants management organisations) still in dispute about allowances. So I can see rather a large number of votes going Green in Coldharbour if the Greens pick up on it.

When you have a 400 household estate feeling they've been ripped off and getting angry about it, you can end up with a fairly busy polling station. In this case it's an estate that has been ripped off to the tune of well over two million quid over the last couple of years. That's rent money, and goverment money specifically allocated to the estate, that have been taken away and used to shore up Lambeth Living's overspending. It's not something that is going to get forgiven easily.

The Lib Dems won't be able to take advantage, as all they've managed to do is stir up trouble rather than actually get anything fixed. So any green or red party that wants to take the initiative in mobilising is likely to do rather well.


----------



## ajdown (Mar 31, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> I fear a large swathe of the anti-Labour protest vote in that ward will otherwise go Tory!



Would you rather it went BNP instead of Tory then?

I'd be happy with anything except Labour staying in, because overall they've fucked up Lambeth, and the country generally.  Hearing Tony Blair rolled out to say that Gordon Brown "provided strong leadership when the country needed it" completely failed to recognise the fact that it was their fuck-ups in the first place that put the country in the mess that it's in.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Mar 31, 2010)

I've really no idea which way my ward, The Oval, will vote. The LibDems have done a reasonable job here. The three councillors focus on micro local matters, such as litter and street signs. They always respond, and fix, my requests.

Nu Labour has a young team around here, who so far have been anonymous. This seems to be the opposite approach of other Nu Labour teams around the borough, who have implemented a huge online campaign.

This has given the party a strong profile in the borough, but I'm not sure if this will translate to votes. There is a big difference in making yourself heard and blatant mudslinging.

Nu Labour's record in Lambeth over the past four years is mixed. Housing has been a disaster, only disguised by the complete meltdown of the failed leisure policy.

Timing is crucial here - weeks ahead of the election, and Future Clapham is finally happening, as well as the agreement on Streatham Hub (although major, major planning hurdles regarding the temporary provision still need to be negotiated.)

We also need to keep a close check on the Nu Labour manifesto pledge of "free swimming for residents," especially so with Keep Clapham Swimming still viewed as an issue of betrayal around here.

The John Lewis model of local government is just a joke. It delivered the front page Guardian headline, did the PR job, but beneath the pledges is nothing but an empty vacuum of political spin. This more or less sums up Nu Labour in Lambeth over the past four years.

Would a LibDem / Tory coalition manage any better? I remain to be convinced.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 31, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Would you rather it went BNP instead of Tory then?



Merely sentimentality on my part - I spent too much of my life in the early 90s getting rid of deadbeat Thatcherite Tory councillors in Lambeth to welcome a Conservative revival.   

However, I should add that the more independent minded among Lambeth's Tory  councillors have been better "small l" liberals than one or two eco-Nazis who have passed through the ranks of Lambeth Green party in the last twenty years.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 31, 2010)

I live in Vassall Ward and it was pretty close between Labour and Lib Dem last time, but Labour won all three seats. (The greens didnt stand here in 2006 and the Tories and Respect were way down.) Then a Lib Dem got in through a by-election about two years ago - one the Labour councillors Liz Atkinson sadly died. The Lib Dems are pretty active in terms of regularly shoving leaflets through your door and you rarely hear anything from Labour (until recently when a pre-election glossy arrived) so I could see the Lib Dems taking all three seats this time.


----------



## netbob (Apr 1, 2010)

I'm still getting very few (compared to other parts of the country) leaflets on http://www.thestraightchoice.org for this neck of the woods. Anyone had any they would care to upload?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 6, 2010)

memespring said:


> I'm still getting very few (compared to other parts of the country) leaflets on http://www.thestraightchoice.org for this neck of the woods. Anyone had any they would care to upload?


Had a few - one from Lab, one from Lib Dem - but all in the bin now 

By the way, we've had a leaflet from the Lib Dems promoting Jonathan Mitchell as their parliamentary candidate for Dulwich & West Norwood......but unfortunately for the Lib Dems we're in Vauxhall!   

Quite how they expect to win the seat when they can't even deliver the leaflet to the right place is damn amusing.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 6, 2010)

Nothing yet from Labour in the Oval ward. I think priorities for one of the candidates is down in East Hampshire.


----------



## Mairead (Apr 6, 2010)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Had a few - one from Lab, one from Lib Dem - but all in the bin now
> 
> By the way, we've had a leaflet from the Lib Dems promoting Jonathan Mitchell as their parliamentary candidate for Dulwich & West Norwood......but unfortunately for the Lib Dems we're in Vauxhall!
> 
> Quite how they expect to win the seat when they can't even deliver the leaflet to the right place is damn amusing.



Are you sure? I live in the centre of Brixton and due to the Boundary changes it looks like I'm moving from Vauxhall to Dulwich and West Norwood.


----------



## colacubes (Apr 6, 2010)

Mairead said:
			
		

> Are you sure? I live in the centre of Brixton and due to the Boundary changes it looks like I'm moving from Vauxhall to Dulwich and West Norwood.



Yep. We're Coldharbour ward and we're part of Dulwich & West Norwood from this election. I'm not sure whether it's the whole ward or not.


----------



## Mairead (Apr 6, 2010)

*Boundary Changes*

You can check your constituency here:

http://www.election-maps.co.uk/index.jsp


----------



## se5 (Apr 6, 2010)

nipsla said:


> Yep. We're Coldharbour ward and we're part of Dulwich & West Norwood from this election. I'm not sure whether it's the whole ward or not.



Yes fairly sure it is the whole ward - see http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/dulwichandwestnorwood. I think before Coldharbour Ward was split between Vauxhall and Dulwich which I imagine resulted in confusion for the voters/canvassers


----------



## se5 (Apr 6, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Nothing yet from Labour in the Oval ward. I think priorities for one of the candidates is down in East Hampshire.



Yes what a truly great ambassador for the Labour Party in Oval and Lambeth! 

One of the other candidates Karim Pallant also has aspirations in other places, he used to be Chair of Labour Students and certainly used to work for the Labour Party. He is one of those youthful political types that have never had a proper job.

Still I get the impression having spoken to a Labour person I know that they dont expect to win there so it will go down on their CVs as a heroic attempt at reducing the Lib Dems' majority, probably worse thing that would happen to them is they are elected and have to get involved in the daily grind of being a councillor!


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 6, 2010)

It's certainly a squeaky clean Nu Labour list of candidates that are standing at The Oval / East Hampshire.

As well as the career politician (based in Herne Hill, PPC for East Hampshire, fallback of representing little people at The Oval,) Karim Palant crops up as featuring heavily with the Oxford University Labour Club, but little experience in Lambeth (OK, no experience in Lambeth.)

Jack Hopkins has been tipped as "a future Labour leader"  and lists his hero as "Neil Kinnock."

Nu Labour was only 300 votes or so short of taking my Oval ward back in 2006. The LibDems need to retain their three councillors if they have any ambitions of regaining the Council.

I'm not sure if the Nu Labour careerists around my patch are a signal of the young, thrusting intent of Lambeth Labour, or just work experience kids having a bit of a beano.


----------



## netbob (Apr 6, 2010)

I've prodded a mate who has a full list of candidates to see if they can replicate this for the whole country with some clever programming. I bet this happens a lot - not a problem so long as they are upfront, but generally they are not (as in this case).


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 6, 2010)

Boundary Commission for England said:
			
		

> DULWICH AND WEST NORWOOD BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (66,856). Five wards
> of the London Borough of Lambeth:- Coldharbour, Gipsy Hill, Herne Hill, Knight’s Hill, Thurlow
> Park; three wards of the London Borough of Southwark:- College, East Dulwich, Village.
> 
> ...


The original boundary commission report on Lambeth and Southwark was way back in 2002 shortly after the new wards came into being.   However, the Labour party managed to keep disputes going in a few seats in a few seats in other parts of the country for so long that that the Parliamentary boundary changes didn't come into effect at the 2005 election and have had to wait until this time round.

ETA: Ordnance survey map of the constituency boundaries at page 69 (page 75 of pdf) of this document


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 6, 2010)

memespring said:


> I've prodded a mate who has a full list of candidates to see if they can replicate this for the whole country with some clever programming. I bet this happens a lot - not a problem so long as they are upfront, but generally they are not (as in this case).



Wonderful. It would be great to see some data as to how widespread this dual candidacy is.

As long as politicians are transparent about this, then I see no problem. I haven't had any literature from Lambeth Labour, so I had no way of knowing if Jane Edbrooke has declared her Parliamentary interest down in East Hampshire.

I wonder if she is letting the good people of East Hampshire know about her "commitment" to Lambeth?


----------



## se5 (Apr 6, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Wonderful. It would be great to see some data as to how widespread this dual candidacy is.
> 
> As long as politicians are transparent about this, then I see no problem. I haven't had any literature from Lambeth Labour, so I had no way of knowing if Jane Edbrooke has declared her Parliamentary interest down in East Hampshire.
> 
> I wonder if she is letting the good people of East Hampshire know about her "commitment" to Lambeth?



Another things that leaves me with questions is people who hold several elected positions simultaneously - it seems to be quite common, for example the Lib Dem challenger in Vauxhall constituency Caroline Pidgeon is a London-wide list member of the London Assembly and a Southwark Councillor.

I know such roles are perhaps complementary but surely her doing two roles isnt as good as two people. This is also true of Jenny Jones who is a Green member of the London Assembly and Southwark Councillor. 

It also occurs at the national level where people are members of the House of Commons and the Scottish/Welsh Assembly at the same time, some Northern Ireland MPs I believe are/were MPs, members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Members of the European Parliament all at the same time. Surely all of these jobs are full time positions in their own right ?


----------



## se5 (Apr 6, 2010)

My first spots of the two horse race in this campaign!

That well known feature of political leaflets - the two horse race - I see is still in play.

We today received a leaflet from the Liberal Democrats in my ward claiming that it is two horse race and only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here. They cited figures showing Labour on 44%, the Lib Dems on 35% and the Conservatives on 11% (taken from the 2006 local elections)

Meanwhile the local Labour Party are claiming that it is a two horse race and that only Labour can beat the Tories - no exact figures shown but graph here - they are presumably showing figures from the main Ken v Boris bout of two years ago. Just shows the beauty of statistics - they can be made to show anything you want!


----------



## netbob (Apr 7, 2010)

se5 said:


> My first spots of the two horse race in this campaign!
> 
> We today received a leaflet from the Liberal Democrats in my ward claiming that it is two horse race and only the Lib Dems can beat Labour here. They cited figures showing Labour on 44%, the Lib Dems on 35% and the Conservatives on 11% (taken from the 2006 local elections)



Any chance you can upload it to http://www.thestraightchoice.org/


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 7, 2010)

Thanks for the info on boundary changes - I didn't realise they were being redrawn. However, where I live in Vassall ward remains in Vauxhall, so still a bit of confusion from the Lib Dems.  

I've had the same leaflets that se5 has had from the Lib dems claiming only they can beat Labour. (They're probably right and I can see them taking all three seats.) I'll put them up on that site memespring if I get any more - they're pretty basic stuff, treating the voters like idiots: "LABOUR WILL CLOSE THE LIBRARY - ONLY THE LIB DEMS REALLY CARE..." type of stuff.


----------



## co-op (Apr 7, 2010)

se5 said:


> Meanwhile the local Labour Party are claiming that it is a two horse race and that only Labour can beat the Tories - no exact figures shown but graph here - they are presumably showing figures from the main Ken v Boris bout of two years ago. Just shows the beauty of statistics - they can be made to show anything you want!



To be fair to the Labour Party they do cite the source as being from the London mayoral election, but that's still absolute shite when it comes to ward results; the lib-dems are clearly the main competition to Labour there and Steve Bradley (who won the by-election for the LDs a couple of years ago) seems popular enough to win again. I live next door in Stockwell ward and have quite a few friends in Vassall, and they speak well of him.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 7, 2010)

I don't know much about the effectiveness of Cllr Bradley as a politician, but he is the one LibDem that the Nu Labour lot seem to fear. He is constantly heckled whenever he speaks at full meetings - a sure sign that the Nu Labour lot are weary of his political talents.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 7, 2010)

se5 said:


> Another things that leaves me with questions is people who hold several elected positions simultaneously - it seems to be quite common, for example the Lib Dem challenger in Vauxhall constituency Caroline Pidgeon is a London-wide list member of the London Assembly and a Southwark Councillor.



To be fair to her, Caroline isn't standing again in Southwark:

All change at the town hall: tributes to SE1 councillors standing down


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 8, 2010)

I've written an overview of the Lambeth local, and national picture for Londonist. Lambeth politics is lively, if not always productive.


----------



## netbob (Apr 9, 2010)

We've finally had a few leaflets through, all Labour, plus found a Green one spiked on a fence the other day. All uploaded here: http://www.thestraightchoice.org/leaflets.php?n=dulwich_and_west_norwood

(btw, you can now email photographs in from your phone leaflets@thestraightchoice.org)


----------



## Ms T (Apr 9, 2010)

nipsla said:


> Yep. We're Coldharbour ward and we're part of Dulwich & West Norwood from this election. I'm not sure whether it's the whole ward or not.



We're Coldharbour as well and are moving from Streatham (wtf?) to Dulwich and West Norwood as well.  Brixton used to be split into three parliamentary constituencies, which really didn't make sense.  I guess now it will be two, which is still not ideal.


----------



## Mairead (Apr 9, 2010)

Does anyone know of any hustings organised for Dulwich and West Norwood or Coldharbour ward? I feel the need to heckle someone!


----------



## Biddlybee (Apr 9, 2010)

There's one on 22 April at a church down Half Moon Lane, can't remember it's name.

(bugger, LCC had one yesterday for GLA )


----------



## Mairead (Apr 9, 2010)

Cheers - I will investigate!


----------



## Mairead (Apr 9, 2010)

*Hustings*

Found these - I don't know why but that Lib Dems face annoys me 

http://www.jonathanmitchellsblog.com/2010/04/forthcoming-general-election-candidates.html


----------



## colacubes (Apr 9, 2010)

Ms T said:


> We're Coldharbour as well and are moving from Streatham (wtf?) to Dulwich and West Norwood as well.  Brixton used to be split into three parliamentary constituencies, which really didn't make sense.  I guess now it will be two, which is still not ideal.



How the fuck were you Streatham when we were Vauxhall before .  Bonkers it is


----------



## netbob (Apr 9, 2010)

Ms T said:


> We're Coldharbour as well and are moving from Streatham (wtf?) to Dulwich and West Norwood as well.  Brixton used to be split into three parliamentary constituencies, which really didn't make sense.  I guess now it will be two, which is still not ideal.



Weird. I thought ward constituency boundaries never crossed?


----------



## co-op (Apr 9, 2010)

BiddlyBee said:


> There's one on 22 April at a church down Half Moon Lane, can't remember it's name.
> 
> (bugger, LCC had one yesterday for GLA )



The April 22nd one is the Herne Hill Forum one - http://www.hernehillforum.org.uk/forum_public_meeting

There's going to be a presentation on "20's Plenty" the national campaign to reduce urban speed limits first - this will be by Rod King, the national chair of that campaign and I'd really recommend seeing that, he's very good and you'll learn a lot.

There's another LCC hustings - only Lambeth not London - on the 20th April at the Stockwell Community Resource Centre just behind Stockwell tube so you can ask more cycle oriented questions there if you want.


----------



## Biddlybee (Apr 9, 2010)

co-op said:


> There's another LCC hustings - only Lambeth not London - on the 20th April at the Stockwell Community Resource Centre just behind Stockwell tube so you can ask more cycle oriented questions there if you want.


Cheers, I might pop along.


----------



## Ms T (Apr 9, 2010)

nipsla said:


> How the fuck were you Streatham when we were Vauxhall before .  Bonkers it is



Dunno, but was in Streatham constituency when I lived on Kellett Road as well.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 9, 2010)

Ms T said:


> We're Coldharbour as well and are moving from Streatham (wtf?) to Dulwich and West Norwood as well.  Brixton used to be split into three parliamentary constituencies, which really didn't make sense.  I guess now it will be two, which is still not ideal.



Brixton town centre is still split three ways: Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill in Streatham BC; Ferndale in Vauxhall BC and Coldharbour in Dulwich & West Norwood BC.


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 9, 2010)

memespring said:


> Weird. I thought ward constituency boundaries never crossed?



They won't do from now on.  However, the 2005 General Election was fought on old  parliamentary constituency boundaries that reflected the pre-2002 council wards because of the delay to implementing the boundary review.  The boundaries between the "old" Tulse Hill, Herne Hill and Angell wards were fairly bonkers IIRC.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2010)

se5 said:


> And Labour have unveiled their manifesto -  see http://www.lambethlabour.com/?p=337



Had a quick look at this. Want i cant take is the almost gleeful way Lambeth Labur bang on about crime. "Zero Tolerance",  Police Hit squads (with picture of police battering a door down and saying they give out more ASBOs than any other party.

Also the manifesto takes swipes at LibDems for being "liberal" on the decriminalisation of drugs and prostitution.

On a personal level the Labour Cllrs and members i have met are liberal minded. 

I find this Blunkett type view of law and order turns me off the Labour party. I remember Blunkett going on like this. Anyone who disagreed with him was a "Liberati" or "Guardianista". Obviously not representative of the "ordinary decent people" who want punitive law and order.

Ive been reading "The Spirit Level" by Wilkinson and Pickett.  A book the Poliical classes are reading to show there "progressive" credentials but largely skating over what it says.

The book a study of how inequality (yep old school sociology) affects societies. The more unequal a society is the more punitive it is.

"In societies with greater inequality (that is USA ,UK for example)..public and policy makers are more willing to...adopt punitive attitudes towards the "criminal elements" of society."  Page 155 

The criminologist John Irwin says there are unofficial reasons for punitive law and order policies

a) Class control - protect middles class from criminal underclass.
b) Scapegoating- diverting attention from social problems. For example inequalities in wealth.
c) Political Gain- using threat of the "dangerous Class" 

(footnote page 154 of the Spirit Level)


----------



## Laughing Toad (Apr 10, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> "In societies with greater inequality (that is USA ,UK for example)..public and policy makers are more willing to...adopt punitive attitudes towards the "criminal elements" of society."  Page 155



Not China though. Until recently it was quite equal, and they're always hanging people.


----------



## co-op (Apr 10, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Had a quick look at this. Want i cant take is the almost gleeful way Lambeth Labur bang on about crime. "Zero Tolerance",  Police Hit squads (with picture of police battering a door down and saying they give out more ASBOs than any other party.
> 
> Also the manifesto takes swipes at LibDems for being "liberal" on the decriminalisation of drugs and prostitution.
> 
> ...



This.

Lambeth Labour's election literature is like reading a copy of the Daily Mail - they've even ditched the colour red and got into this rather weird purple which - from a few feet away looks blue; I thought the tories had been round when I saw it sticking out of my letter box.

All they are doing is boasting about how little tax they charge and how tough on crime they are - it's a totally tory agenda.

I also agree about the ordinary labour councillors; the ones I've met are alright. But there seems to be a group around the leadership who are basically principle-less and will say whatever they have to if it means they can get re-elected without having to win some arguments and make a case for what they believe in.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2010)

Laughing Toad said:


> Not China though. Until recently it was quite equal, and they're always hanging people.



The Spirit Level is comparing advanced industrialised countries Europe, USA, Japan etc. China is still a country of great contrasts. How equal China was in reality is open to question as stats from Communist countries were/ are unreliable.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> I've written an overview of the Lambeth local, and national picture for Londonist. Lambeth politics is lively, if not always productive.



Good concise overview.

Is the John Lewis idea only for the election? Most people in Lambeth I have met either have never heard of Lambeth becoming a John Lewis Council or think its just one of those things Politicians come out with at election time. Remember when the Labour Party were into Etzioni and Communitarianism? That all got forgotten about.

Also the Cooperative idea isnt owned by the Labour party. There as u say has been no Known consultation about it. I expect there has been a Commission set up but that will be filled with the kind of people who hang around the Labour party.

The John Lewis Council smacks of something that has come down from high at short notice.

As someone pointed out to me its ironic that Lambeth labour are promoting Cooperative community control when they are getting rid of the last (Short Life) Housing Coops. 

I always find the Labour party baffling. When u met them they are more liberal than the average Tory or LibDem. Though I have a high opinion of some of the long standing Tory Cllrs I have dealt with. On the other hand I find that the average Labour party person lives on a different planet to me. Despite the fact I often find im reading the same kind of books/ articles etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2010)

co-op said:


> This.
> 
> Lambeth Labour's election literature is like reading a copy of the Daily Mail - they've even ditched the colour red and got into this rather weird purple
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 11, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> I've written an overview of the Lambeth local, and national picture for Londonist. Lambeth politics is lively, if not always productive.



I disagree that Ted Knights Labour was loony left.

It was reelected despite its oppositional stance on Poll Tax.

It brought in equal opp etc which now New Labour accept as the norm.

When Ted Knight and the other Cllrs were surcharged they were replaced by Linda Bellos left of centre Labour. The idea that somehow Hard Left Cllrs almost destroyed Lambeth Labour and were saved by Blairites is not correct. There was no straight line from Ted Knight and co to New Labour. 

I dont know how New Labour captured Lambeth Labour. But it puts a lot of people off who might be interested in the Labour party.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 11, 2010)

> I dont know how New Labour captured Lambeth Labour. But it puts a lot of people off who might be interested in the Labour party.



Make no mistake: the ultra, ultrua NUuuuuu Labour are now in  of the Labour cabinet 

It is a political party with ideas, but has zero connection or ideals associated with what many people consider to be the heart and soul of the Labour party.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 12, 2010)

On reflection, I don't think that the Lambeth Labour pledge of:

"Free swimming for every resident" has been put under scrutiny. This is one hell of an election manifesto pledge, and certainly outstrips "Keep Clapham Swimming" from 2006.

I have the letter from my local Oval / East Hampshire Labour team in front of me. It reads:

"We pledge: free swimming for every resident."

Ignoring the fact that only one pool in the borough remains open, if Labour win on May 6th, then as from May 7th, we all have the right to attend a free swim at Brixton Rec for the next four years.

'aint gonna happen...


----------



## co-op (Apr 12, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> from my local Oval / East Hampshire Labour team


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 12, 2010)

Ah, but there's more...

Anyone registered to vote in Prince's ward, Larkhall or Ferndale?

Seems like some of your Labour candidates also have bigger political ambitions over in Westminster.

Cheeky buggers.


----------



## kyser_soze (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm stuck in Lob-dem safe seat hell unless all those indy votes in 06 were folks wandering from Labour...


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 12, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Make no mistake: the ultra, ultrua NUuuuuu Labour are now in  of the Labour cabinet


you've gotta laugh at the start of that video - are they trying to do a 'Reservoir Dogs' with the Labour cabinet walking through the estate with that music in the background?!


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 12, 2010)

Going back the OP, I still think there's a chance Labour could lose overall control of the council. I reckon the Lib Dems will pick up the other two seats here in Vassall and possibly others from Labour across the borough. If they end up with 20-25 seats it could be quite tight for Labour....and the possibility of the Lib Dem/Tory council again. 

This was the result at the last election:

    * Labour - 39 seats
    * Liberal Democrats - 17 seats
    * Conservatives - 6 seats
    * Green - 1 seat.

What's the Lib Dem policy on a hung council in Lambeth - would they hook up with the Tories again?


----------



## lang rabbie (Apr 12, 2010)

Brixton Hatter said:


> you've gotta laugh at the start of that video - are they trying to do a 'Reservoir Dogs' with the Labour cabinet walking through the estate with that music in the background?!



Having canvassed the Clapham Park estate over the years, sadly there are a significant minority of electors there who would probably respond positively to this if it had been for real:







Thankfully only Guardian readers got to see it!


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 13, 2010)

In theory the list of all the candidates standing has been published here but the file seems to be damaged.


----------



## dannysp (Apr 13, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Ah, but there's more...
> 
> Anyone registered to vote in Prince's ward, Larkhall or Ferndale?
> 
> ...



I'm not, but I have been delegated by "the" (the definate article) socialist party to stand as a candidate.
Our candidates are:
Ferndale ward
Dan lambert
John Lee
Jacqueline Shodeke

Larkhill ward
Oliver Bond
Adam Buik
Stanley Parker

Follow our campaign on our election blog.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 13, 2010)

dannysp said:


> Larkhill ward
> Oliver Bond
> Adam Buik
> Stanley Parker



Welcome (but actually, it's Lark_hall_ ward...)


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Make no mistake: the ultra, ultrua NUuuuuu Labour are now in  of the Labour cabinet
> 
> It is a political party with ideas, but has zero connection or ideals associated with what many people consider to be the heart and soul of the Labour party.



How is it when the leader of the Council knocks on someones door its answered by one of Lambeths tastier constituents?

Or was that bit set up. She looks wholesome enough to be in the Labour party.

One of my ward Cllrs is in background.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2010)

lang rabbie said:


> Having canvassed the Clapham Park estate over the years, sadly there are a significant minority of electors there who would probably respond positively to this if it had been for real:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Sadly" whats the problem. If only if it had been for real. 

I was watching Newsnight last night where they gave half an hour over to the Labour Party national manifesto. It was so boring. When Miliband came on to be interviewed i switched off after a few minutes.

Biggest crash since the 30s, war in Afghanistan, Climate Change and the Labour party policies are about "micromanagement". What Mandelson called "Blair plus"


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Apr 13, 2010)

se5 said:


> I For what its worth I think what I said on the other thread a year or so ago still remains - Labour will retain control and may even gain the odd seat  with the Lib Dems squeezed because of increased popularity of the Conservatives.



Are the Conservatives popular in Lambeth  They are certainly starting from a low base in most wards. The exception being Clapham Town, which presumably is gentrified in parts?

EDIT: and Clapham Common...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Make no mistake: the ultra, ultrua NUuuuuu Labour are now in  of the Labour cabinet
> 
> It is a political party with ideas, but has zero connection or ideals associated with what many people consider to be the heart and soul of the Labour party.



Your correct again. People assume they have no ideas. They do but they are kind of progressive with a twist of neoliberalism thrown. Unless you read Prospect mag etc you wouldnt know about them.

Someone told me that Lambeth Labour is broadly split between those who support Compass and those who support Prospect magazine.

Blond ( leading Red Tory) was on Newsnight last night. He correctly pointed out there was little referance to civil society but more of an emphasis on State intervention in the Labour manifesto. Seemed to be right. So looks like "Mutualism" proposed by some New Labour people hasnt made it into the election campaign in a big way.I thought it would by what Tessa Jowell and Guardian piece on Lambeth as "John Lewis" Council said.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2010)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Are the Conservatives popular in Lambeth  They are certainly starting from a low base in most wards. The exception being Clapham Town, which presumably is gentrified in parts?



The older Tory Cllrs I have dealt with have impressed me. They are often good    
Cllrs who stick up for local residents.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 13, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> So looks like "Mutualism" proposed by some New Labour people hasnt made it into the election campaign in a big way.I thought it would by what Tessa Jowell and Guardian piece on Lambeth as "John Lewis" Council said.



The Nu Labour John Lewis model is nothing but an election gimmick. Mr Blond has admitted as much.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> In theory the list of all the candidates standing has been published here but the file seems to be damaged.


Managed to open this file now and see that Labour, Lib-Dems, the Tories and the Greens are contesting all 21 wards (63 seats). I imagine the Greens are doing this to increase their overall vote and so credibility, but it could be counter-productive in terms of seats won since when they put up only one candidate that candidate could pick up votes from people using their other votes for other candidates. With 3 candidates these votes from other party voters are likely to be dispersed among the three. Still, I suppose they know what they're doing.

Eight wards have other candidates. Six from the Socialist Party (GB) (two wards), 6 from the English Democrats (3 wards) and 1 each from UKIP, the Christian Peoples Alliance and an indeperndent. I think I've counted correctly


----------



## charcol (Apr 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Managed to open this file now and see that Labour, Lib-Dems, the Tories and the Greens are contesting all 21 wards (63 seats). I imagine the Greens are doing this to increase their overall vote and so credibility, but it could be counter-productive in terms of seats won since when they put up only one candidate that candidate could pick up votes from people using their other votes for other candidates. With 3 candidates these votes from other party voters are likely to be dispersed among the three. Still, I suppose they know what they're doing.



Conversely, where the Greens have only put up one or two candidates in the past a voter will still have one or two votes to cast. Assuming that most Green supporters are likely to back Labour in wards where there aren't 'Others' on the ballot paper it should actually help them by suppressing the Labour vote. Especially in an election year when more people are considering 'Others' more seriously than before. Of course, it could also help Lib Dems and Conservatives where they are the main challengers.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 14, 2010)

charcol said:


> Assuming that most Green supporters are likely to back Labour in wards where there aren't 'Others' on the ballot paper


I don't know what you base this assumption on. I'd have thought that their voters would be more likely to come from the Lib-Dems.


----------



## charcol (Apr 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I don't know what you base this assumption on. I'd have thought that their voters would be more likely to come from the Lib-Dems.



Fair enough. You may be correct. I don't profess to be an expert on the psephology of Green Party electors and in all probability it will depend on the elections in question.

It makes sense (to me at least) for the Greens to do well at the expense of Lib Dems when voters switch from Labour (or vice versa). Especially in a borough such as Lambeth where Labour is the largest party in terms of vote share.


----------



## charcol (Apr 14, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> In theory the list of all the candidates standing has been published here but the file seems to be damaged.



My favourite spot (excluding Cllr Fewtrell standing as an indepedent) is the apparent defection of Smarajit Roy from the Conservatives (Coldharbour ward, 2006 local elections) to the Green Party (Thurlow Park ward, 2010 local elections).


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Apr 14, 2010)

charcol said:


> It makes sense (to me at least) for the Greens to do well at the expense of Lib Dems when voters switch from Labour (or vice versa). Especially in a borough such as Lambeth where Labour is the largest party in terms of vote share.


Even if the greens do well, I cant see them winning many seats. Votes for the greens instead of Labour could enable the lib dems/tories to win seats, leaving us with the possibility of a Lib Dem/Tory coalition in the council again - and no-one wants that......do we?


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 14, 2010)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Votes for the greens instead of Labour could enable the lib dems/tories to win seats, leaving us with the possibility of a Lib Dem/Tory coalition in the council again - and no-one wants that......do we?



The Tory bit in that obviously has connotations that I don't like, but Lambeth Tories are incredibly wet. The problem for me is that there is little difference between all three mainstream parties in Lambeth. We have a right wing Nu Labour party and a LibDem party that needs Tory support to take control.

Some choice


----------



## Mairead (Apr 14, 2010)

charcol said:


> My favourite spot (excluding Cllr Fewtrell standing as an indepedent) is the apparent defection of *Smarajit Roy* from the Conservatives (Coldharbour ward, 2006 local elections) to the Green Party (Thurlow Park ward, 2010 local elections).



He's also standing for the Greens as Parliamentary candidate for Mitcham and Morden.


----------



## se5 (Apr 14, 2010)

I think the big unknown in this election in Lambeth (and wider across London) is the increased turnout resulting from the General Election being on the same day - normally for the locals in inner city areas like Lambeth turnout is around the 30% level whereas turnout for the general elections is at the 50-60% level. And so assuming the extra people who turnout vote the same for both elections I think it could result in increases for Labour and the Conservatives squeezing the Lib Dems. I think this because the people who generally would come out every time are the party 'activists' and politically minded people whereas the people who only come out for the General Elections are more likely to be the generally political uninterested who will either vote Labour because that what they always do (most people in Lambeth) or will vote Tory because they like that nice Mr Cameron, I forget the figures but research has shown that a large proportion of people dont know who the candidates are at elections and so just vote for party.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 14, 2010)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Even if the greens do well, I cant see them winning many seats. Votes for the greens instead of Labour could enable the lib dems/tories to win seats, leaving us with the possibility of a Lib Dem/Tory coalition in the council again - and no-one wants that......do we?



Find out who the candidates are. If they are standing for parliament as well, then regardless of their party don't vote for the buggers. What Lambeth desperately needs is a batch of councillors who actually want to do what's best for Lambeth rather than what's best for their political career.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Find out who the candidates are. If they are standing for parliament as well, then regardless of their party don't vote for the buggers. What Lambeth desperately needs is a batch of councillors who actually want to do what's best for Lambeth rather than what's best for their political career.



The following three candidates would rather be at Westminster as political careerists, than represent the electorate in Lambeth at the Town Hall:

Councillor Morgan - Prince's ward (twinned with Orpington)

Councillor Sabharwal - Ferndale ward (which is sort of close to North Herefordshire) and

Jane Edbrooke - my local Oval candidate (but she would rather bugger off to East Hampshire.)

Seriously not impressed with their lack of commitment to our local area


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 15, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> The following three candidates would rather be at Westminster as political careerists, than represent the electorate in Lambeth at the Town Hall:
> 
> Councillor Morgan - Prince's ward (twinned with Orpington)
> 
> ...


Why have you selected only Labour candidates seeking a double mandate? Someone has already mentioned here Smarajit Roy as standing for the Green Party for the council and for parliament in Mitcham and Morden. Joseph Healey of the Green Party is standing for the council in Princes ward and for parliament in Vauxhall. Daniel Lambert of the Socialist Party (GB) is standing in Ferndale ward and Vauxhall. Janus Polenceus is standing in Stockwell and for parliament in Streatham for the English Democrats. But perhaps you'll let these last three off as Vauxhall and Streatham are in Lambeth?
In any event, none of them has any chance of being elected to parliament.


----------



## charcol (Apr 15, 2010)

se5 said:


> I think the big unknown in this election in Lambeth (and wider across London) is the increased turnout resulting from the General Election being on the same day - normally for the locals in inner city areas like Lambeth turnout is around the 30% level whereas turnout for the general elections is at the 50-60% level. And so assuming the extra people who turnout vote the same for both elections I think it could result in increases for Labour and the Conservatives squeezing the Lib Dems. I think this because the people who generally would come out every time are the party 'activists' and politically minded people whereas the people who only come out for the General Elections are more likely to be the generally political uninterested who will either vote Labour because that what they always do (most people in Lambeth) or will vote Tory because they like that nice Mr Cameron, I forget the figures but research has shown that a large proportion of people dont know who the candidates are at elections and so just vote for party.



Turnout could have an impact on marginal areas. When Parliamentary and Council elections take place on the same day there is usually little difference in turnout between the two polls. Across Lambeth it is Lib Dems who arenormally the main challengers to Labour, although in Dulwich and West Norwood the Tories start in notional second place as a result of boundary changes.

An even bigger unknown is who the 'Undecideds' will vote for. As someone who has been canvassing quite a bit over the past few weeks and months there are more people in this category than ever before. A lot of people who always vote, usually know in advance who they support, and will still vote this time round, genuinely don't know this year.

Both of these factors combined will determined the outcome (locally and nationally).

That's why, I think, the polls are being so volatile at the moment.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Why have you selected only Labour candidates seeking a double mandate?



Because it is only Labour party candidates that want to bugger off out of the borough and be an MP elsewhere, if given the chance.

It's all about the local for me. I am proud of where I live and the people around me in my community. I want my elected officials to have the same confidence in Lambeth, and not have half an eye on East Hampshire, Orpington or Herefordshire.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Because it is only Labour party candidates that want to bugger off out of the borough and be an MP elsewhere, if given the chance.
> 
> It's all about the local for me. I am proud of where I live and the people around me in my community. I want my elected officials to have the same confidence in Lambeth, and not have half an eye on East Hampshire, Orpington or Herefordshire.



That's bollocks. All Lambeth political parties have a long tradition of councillors who see it purely as a stepping stone to Westminster. Every single one. In some cases it's because the party is so bloody small that every member who doesn't run away fast enough ends up being a PPC. In most cases it's because if you want relatively affordable housing handy for Westminster you end up in Lambeth, so this is where all the junior politicos live.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> That's bollocks. All Lambeth political parties have a long tradition of councillors who see it purely as a stepping stone to Westminster. Every single one. In some cases it's because the party is so bloody small that every member who doesn't run away fast enough ends up being a PPC. In most cases it's because if you want relatively affordable housing handy for Westminster you end up in Lambeth, so this is where all the junior politicos live.



Who else is standing then outside of the borough as a political careerist? I'm aware of the three Labour work experience MP's, and Smarajit Roy from the Greens (although it's some stretch from Morden to East Hampshire.)

There are some fine examples of Lambeth Councillors that aren't careerists, and are happy to remain working for the people in the borough - Cllr Sawdon etc.

So nope - not bollocks.


----------



## ericjarvis (Apr 15, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Who else is standing then outside of the borough as a political careerist? I'm aware of the three Labour work experience MP's, and Smarajit Roy from the Greens (although it's some stretch from Morden to East Hampshire.)
> 
> There are some fine examples of Lambeth Councillors that aren't careerists, and are happy to remain working for the people in the borough - Cllr Sawdon etc.
> 
> So nope - not bollocks.



Darren Sanders. From Clapham Common to Portsmouth North. So the Lib Dems are at it too. As for the Tories, there are a whole bunch of ex-Lambeth councillors on their benches in parliament, plus the ex-Tory in the Speaker's chair. They all do it.

But then you aren't actually here doing anything but Lib Dem propaganda, so you probably haven't noticed, and don't think it counts when a Lib Dems does the same thing.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 15, 2010)

Ah, but Darren Sanders *isn't* standing as a Councillor at the local elections.

LibDem propoganda? Mmm  - I don't think so... 

Keep looking...


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 16, 2010)

Wasn't John Major once a Brixton councillor?


----------



## newsensation (Apr 16, 2010)

yes, John Major was a councillor in Lambeth.

I think Cllr Sawdon switched form labour to alliance or lib dems at some point.  It would be interesting to know what principle/values triggered his switch....or whether it was just careerism?


----------



## newsensation (Apr 16, 2010)

from labour


----------



## WarmharbourLane (Apr 24, 2010)

newsensation said:


> yes, John Major was a councillor in Lambeth.
> 
> I think Cllr Sawdon switched form labour to alliance or lib dems at some point.  It would be interesting to know what principle/values triggered his switch....or whether it was just careerism?



Sawdon left Labour in the 1980s, along with a load of other Lambeth Labour lot, to join the SDP when it was set up. 

It was basically the centrists legging it from the nutty fringe that was tearing the Labour party apart - both locally and nationally.

Hardly a careerist thing to do to leave an established political party for a completely new one, so it had to be about politics and principles then. You only need to see how the guy dresses to guess that he's no careerist...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2010)

Saturday Sun is out and saw this outside KFC


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2010)

The WRP candidate engaging an attractive young lady in the finer points of proletarian struggle.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 26, 2010)

In answer to the possibility of the Greens going into coalition with any of the other three parties (as asked over here - seemed pointless posting on old thread...)

Short answer: Nope.

I had a very useful chat with John Hare earlier, one of the Green Candidates for Herne Hill. As well as ruling out propping up another party, we also discussed the lies being put out by Lambeth Labour in Herne Hill.

This was tricky for John, as he didn't want to make political gain out of the Labour literature. I pressed him though, as I believe that if we are being fed incorrect information by any party, it needs to be shown up for the sham that it is.

So yep, Lambeth Labour actually admit that they have been economical with the truth, over in Herne Hill.


----------



## co-op (Apr 28, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> In answer to the possibility of the Greens going into coalition with any of the other three parties (as asked over here - seemed pointless posting on old thread...)
> 
> Short answer: Nope.
> 
> ...




Ouch for labour. 

I've seen the same graph in Larkhall where Labour got about three times the votes of the tories.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 28, 2010)

co-op said:


> I've seen the same graph in Larkhall where Labour got about three times the votes of the tories.


I made the same point  here on the parallel general election thread.


----------



## co-op (Apr 28, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> I made the same point  here on the parallel general election thread.



Actually that is a bit closer than I had remembered, maybe those graphs have a point! 

I thought Larkhall was an absolutely massive Labour majority, instead it's just huge...


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> This was tricky for John, as he didn't want to make political gain out of the Labour literature. I pressed him though, as I believe that if we are being fed incorrect information by any party, it needs to be shown up for the sham that it is.
> 
> So yep, Lambeth Labour actually admit that they have been economical with the truth, over in Herne Hill.



Sad that Nu Labour have to try and defeat Greens by writing them out of the picture rather than engaging with them in a discussion.

Ive heard its very difficult being a Cllr of a minor party as the big boys just freeze u out.


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 28, 2010)

There's more as well - Chuka Umunna in Streatham isn't quite making up the data in his graphs, but is using the London Assembly vote for 2008 to give the impression that the LibDems in Streatham are dead and buried.

This is hardly the case - remember how the Mayoral elections were pretty much a Ken Vs Boris vote off. LibDem Chris Nicholson in Streatham is very strong.

The message of Vote LibDem, get the Tory bogey man is very misleading.


----------



## ajdown (Apr 28, 2010)

I haven't yet had the pleasure of a Labour canvasser coming round but I shall be sure to give him a hard time over those misleading figures.


----------



## Jean-Luc (Apr 28, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> There's more as well - Chuka Umunna in Streatham isn't quite making up the data in his graphs, but is using the London Assembly vote for 2008 to give the impression that the LibDems in Streatham are dead and buried.
> 
> This is hardly the case - remember how the Mayoral elections were pretty much a Ken Vs Boris vote off. LibDem Chris Nicholson in Streatham is very strong.
> 
> The message of Vote LibDem, get the Tory bogey man is very misleading.


You sound like a LibDem but, don't forget, it was them who pioneered this lying about two-horse races. In fact Nicholson uses it himself to claim that voting for him is the only way to keep Labour out. His misleading chart seems to be based on figures for the last Lambeth Council elections in 2006. It would have been more logical (and honest) to have used the results of the 2005 General Election, but then the gap between Labour and LibDems was larger and that between LibDems and Tories smaller (see here)


----------



## Tricky Skills (Apr 28, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> You sound like a LibDem



 mmm


----------



## CH1 (Apr 30, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> The WRP candidate engaging an attractive young lady in the finer points of proletarian struggle.



Dishy candidate - much more bedable than the Honorable Nick Clegg. As for GB and DC - would you want to wake yup next to either of them in the morning. Noooo!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2010)

It seems Cheryl is put off at the thought of Cameron next to her in the morning as well.

If the Labour party wanted to get more votes they could have had have her canvassing around here.



From The Mirror
Cheryl Cole: I'll back Gordon Brown in election
  8/01/2009 

Labour could recruit a secret weapon for the next general election - national treasure Cheryl Cole.

The Girls Aloud star has said in an interview she supports Gordon Brown, and party chiefs want her to help attract young votes.

The interview in Vogue says: "Cheryl Cole could probably swing an election ... she is a Brown voter, by the way, not Cameron."

X Factor judge Cheryl, 25, has never forgiven David Cameron for saying he fancied her. She said: "He was just trying to be cool."

The PM, an X Factor fan, has already worked with David Beckham and Lewis Hamilton for A-list support.

Good excuse for photo of sexiest women in the world


----------



## CH1 (Apr 30, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> X Factor judge Cheryl, 25, has never forgiven David Cameron for saying he fancied her. She said: "He was just trying to be cool."



Well I dunno about Cheryl - her ex is presumably now "in play" and might well be available, according to some earlier reports


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2010)

Well Im sure she could explain to me why when Gordan said he had ended Boom and Bust this wasnt the sort of Bust he was talking about.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2010)

I went to the hustings organized by Lambeth Tenants Council with support of Lambeth pensioners action group and Lambeth Defend Council Housing.


    Report on meeting on 1st May 

 “Who will sort out Lambeth s housing crisis”

 Called by Lambeth Tenants Council supported by Lambeth Defend Council Housing and Lambeth Pensioners Action Group.

The meeting was well attended (about 35) mainly Council tenants and Leaseholders. (Except yours truly “Short Life”).  

John Hare (Green) , Ashley Lumsden (L/D) , Kirsty McHugh (Lab) and Whelan (Tory) attended to answer questions.

This was a 2 hour meeting so I will attempt to summarize main points made by candidates and concerns from the floor rather than give verbatim account.

The introduction by a member of LDCH stated that LBL is one of the most overcrowded in the country. It has a high proportion of young people and Ethnic minorities. There are 17 000 on waiting list and 2000 in temporary accommodation. There is also a problem of overcrowding. The Council does not do enough to regulate private landlords. Much private rented property is unfit. The 2 questions that speaker put to candidates were:

What will be done to increase Council Housing? How will empties be brought back into use and how will Decent Home Standard (DCS) be brought in.

Are Shared Ownership schemes the answer or should there be more houses/flats for rent?

Answers from candidates:

Greens. In agreement with DCH. Want “Option 4” ( Giving Councils right to borrow to build new Council housing). Would use “Empty property use orders” to get empty properties into use. Not sure about ALMO ( Lambeth Living “arms length management organization”) as this was complicated question. (The Green candidate was nice but kept on taking the line that he didn't know enough. Refreshingly modest but led to woolly answers. I could have done with more about what Greens think about housing. Started to sound like a L/D)

L/D.  Zero tolerance on empty properties ( this was mainly issue of empty Council owned properties. There were complaints from floor about turn around of properties once empty)

        Would borrow money to build new Council housing for rent (Option 4).

        Shared ownership is a scam that developers use. Social rented housing is needed.

Labour. 3 issues    1) Customer service
2)State of housing stock
3)Overcrowding
She proceeded to answer some questions.  “Long cycle voids”  would be brought back into use. Private new developments should have 50% affordable housing. This should not be just for “Key Workers”. She said cleaners etc. are also Key workers and need housing. (At present Key Workers are Nurses, Firemen in general Public sector workers). There was issue of subletting of Council housing. She attacked Tories for saying could borrow on open market to build Council housing. This was not feasible. New Council funded by Government. So if Tories got into power it would be bad for affordable housing.

At this point the L/D interjected ( the Tory was late as he was with constituent). He said that he had watched Gordon Brown on tv saying that the Government had done all it can for affordable housing and now it was up to private sector.  PM was saying money had already happened. There wasn't any more.

The followed discussion of ALMO from floor and candidates.

From what I understood from meeting at the last Council election Lambeth Labour did not have ALMO in it. Kirsty said there were no private discussions in Labour Group about an ALMO prior to election. The L/D disagreed and said he had seen evidence of discussion prior to election. Kirsty said that once elected as a new Labour administration the Government suddenly told Council that the last bids for ALMO ( and the money that went with it if the Council set one up. It appears that if an ALMO had not been set up the Government would effectively punished Council tenants by not funding improvements.) Therefore Kirsty said the ballots of Council tenants was rushed with little consultation as the Council only had six weeks to get bid in.

The issue of the ALMO was a clear divide between candidates. Also caused the most comp from the floor. Two issues from floor was that they werent consulted about it properly and that it was badly run. The L/D said that if elected to power they would review the ALMO. The wanted it tenant led. Not ex MPs (Keith Hill) being paid £10 000 to Chair it. If the review found that tenants wanted the ALMO disbanded then they would do that. Kirsty ( Labour) said the Labour group wanted to give it 12 months then if no improvement then would disband it.

Interjections from floor by LDCH. The promised money from Government didnt happen. Would candidates give commitment that ALMO is not first step to privatization?

Unison rep. Under the ALMO due to its mge failing frontline staff had been cut. Some frontline staff were being privatized. But the ALMO were employing consultants for huge sums. Would candidates promise no more job cuts and keep frontline workers inhouse? Said ALMO should be disbanded and housing returned to full Council control. (Applause from audience at end of Unison rep speaking)

Green candidate said opposed use of ALMO as stepping stone to privatization.

L/D said Council tenants forced into ALMO. There was no other purpose to ALMO than to lead to privatization. Tenants had not been involved in running ALMO. Despite promises of this from Labour party. It should be up to tenants to decide future of ALMO.

Labour. Kirsty said that she knows ALMO had not been popular decision. She said ALMO was not first step to privatisation. She acknowledged the carrot of Government money . (see above).

Kirsty is on board of ALMO. ( At one point she was going on about how committed she was to Council housing as she was brought up in it. Proper working class then . Labour party people often do this to show there credentials when pushing what are in effect right wing policies. I digress) She said at last meeting the tenants had said they were happy that service was improving. This led to heated interjections that this wasn't the case. 

Further interjection from Unison that just prior to election the housing Call centre was being “reorganized”. Anecdotally he had been told this was prelude to outsourcing the Call centre. These decisions are made by Labour leadership outside Cabinet below the “Radar”. L/D candidate agreed with this.

part two in next post. My PDF was too big and posted it up needs two posts as to long .


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2010)

Second part of meeting organised by Lambeth Tenants Council. See previous post for first part.

John Whelan (Tory candidate) arrived at meeting. He said it was bizarre that the leader of the Council Steve Reed had just before the election said that the ALMO needs rethinking.

Interjection from floor. A problem with the ALMO was that the Council didn't tell them how much money they will get. Its understaffed and underfunded. They cant budget if they aren't told what funding they will get.

A tenant from the Loughborough estate brought a petition asking there concierge be kept and not cut. She said the the GMB union was asking people to vote Labour to save jobs. But in fact what was happening was that under Labour jobs were being cut. What was needed for people on her estate were proper jobs with proper wages and conditions. Also apprenticeships for young people. There was need for housing and repairs so the Government should do this.

The Tory ( who was late) said he wanted to see a proper ballot of tenants on ALMO. Both the L/D and Tory candidate complained that the previous ballot was biased in favour of a yes vote. The L/D said he wanted a new ballot where the tenants were involved in setting the question. A proper ballot where both those for and against the ALMO could put there arguments openly.

The L/D said the ALMO was a failing structure. ALMO was not answer. It does not allow people to hold the Council to account.

Green said ballot not needed as people didn't want ALMO in first place.

One of the Lambeth pensioners said properties should not be sold off.

Kirsty said that the Labour had come in saying it would not sell houses off. Then unwillingly took political decision to sell some of it. The L/D said they would sell only those which would bring in a lot of money. There was disagreement between the 2 main parties on this. Feeling from floor was against further sell off's and that Government should fund Council housing properly.

Someone from LDCH said that Housing had been plundered in Lambeth to subsidise Council. That central Labour Government had been terrible on funding Council housing.

Green said that the Council Tax had been kept down by increasing Council rents and services that Leaseholders paid for ( I have been referring to Council tenants. There are also Council Leaseholders  
as well). This was in effect transferring money from the poor to the rich. The Greens nationally had an “Equality Pledge”. Any policies would be scrutinized to see effect on equality.

Also raised from floor was appalling service that Leaseholders got from Council. They were being charged for services they didn't get. Charges had gone up astronomically. Bills were wrongly sent out and incorrect.

Lambeth Pensioners Action Group said that the needs of older were not recognized. The was also the case for disabled people ( there was a disabled person at meeting bringing this issue up) . Kirsty suggested all party commission on disability. This led to laughter from audience. They said that there already been a commission on Sheltered housing that had been ignored. It was pointed out from floor that there was a Disability Act therefore the Council didn't need a commission. It was general feeling that older people and disabled peoples were not consulted or included in Housing mge.

My conclusion on meeting.

It was lively interesting meeting. It did concentrate on Council Housing. Didn't cover those in other forms of affordable housing. Perhaps this is an argument for more democratic control of housing in general. Whilst there were complaints from the floor at least Council tenants/ Leaseholders have some democratic say.

As the Tory Whelan said Kirsty ,representing Labour, was brave to attend. There were complaints that Steve Reed the leader should have attended. Would I feel safe voting Labour if I was a Council tenant? No.

The accusations of Labour group policy being decided off the Radar seem credible. Also I get the impression that Lambeth Labour are so loyal that if central Government want them to do the latest Nu Labour policy they will jump to it. Trying to convince there mainly old Labour voters after the fact.

I was a bit disappointed the Greens were more forthcoming about an alternative housing strategy.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2010)

Excuse my spelling I was trying to get this done before election. Is the Spell checker using American English? As it tried to get me to replace centre with center.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 3, 2010)

Thanks Gramsci. I wish I'd been able to get there. There are a number of questions that desperately need asking about the relationship between the council and the ALMO. It looks like Kirsty kind of hinted at an answer to one of them. Seems like it never has been arms length and never will be since it was simply a reorganisation of staff in order to grab some promises of extra funding.

Which leaves the question of how can anyone justify a situation where the ALMO competes with TMOs for a share of the HRA, supposedly on a basis of parity, and yet the ALMO can demand that the council cut funding to a specific TMO and have the council act immediately on that demand.

I don't believe that waiting 12 months to see if the ALMO improves is any longer an option. It has to be either brought to an end immediately, or it has to be organised in a way that makes it's relationship with the council clear and legally sound.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 3, 2010)

Great overview Gramsci, many thanks.

I was also at the hustings!

I feel that housing should be the major issue locally here in Lambeth on May 6th. Sadly I think it is a debate that for whatever reason, has been tragically overlooked.

The ALMO clearly isn't working. I'm not sure what the solution is. Housing is a HUGE spend out of the local authority pot. The part-privatisation model has failed, but I can't see the council offering any improvement.

Very depressing


----------



## twistedAM (May 3, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> You sound like a LibDem but, don't forget, it was them who pioneered this lying about two-horse races. In fact Nicholson uses it himself to claim that voting for him is the only way to keep Labour out. His misleading chart seems to be based on figures for the last Lambeth Council elections in 2006. It would have been more logical (and honest) to have used the results of the 2005 General Election, but then the gap between Labour and LibDems was larger and that between LibDems and Tories smaller (see here)



Yeah I'd NEVER trust a LibDem...everyone of them a chameleon to the core. 
They're winding me up more than ever before. I might have to vote labour and then take a shower.


----------



## WarmharbourLane (May 3, 2010)

Is there anywhere to watch the election night locally by the way - or am I gonna have to bring the duvet down to my sofa and try to stay awake past 3am.....? 

Are ther various political groups having election night parties anywhere ?


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Thanks Gramsci. I wish I'd been able to get there. There are a number of questions that desperately need asking about the relationship between the council and the ALMO.
> 
> Which leaves the question of how can anyone justify a situation where the ALMO competes with TMOs for a share of the HRA, supposedly on a basis of parity, and yet the ALMO can demand that the council cut funding to a specific TMO and have the council act immediately on that demand.
> .



TMOs was the one question that didnt come up to my surprise. Yes Kirsty was saying that the newly elected Labour group did this in a hurry to not lose the extra funding that goes with an ALMO.

I think more likely there were Cllrs who saw it as a pragmatic way to get funding. .Also there were true believers who would have gone down the ALMO route anyway. Look at the PFI scheme for Myatts fields Its straight of Nu Labour ideological cutting edge modernisation. 

The problem with turning Council from "providers" to "enablers" harnessing a combination of entrepreneurial expertise and community involvement to provide social good is the very point u brought up. The relationship between semi autonomous organisations , Cllrs and "customers" is not thought through.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> TMOs was the one question that didnt come up to my surprise. Yes Kirsty was saying that the newly elected Labour group did this in a hurry to not lose the extra funding that goes with an ALMO.
> 
> I think more likely there were Cllrs who saw it as a pragmatic way to get funding. .Also there were true believers who would have gone down the ALMO route anyway. Look at the PFI scheme for Myatts fields Its straight of Nu Labour ideological cutting edge modernisation.
> 
> The problem with turning Council from "providers" to "enablers" harnessing a combination of entrepreneurial expertise and community involvement to provide social good is the very point u brought up. The relationship between semi autonomous organisations , Cllrs and "customers" is not thought through.



It's possible to do it well. In Leeds the TMOs and the ALMO have an excellent relationship. Which is because the council made a lot of effort to separate the responsibilities between itself and the ALMO. In Leeds everyone knows where they stand. In Lambeth many of the staff in the council and in the ALMO don't know which has responsibility for what aspect of housing, and many seem to be confused as to which they are working for. Which would be fine if Lambeth Living were the only provider of council housing in the borough. As it is however, it is a bit of a bugger for TMOs who have to compete for funding from the HRA with a body that many council officers seem to think is still part of the council.

It's not come to bloodshed yet, but seriously, there are people here in Angell Town who are VIOLENTLY angry at the way they are being treated. I don't think any of the politicians have any idea what's in store after the election. There is a clash coming between some officers in the housing department and in Lambeth Living, and various tenants groups, that will either end in officers being sacked with extreme prejudice, or tenants representatives jailed.

Unfortunately all that we get from the politicians (of all parties) is a complete lack of understanding, total ignorance of any problems, a complete disdain for anyone living in any form of social housing, vague platitudes and broken promises, and a whole load of shit stirring and blaming of other politicians. This in a situation where the last two administrarions have raised rents, reduced repairs, sold off properties, and overseen a complete destruction of anything resembling organisation in the management of council housing in Lambeth. We are facing a 30% budget cut in a single year from a situation that was already untenable. We have had officers remove over a million pounds of regenaration funding simply as a way of bullying us into accepting that 30% cut. The same officers are currently threatening that regardless of what is decided in a court of law they will simply not hand over any more funds than that.

I don't think any of the candidates for the council have a clue what is facing those unlucky enough to be elected.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2010)

Thanks for that Eric. It interesting to hear about what is actually happening in Angell Town. You. are in my ward (Coldharbour) I think. I went to see the Angell town estate at the last Open House weekend as they were doing guided tours. Its really interesting how it was tenant led regeneration of estate. I was impressed by what has been done there with tenant involvement.It also got a one off large grant to do it from central Government I believe.

There are 2 issues:

1) organisation and management.

    You say that in Liverpool the ALMO was set up properly. It is possible to run an ALMO and provide a good service.

2) The politics of housing.

   Should local government withdraw from being providers of social housing? If so how should housing be provided? The Market? Or by funding from central Government? What is "affordable" housing? Should decent housing be a social right?

  I think gradually truly affordable rented housing is on its way out if New Labour get re elected.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Great overview Gramsci, many thanks.
> 
> I was also at the hustings!
> 
> ...



You werent sitting next to me taking notes? I noticed someone was and they asked me who was at the table in the front as they came in a bit late.

The bag man gave me a UKIP newspaper as well. What i found odd was that he seemed to have a foreign accent. I thought UKIP was Brits only




The meeting was out of time and with little resolved – a bit like Lambeth Living. A chap wearing a hooded anorak (hood up) and carrying endless plastic bags, came over to me to hand me a UKIP newspaper.

I would say many of the audience were Old Labour or borderline Trots (Defend Council Housing and the rep from Unison who Kirsty at one point took a swipe at). Kirsty can speak there language so it was bizarre that it was LD and Torys who were supporting the tenants the most.

Noticed that both the Greens and LD said they would use Option 4 (borrow to build Council housing). Whelan was late so dont think he was asked. But there is a Tory council in South London building Council owned housing. Kirsty I noticed avoided saying anything about Option 4.

I agree housing should be major issue. The issues of the market supplying housing was not discussed much at meeting. Private tenants have remarkably little rights compared to forty years ago. And also compared to many European Countries.

It does appear to be a huge drain but that is also due to central Government inaction and (as the LD pointed out) belief in little regulated market forces in supplying housing. The lack of decent affordable housing is also done the the fact that in this country unlike many European countries housing is seen as an investment rather than just somewhere to live.

In the long run I think DCH are on the right track.

I liked your podcast interview. Ur up on the new technology. I noticed that Ashley didnt rule out selling properties. 

Talking to Council tenants this is abone of contention. The Cllrs like going on about the evil queue jumping squatters but that fact is LBL under different administrations has been selling off street properties that could be used to house people. They are inconvenient to manage unlike the larger estates. 

Housing is one of those things that Nu Labour have failed at. The reason its not a big election issue nationally or locally is sadly that those who live in "affordable" housing or need it dont count. 

The election at national level will be decided by the floating voter who is likely to be a property owner.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2010)

One of the LDCH people at meeting mentioned this article:

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6509602


----------



## ericjarvis (May 4, 2010)

There are a number of things that can be done to dramatically improve the housing situation in Lambeth. By that I mean the overall situation for all forms of tenant and homeowner, since that's how the council should be looking at it.

First and foremost the ALMO debacle has to be dealt with. There are two ways to go with that in the long term. Take the entire lot back in-house, or turn the ALMO into an independent co-operative that is genuinely distanced from the council itself and under the control of tenants. Which route to take should be decided eventually by a Lambeth wide ballot of all residents. In the mean time, immediately on taking office, councillors HAVE to take control of the situation away from officers. At present there is too much confusion both in the council's housing department and in Lambeth Living about who has what responsibility. Largely this is because councillors have left too much of the decision making to officers. So officers have done what is sensible from their perspective. They have made compromises and found easy quick fixes rather than actually working out a plan for the long term future of the ALMO. Which isn't their fault. It isn't their job to create overall strategies, that is what the council (as in the councillors) is for.

There has to be an absolute ban on appointing consultants to Lambeth Living as a quick alternative to properly employing permanent staff. It's draining the budget and leading to administration of the ALMO in a way that is totally dominated by short term thinking and office politics.

In the longer term there needs to be some serious thought about how the various forms of housing in the borough should be balanced. This needs to be done, for once, on a basis of fact rather than blind assumption and prejudice. For instance it needs to be done with the understanding that in terms of Lambeth council itself, tenants are not subsidised by council tax payers. In fact it's the other way around. Tenants pay far more into the HRA than they get back from it. If it wasn't for administrative foul ups the HRA would be massively subsidising the rest of the council. Council housing isn't a drain on Lambeth's resources. Screwed up administration is the drain on Lambeth's resources, and selling off council housing isn't going to fix that. Only taking on bad practise in council departments will fix it. Which means councillors prepared to take flak from officers they have upset.

There needs to be a proper understanding of what "voids" are. It's all very well mouthing platitudes about reducing the number of voids in the council's housing stock, but it's counter productive nonsense. It may play well with relatively ignorant voters, but anyone who has experience in any similar field will know that you don't aim for 100% occupancy. It's more efficient to aim for somewhere between 90% and 95%. Because you have to have voids in order to be able to deal with some types of repair, and in order to be able to transfer tenants in an emergency. Asking housing officers to aim for 100% occupancy is just plain stupid. However there are long term voids and those should be dealt with. However they should be categorised as something completely different. Especially when, as usually seems to be the case, the reason the place is empty is that there's no money to make it habitable.

I could go on, but I need my breakfast. However there's one more thing that I see as absolutely essential for the councillors to look at the moment the election is over. The council's housing department and the ALMO are far too insular. In other parts of the country things are being done far better than they are in Lambeth. The sensible approach is to go and look at how they do things elsewhere, rather than simply sticking their noses in the air and moaning that Lambeth is different and has to always find its own solutions.


----------



## OpalFruit (May 4, 2010)

An unsigned unattributed leaflet has been circulated in Streatham Ward alleging that the Megabowl developers gave Labour Cllrs personal bribes of over £1m, that Chuka Ummana has nothing to do with Streatham (he was born and brought up there) and all sorts of allegations about lying and corruption.
It urges a vote for Chris Nicholson (LD).
It's either a cunning plot to put people off voting LD in case it actually come from them (it is very loony in tone) or the manifesto of the Monster Loony Conspiracy Theory Party - or true. 

Anyone know?


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 4, 2010)

My suspicion is that the bonkers @LondonElections loon. This is an individual who was part of Chuka's campaign team, and then for whatever reason, fell out with the Labour man.

He switched his support to Rahoul Bhansali, the Tory PPC, although Rahoul has been keen to stress to me that he is nothing whatsoever to do with his campaign.

Looks like the loon has now turned to Chris Nic.


----------



## jpm (May 5, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> My suspicion is that the bonkers @LondonElections loon. This is an individual who was part of Chuka's campaign team, and then for whatever reason, fell out with the Labour man.
> 
> He switched his support to Rahoul Bhansali, the Tory PPC, although Rahoul has been keen to stress to me that he is nothing whatsoever to do with his campaign.
> 
> Looks like the loon has now turned to Chris Nic.



Er, no. This guy has never been involved with Chuka's campaign and is instead a prolific internet loon. Do a search for Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_objectid=14557214&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=shamed-doctor-probe-name_page.html


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 5, 2010)

jpm said:


> Er, no. This guy has never been involved with Chuka's campaign and is instead a prolific internet loon. Do a search for Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi.



Um, nope again. Dr Obi *is* @LondonElections on twitter. Rahoul Bhansali has tried to put as must distance between himself and the loon, claiming that Obi was once part of the Chuka camp.


----------



## jpm (May 5, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Um, nope again. Dr Obi *is* @LondonElections on twitter. Rahoul Bhansali has tried to put as must distance between himself and the loon, claiming that Obi was once part of the Chuka camp.



Er, I know it's Dr Obi, that's why i mentioned his name!

If Rahoul is saying that Dr Obi was in Chuka's camp he is mistaken (try and search the internet for a link between Chuka Umunna and Dr Obi)


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 5, 2010)

This is the claim from Rahoul:

********

I understand that you are being spammed by Dr Obi / @LondonElections on Twitter. 

Please can I state for the record that Dr Obi has absolutely nothing to do with my campaign nor is he (to my knowledge) a member of the Conservative Party. I understand that at one point he supported Chuka's campaign and fell out hence transferring his allegiance to me.

********

Either way - he's a nutter...


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2010)

Duncan from Green Party hard at it canvassing outside Tescos tonight.

http://lambeth.greenparty.org.uk/


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 5, 2010)

Speaking of the Greens...

Lambeth Labour have continued to smear the party in Herne Hill, fearful of that the Greens may build upon their seat won back in 2006. The eve of election leaflet from our friend Jim Dickson talks of how Lambeth Greens want to:

"Legalise class A drugs and turn Herne Hill into a South London drugs supermarket." 

There's another complete lie in claiming that the Greens are against the 20 mph speed limit. As you would expect, the exact opposite is the truth.

Pretty sickening stuff from Labour and Dickson.


----------



## g force (May 6, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> This is the claim from Rahoul:
> 
> ********
> 
> ...



Yep his Twitter claims the Tories will win in Streatham


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 6, 2010)

The lone heckler at the Clegg event in Streatham this week was later seen... boarding the Tory battle bus


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 6, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> The lone heckler at the Clegg event in Streatham this week was later seen... boarding the Tory battle bus


Surprised you haven't blown your own trumpet again and advised those who haven't yet made up their mind how to vote to visit this site.


----------



## Gramsci (May 6, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> The lone heckler at the Clegg event in Streatham this week was later seen... boarding the Tory battle bus



Wolfgang is right about Cleggs wife. 

Out of the 3 she is the hottest

Talking out nasty campaigning from Nu Labour . Came home last night and there was postcard from Tessa. On it prominently was that LDs want to give "illegal immigrants" an amnesty. No comment about why this was good or bad policy. Just there a sentence on its own.

Considering Gordon called that Old Labour voter a bigot for asking about East European migration I think this is obvious ploy to play to anti immigrant voters.If the Labour party are concerned about bigotry they shouldnt play on it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 6, 2010)

Notice this thread has got a lot of hits over the last few days.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 6, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Talking out nasty campaigning from Nu Labour . Came home last night and there was postcard from Tessa. On it prominently was that LDs want to give "illegal immigrants" an amnesty. No comment about why this was good or bad policy. Just there a sentence on its own.
> Considering Gordon called that Old Labour voter a bigot for asking about East European migration I think this is obvious ploy to play to anti immigrant voters.If the Labour party are concerned about bigotry they shouldnt play on it.


Why do you think Brown spent such time apologising to that bigoted woman if he didn't want the bigoted vote?


----------



## Gramsci (May 6, 2010)

I dont now if she was "bigoted". All she did was try to raise the question of migration. 

 I have East European friends here. I was making East European friends that had come to London whilst people from the Labour party were denying they were coming here in large numbers.

I dont think its bigoted to raise the issue. The Government should have helped local Councils with more funds to deal with this influx. They didnt despite saying it was good for the economy. 

What I meant in my post is that these Nu Labour types often in public pander to anti immigrant vote whilst in private holding liberal views. 

The lady also said that she was lifelong Labour and raised other issues first like student fees. 

I read the transcript of what Brown said and he clearly wasnt happy to talk to someone who was Old Labour.

Multiculturalism back in the 80s included class. That was ditched by Nu Labour. The kind of multiculturalism they favour is that of the City. Read financial papers to see City types favour a globalised neo liberal world. "Flexible" labour and "Free" markets from New York to London To Shanghia. 

No wonder some ordinary working people become concerned about immigration. Or for that matter the outsourcing of there jobs to China and Eastern Europe.


----------



## co-op (May 6, 2010)

Lambeth "Labour" paty have been putting a really creepy letter through doorboxes in Stockwell, printed in a very realistic, slightly wobbly 'handwriting' and beginning "Dear Neighbour", ostensibly from a little old lady who lives up the road and is scared witless at the prospect of the £1500 Lib-Dem Council Tax increase (that "Labour" have made up). "She" is practically begging me to vote Labour. It's real 'Buy This Magazine or We Shoot the Puppy' stuff.

It's probably obvious from most of my posts on the various election threads that I am pissed off with Lambeth "Labour" - I didn't realise how bad it was until I got this letter. I have voted Labour in every local election in Lambeth since 1986, never even really questioned that, dobbed the Greens a couple of votes in mayoral and GLA elections where these wouldn't be wasted, but there is absolutely no way I'm voting Lambeth Labour today. I hope they get utterly shafted for their nasty, right-wing, smear and scare views and for their greedy, self-serving public school wankers of councillors.

I have literally not heard one positive statement of belief from a Lambeth Labour councilor or member, it's just fear.

Dammit I have seriously thought about going Lib-Dem despite swearing terrible oaths never to forgive them for the SDP and giving us an extra 10 years of Thatcher.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 6, 2010)

Poles and other East Europeans can vote in the local elections (and you can vote in theirs if you go to work there) so all this bigoted stuff against them could backfire on the perpetrators. Hope it does.


----------



## se5 (May 7, 2010)

Local election results coming in from 4 today - follow them on the Lambeth Labour twitter stream - http://twitter.com/lambethlabour


----------



## happyshopper (May 7, 2010)

*Results*

Still no results here http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=7&V=1&RPID=8754773

But given the swing to Labour since the GLA election from both Tories and Liberal Democrats, it does look like Labour will keep control of the Council.


----------



## psycherelic (May 7, 2010)

Greens out in Herne hill


----------



## buscador (May 7, 2010)

psycherelic said:


> Greens out in Herne hill



Looks like the Labour dirty tricks worked then. Very disappointing.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 7, 2010)

psycherelic said:


> Greens out in Herne hill


that's pretty disappointing. but at least it looks like the lib dem/tory pact aint gonna get in


----------



## psycherelic (May 7, 2010)

looking like a good night for Labour, they've gained a seat from the tories in Thurlow park


----------



## twistedAM (May 7, 2010)

psycherelic said:


> looking like a good night for Labour, they've gained a seat from the tories in Thurlow park



Three Labour gains from the Camerons in Gipsy Hill. It's always been Tory  as far as I can remember.


----------



## se5 (May 7, 2010)

Labour keep control of Lambeth - http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Elections2010/

I have been following the Tricky Skils (I think its him anyway) Twitter feed - http://twitter.com/jason_cobb - very informative and quick with the results when announced


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2010)

buscador said:


> Looks like the Labour dirty tricks worked then. Very disappointing.



I don't think it necessarily came down to that; the Greens increased their vote by 25% and all three of their candidates got a higher vote than the highest vote won by any of the parties in 2006 - if this had just been a local election they'd have ?maybe taken all three seats.

They got washed away by the tide of Labour voters who came out for the General Election and then voted Labour locally.

It doesn't make Labour's sleazy little campaign any less disappointing though.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 8, 2010)

co-op said:


> They got washed away by the tide of Labour voters who came out for the General Election and then voted Labour locally.


What's wrong with that? Surely this shows the Greens up as a minority seeking to impose restrictions on people's consumption which have very little popular support and which they only have a chance of pushing through on the basis of ordinary people abstaining massively from voting in local elections as they normally do.


----------



## WarmharbourLane (May 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> What's wrong with that? Surely this shows the Greens up as a minority seeking to impose restrictions on people's consumption which have very little popular support and which they only have a chance of pushing through on the basis of ordinary people abstaining massively from voting in local elections as they normally do.



I suspect the opposite is true.

Labour won Herne Hil because lots of those who know and care little about the council came out to vote for their Labour tribe due to the General Election. Whilst there they realised they'd been given a yellow sheet too, so ticked any Labour rose they saw on there. 

The reason why council elections have a lower turnout than national is that less people are bothered about local politics (that and the disparity in media attention). May 6th was essentially two General Elections on the same day in London in terms of how people voted. On an individual election I suspect the Greens would have taken Herne Hill, as only those with at least a vague interest in local politics would have bothered to get off their sofa and vote. So a large chunk of the pre-programmed Labour tribe who wouldn't dirty their hands with a local election ballot paper would have been nowhere to be seen to skew the result.


----------



## WarmharbourLane (May 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Poles and other East Europeans can vote in the local elections (and you can vote in theirs if you go to work there) so all this bigoted stuff against them could backfire on the perpetrators. Hope it does.



The turnout from foreign nationals will be relatively low - particularly the more recent arrivals from Eastern Europe. Many of them will simply have no interest in English politics in general, and even less in local politics. And when they do it'll probably be to the extent of who will charge them the least council tax (you'd be amazed at how well-up the young transient Polish comunity is on the different council tax rates in various boroughs). 

Even long established international communities in Lambeth - like the Portuguese - show limited interest in voting locally. They tend to retain more interest in politics back home. 

The Lib Dem policy on the existing illegal immigrants is fair and sensible in my view, and a classsically 'liberal' policy, but it is electorally stupid. It's too easy to be misrepresented and the people it benefits most aren't even eligible to vote for it ! So it should be one of those positive things that a party aims to do if it gets into power, but has the sense to not tell people about in advance.


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> What's wrong with that? Surely this shows the Greens up as a minority seeking to impose restrictions on people's consumption which have very little popular support and which they only have a chance of pushing through on the basis of ordinary people abstaining massively from voting in local elections as they normally do.



There's nothing wrong with it imo - and that's why I didn't say there was.

But your characterisation of the Green's policies (and their level of support for that matter) is rubbish. The people who turned out en masse to vote Labour on Thursday are exactly those people whose consumption levels are no problem at all - they are poor and already consume much less than the average. 

It's the millionaires like James Chatterton-Dickson and co. whose consumption patterns are the problem. What's so sad is that the Chatterson-Dicksons can snap their fingers and get a working class electorate to vote them back in so that they can continue screwing them by jacking up rents, blocking attempts (by the Green Party's one councillor) to insist that Council Sub-contractors pay the London Living Wage while at the same time they are freezing Council Tax so that the richest people in our borough can get even richer.

You sound like a Labour Party activist to me - but what on earth you are doing defending this kind of tory crap is beyond me. Normally we do it because there is no alternative - but the Greens provide exactly that an electable genuine social-democratic party.

And that's before you get on to what a sleazy campaign Lambeth Labour fought this year (against everyone, not just the Greens). Their only instinct is self-preservation and re-election - there are no principles, no ideals to fight for, whatsoever.


----------



## Gramsci (May 8, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Poles and other East Europeans can vote in the local elections (and you can vote in theirs if you go to work there) so all this bigoted stuff against them could backfire on the perpetrators. Hope it does.



Do u read peoples posts or are u a troll?


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 8, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Do u read peoples posts?


Yes I've read yours and noted that while you are not a member of the "send them back" brigade you do line up with those who say "stop them coming". But what's wrong with the Poles? What harm have they done anyone? They're only workers coming here to try to get a better living.


----------



## Jean-Luc (May 9, 2010)

co-op said:


> But your characterisation of the Green's policies (and their level of support for that matter) is rubbish. The people who turned out en masse to vote Labour on Thursday are exactly those people whose consumption levels are no problem at all - they are poor and already consume much less than the average.


But the policies favoured by the Greens would make some things more expensive for them, e.g. having to shop at local shops rather than supermarkets or by increased energy bills or by increasing the cost of running a car. 


co-op said:


> You sound like a Labour Party activist to me - but what on earth you are doing defending this kind of tory crap is beyond me. Normally we do it because there is no alternative - but the Greens provide exactly that an electable genuine social-democratic party.


No I'm not a Labour Party supporter but I do believe in democracy and that councillors elected on a low poll have less legitimacy than those elected on a higher poll (incidentally it was the higher turn-out that wiped out the BNP in Barking). Having said this I think that some electoral reform can be justified. Personally I'd favour smaller one-member wards with councillors elected by the Alternative Vote. Councillors would then be both more representative and closer to the electors.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> Yes I've read yours and noted that while you are not a member of the "send them back" brigade you do line up with those who say "stop them coming". But what's wrong with the Poles? What harm have they done anyone? They're only workers coming here to try to get a better living.



No u dont read peoples post properly. I never said stop them coming. As I have said in previous posts I can understand why some people are concerned about migration. 

Your reply is stereotypical of those who think anyone who mentions anything to do with race or migration is therefore anti immigration. Exactly what Brown did.

If anything people like Brown are worse than UKIP. Browns government brought in controls on Bulgarians and Rumanians when they joined in the second wave of East Europeans states to join EU. This was totally unfair and just tokenism to stop core Labour part supporters turning to BNP. Margaret Hodge helped herself to defeat BNP by supporting such policies. The BNP influence did make mainstream parties bring in immigration controls. In that way the far right in this country and Europe have an influence on the general political culture.

For the record (yet again) Ive thought this one through (unlike people like u who have the same knee jerk type reaction from the opposite side of the political perspective as those who want immigration controls.) I oppose all immigration controls. I think that Business and financial elites use immigration and outsourcing factories to other countries to lower wages and conditions. Immigration controls are purely about the needs of business and in the end are divide and rule.

Theres nothing wrong with Poles. Why do I have to repeat myself? Do u actually have any East European friends? 

In actual fact some of the Poles I now came here to escape the Right wing Catholic nationalists who ran there country. They prefer it here in London.


----------



## greenfox (May 9, 2010)

I think the conclusion we can draw from these elections is that Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour supporting borough at both Parliamentary and borough council level  - only in Bishops and bits of Streatham (and West Norwood for the Tories) is there any large scale support for the Lib Dems or other parties that are not Labour. I wouldnt be surprised if there is discontent in the Lib Dems at their failure - according to the tweets on election counting night listed at onion bag blog http://onionbagblog.com/2010/05/08/lambeth-local-elections-live/ Steve Bradley victorious Vassall Lib Dem Councillor is a possible leadership contender. Lumsden apparently blames the people of Lambeth for the Labour win - http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/8154888.Labour_victorious_in_Lambeth/ - they voted on national issues when they should have been voting on local issues


----------



## WarmharbourLane (May 10, 2010)

greenfox said:


> I think the conclusion we can draw from these elections is that Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour supporting borough at both Parliamentary and borough council level  - only in Bishops and bits of Streatham (and West Norwood for the Tories) is there any large scale support for the Lib Dems or other parties that are not Labour.



Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour-leaning borough - that's always been known. But what the results tell us is more that that electors voted in two general elections on May 6th in Lambeth, not one.

There are areas where the result would have looked very different had the local elections been on a separate day (e.g. Herne Hill, Oval).

I fear for what lies ahead for those of us in council housing in the borough. Labour have said they're giving Lambeth Living another 12mths to sort itself out. That suggests to me that they have an alternative in their back pocket that they'll whip out and push through if needs be. But that's what got us into the mess in the first place - they ferment secret plans and then push them through regardless of tenant views. So I have no faith in any alternative toi Lambeth Living doing any better if they follow the same arrogant approach. Co-operative council my ass.


----------



## ajdown (May 10, 2010)

greenfox said:


> I think the conclusion we can draw from these elections is that Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour supporting borough at both Parliamentary and borough council level



I think the conclusion is more likely that the average Lambeth voter is incredibly stupid to continue to vote for the party that have screwed up both locally and national for the last four years, and give them another opportunity to do so.

Thankfully, nationally, Labour have finally had their unelected prime minister removed from office by the overwhelming voice of the population, and we can look forward to some real changes if we can get a Tory/Lib Dem coalition government together.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2010)

Jean-Luc said:


> But the policies favoured by the Greens would make some things more expensive for them, e.g. having to shop at local shops rather than supermarkets or by increased energy bills or by increasing the cost of running a car.



I'm afraid you just haven't thought this line of attack through. 

The overwhelming majority of poor people in Lambeth don't own a car (the majority of ALL Lambeth households don't, and the poorer the ward, the lower the level of registration - down to as low as 12% in some wards). What the Green Party is advocating is fair treatment for the non-car owners. In some cases GP policy in this area is actually re-distributive (charging higher CPZ fees for the largest, most expensive, most polluting cars to fund safe street storage lockers for bicycles).

Energy bills are just going to increase and there's nothing anyone can do to stop that - but the GP has argued for massively increasing the levels of insulation in social housing as a form of wealth re-distribution (meaning that people living in social housing pay lower energy bills) and a method of reducing carbon emissions (see Kirklees council in Yorkshire for an example of this in practise).

Most supermarkets aren't cheaper - except on KVIs. They're also far-flung for most people, thus requiring travel costs of time and money.

The Green Party has signed up to the Equality Pledge - the only party to have done so - which commits it to examining all policy in the light of whether it increases or decreases wealth division, and to only support policy which does the latter. 



Jean-Luc said:


> No I'm not a Labour Party supporter but I do believe in democracy and that councillors elected on a low poll have less legitimacy than those elected on a higher poll (incidentally it was the higher turn-out that wiped out the BNP in Barking). Having said this I think that some electoral reform can be justified. Personally I'd favour smaller one-member wards with councillors elected by the Alternative Vote. Councillors would then be both more representative and closer to the electors.




Of course, other things being equal, the higher the turnout, the higher the legitimacy. But other things weren't equal - this was effectively a General Election vote. That's life. But if Lambeth Labour think this is a massive endorsement of their policies or the implementation of them they're completely wrong imo.


----------



## ajdown (May 10, 2010)

co-op said:


> In some cases GP policy in this area is actually re-distributive (charging higher CPZ fees for the largest, most expensive, most polluting cars to fund safe street storage lockers for bicycles).



Let's face it, bicycles are cheap, both to buy and run, especially as they are able to be used without training, licensing, insurance or paying anything towards the cost of maintaining the roads (or pavements) they are being used on.  That's even before you start thinking about the laws that are regularly broken by cyclists who have no regard for the safety of those who actually pay for the right to use the roads.

Most people do not want to own or ride bicycles, otherwise they'd do so.  It's as simple as that.  Providing "free bike parking" is not going to encourage people to change, and further taxation to make owning a car more expensive isn't much of a solution either.

The reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live.

If people want to de-progress themselves back to the stone age and live on a diet of organic mung beans, then that's their choice - but don't drag me back there.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 10, 2010)

WarmharbourLane said:


> Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour-leaning borough - that's always been known. But what the results tell us is more that that electors voted in two general elections on May 6th in Lambeth, not one.
> 
> There are areas where the result would have looked very different had the local elections been on a separate day (e.g. Herne Hill, Oval).



Yes, overall I would agree with this. Gypsy Hill is a perfect examples, going from Tory to Labour. Even leafy Thurlow threatened the Whelans, with one Tory seat being lost to Labour.

There was some pockets of peculiarities in the local Lambeth vote though.

The gentrification of Clapham has seen a jump from one Labour and two LibDems to three Tories. It was expected that this may be a more slower process, with perhaps three LibDems this time round, and then the Tories taking control at a later stage.

The Oval (my ward) was just weird. Congratulations to the Labour team, who I have been very critical of. They won fair and square, but the recount suggests a very weird alphabetical voting pattern taking place in SW8.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Let's face it, bicycles are cheap, both to buy and run, especially as they are able to be used without training, licensing, insurance or paying anything towards the cost of maintaining the roads (or pavements) they are being used on.  That's even before you start thinking about the laws that are regularly broken by cyclists who have no regard for the safety of those who actually pay for the right to use the roads.
> 
> Most people do not want to own or ride bicycles, otherwise they'd do so.  It's as simple as that.  Providing "free bike parking" is not going to encourage people to change, and further taxation to make owning a car more expensive isn't much of a solution either.




You're an unpleasant idiot - that much I already knew. 

But you are also obviousl completely ignorant of a few facts relating to the subject you feel drawn to comment on, so I'll correct those for you. Sadly that probably won't make you either a nicer person or a more intelligent one, but perhaps it will disuade you from making a fool of yourself quite so publically in the future.

Fact # 1. Cyclists pay for the maintaining of our roads since these are mostly paid for by local councils and thus out of our council taxes, or by the relevant Highway Authority (eg TfL) which comes from central govt tax funds into which cyclists pay their taxes just like everybody else.

Fact # 2. Car-drivers cause massively disproportionately more damage to our roads; the damage caused by weight rises exponentially by a factor of 10^4 - thus a car +driver weighing about 10 times more than a bicycle + driver causes about 10000 times more road damage than a bicycle.

Fact # 3. Nearly all car drivers routinely break the law; speed cameras record an _average_ speed of 34mph in 30mph zones. They also use mobile phones (roughly 10% on recent surveys in North Lambeth), jump red lights drive and park on pavements etc etc. The difference from cyclists' law-breaking is that the consequences of these behaviours is fatal to thousands of people every year.

Fact # 4. Literally millions of UK citizens routinely report that they would prefer to cycle or walk many short urban journeys but feel unable to do so because they feel frightened of cars. Over half of our primary school children would like to cycle to school, less than 1% do. Wherever cars have been de-prioritised or removed people adopt alternatve modes with great enthusiasm.

Fact #5. In areas like Lambeth cycle storage facilities are massively supported by a majority of local residents because so many people live in small flats or high up and can't store bikes safely in their flats or find it very inconvenient to do so. 

Fact # 6. The increased tax suggested was on the very biggest, most expensive, most polluting cars. This does not "make owning a car more expensive" - you can pay precisely zero if you buy a low-polluting car, it makes owning the most anti-social type of car more expensive. And why not?




ajdown said:


> The reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live.
> 
> If people want to de-progress themselves back to the stone age and live on a diet of organic mung beans, then that's their choice - but don't drag me back there.



You obviously don't know any of the Green Party's policies so really you ought to shut up, don't you think? IT's obvious that the reason the GP has taken so long to get an MP elected is because f our highly undemocratic and unrepresentative form of govt.

Marvellous use of cliches though (mung beans! - that's hilarious!)- if I have one criticism it would be that you managed to omit "lycra-clad", but although you are consistently unoriginal, you're not smart and perhaps you aren't even aware of just how hackneyed your posts are.

You should stick to gloating about cyclists getting crushed to death by lorries.


----------



## se5 (May 10, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> They won fair and square, but the recount suggests a very weird alphabetical voting pattern taking place in SW8.



I agree on the alphabetical voting pattern - this was seen in Vassall Ward (results at http://www.vassallview.com/2010/05/vassall-ward-results-in.html)  too where Kingsley Abrams and Steve Bradley got elected plus Adrian Garden. 

The first two you might reasonably expect given that they are sittting councillors and so will have some name recognition locally - also (coincidentally?) of course they are at the top of the alphabet. 

But the next one? Labour's Adrian Garden doesnt live in the ward and as far as I can tell having spoken to Labour people locally was only selected in the autumn. He therefore would have had virtually no name recognition. 

Tracy Ritson (the other Labour candidate) wasnt elected despite having more local connections and having lived locally for some time - I bet if she had been called Tracy Aadvark or similar she would have had more chance been elected!


----------



## ajdown (May 10, 2010)

co-op said:


> You should stick to gloating about cyclists getting crushed to death by lorries.



I don't find any unnecessary deaths particularly amusing, as it happens.  But don't let that put you off.

Why do these nervous cyclists feel they have to use main roads?  There's plenty of back roads and cycle paths they can use, so no need to be nervous of traffic; also of course all these millions of car users that would prefer to be cyclists would remove lots of cars from the roads too.

Of course, if we had a more frequent, reliable, comfortable, affordable public transport system to encourage more people out of their cars in the first place, that would be a better solution all round.  But that would cost money, and governments of all colours don't like doing that.


----------



## charcol (May 10, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> The gentrification of Clapham has seen a jump from one Labour and two LibDems to three Tories. It was expected that this may be a more slower process, with perhaps three LibDems this time round, and then the Tories taking control at a later stage.



The result in Clapham Common was interesting, although it resulted in the election of 2 Conservatives and 1 Lib Dem this time. The gentrification has been happening for a long time and it's a ward the Tories have topped the poll in for various elections (Mayoral, Europeans, etc). So I was more surprised that clashing with a General Election didn't return 3 Conservatives.

Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see whether this result has long-term implications for the balance of power in Lambeth. The double election undoubtedly worked in Labour's favour at a local level, but after swinging between Labour administrations and various forms of no overall control in recent history they now have a chance to make it safe territory for many years to come.

The main obstacle to achieving this could be the spending promises they've made, which could be scuppered by the impending cuts from central government that are undoubtedly on the way. Time will tell.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 10, 2010)

se5 said:


> I agree on the alphabetical voting pattern - this was seen in Vassall Ward (results at http://www.vassallview.com/2010/05/vassall-ward-results-in.html)  too where Kingsley Abrams and Steve Bradley got elected plus Adrian Garden.
> 
> The first two you might reasonably expect given that they are sittting councillors and so will have some name recognition locally - also (coincidentally?) of course they are at the top of the alphabet.
> 
> But the next one? Labour's Adrian Garden doesnt live in the ward...



This is the exact same pattern at the Oval.  *B*rown, for the LibDems, *E*dbrooke for Labour and *H*opkins for Labour. Poor old LibDem Sawdon, displaced after sixteen years in the Oval, for having the wrong name.

As for Edbrooke? Yes, yes, I have been harsh, and the good lady lady had the decency to have a friendly chat with me. I wish her well. But... she lives in Herne Hill. Her Labour colleague (and Oval local), poor old Karim *P*alant was knocked out because of his second name.

The 'lost' 150 Oval votes at 2:45 in the morning was something else entirely


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 10, 2010)

And here's the new cabinet, as voted on by the 44 Labour councillors on Sunday night. Really pleased to see that Cllr Nosegbe has been elected.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2010)

WarmharbourLane said:


> Lambeth is an overwhelmingly Labour-leaning borough - that's always been known. But what the results tell us is more that that electors voted in two general elections on May 6th in Lambeth, not one.
> 
> There are areas where the result would have looked very different had the local elections been on a separate day (e.g. Herne Hill, Oval).
> 
> I fear for what lies ahead for those of us in council housing in the borough. Labour have said they're giving Lambeth Living another 12mths to sort itself out. That suggests to me that they have an alternative in their back pocket that they'll whip out and push through if needs be. But that's what got us into the mess in the first place - they ferment secret plans and then push them through regardless of tenant views. So I have no faith in any alternative toi Lambeth Living doing any better if they follow the same arrogant approach. Co-operative council my ass.



Sadly I think ur correct. After posting up about the meeting I attended I would have thought Council Tenants would have been better off voting LibDem. Incredible as that seems. 

And also I think there is an issue of how the leadership of the the Labour party in Lambeth discuss and decide things off the radar. Ive heard it more than once from different quarters. Things are discussed then rushed through Cabinet with little consultation. 

Now that New Labour are back in power in Lambeth if I was representing Council tenants I would first ask,

1) About the Commission into Mutualism
2) For a new ballot on the ALMO after the twelve months is up.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Most people do not want to own or ride bicycles, otherwise they'd do so.  It's as simple as that.  Providing "free bike parking" is not going to encourage people to change, and further taxation to make owning a car more expensive isn't much of a solution either.
> 
> The reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live.
> 
> If people want to de-progress themselves back to the stone age and live on a diet of organic mung beans, then that's their choice - but don't drag me back there.



I cycle every day. Ive noticed an increase in cycle commuting into central London. This started with Red Kens promotion of cycling and is being continued by Boris with the cycle hire scheme. There has been a radical increase in cylcle parking and also cycle friendly routes. 

Also I now people who got bikes through work as there is a tax incentive scheme to encourage bike use. This I have been told is popular.

The present Green party has adopted progressive social policies. Like the Equality pledge, opposition to Iraq war etc. I noticed when they won there seat in Brighton there successful candidate was emphasising these policies. The Grren Party ,at the moment , is liberal, tolerant and socially progressive in a way that New Labour has forgotten.

Thats not to say that u are incorrect about the Green movement. There are many variants and antecendants. Some of which are socially reactionary. See Goldsmith ( not Zac but the one who died recently) for example. There imo is always a tendency in the Green movement towards Mung bean. 

Red Ken also did his best (despite Gordons PFI) to improve public transport. Mainly the bus network. Ive noticed more bus lanes. Including one just finished that goes from Bloomsbury all the way to Knightsbridge.

Many Councils are encouraging Car Clubs. Which ive heard work well. There will be little reason for many people to own a car in London in the future.


----------



## ajdown (May 10, 2010)

Glad you choose to cycle every day, but let's not forget the many for whom cycling is just not an option, whatever the reason - even if every road in London was completely traffic-free.

Hence the preference for better public transport, rather than the 'green' option of just taxing car owners off the road.


----------



## tarannau (May 10, 2010)

Who are these 'many' then AJ? Even the most corpulent, unfit souls are generally capable of cycling. Indeed it may even do them so good

And besides this is a world removed from your wish to see 'lycra louts' removed from main roads so that cars can plough on unaffected, unencumbered by caution for pedestrians or cyclists.

Frankly, you're being an utter tool as usual, trying very hard to cause offence. What happened to you as a child - did a fall from a small bicycle leave you terrified for life or something?


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Hence the preference for better public transport, rather than the 'green' option of just taxing car owners off the road.




How strange. 

You've just said "the reason the Green Party have taken so long to just get one MP elected is that because most of their policies are borderline loony and bear absolutely no resemblance to the modern society in which we live." and now you're advocating better public transport which is, of course, Green Party policy.

And - for the third time now, but I know you ain't the sharpest knife in the box - I've nowhere advocated 'taxing cars off the road', but increasing CPZ charges on the largest, most expensive and worst-polluting cars. You could still park for free if you don't want to driver some ridiculous tank.


----------



## ajdown (May 10, 2010)

Just because something happens to be "green party policy" doesn't mean I like their other policies.  There are policies from pretty much all the parties that I can agree with, and others that I don't like.  It's why I struggle with elections, because there is no one party that really represents my thoughts on the majority of issues.

I say we should tax mung beans instead and see how they feel.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (May 10, 2010)

co-op said:


> You're an unpleasant idiot - that much I already knew.
> 
> But you are also obviousl completely ignorant of a few facts relating to the subject you feel drawn to comment on, so I'll correct those for you. Sadly that probably won't make you either a nicer person or a more intelligent one, but perhaps it will disuade you from making a fool of yourself quite so publically in the future.
> 
> ...



Fact #7 Most family MPVs are taxed at the highest rate.

Fact #8 "City cars" (surely an oxy moron) are encouraged by this form of taxation.

Fact # 9 Even if endeavour to minimise your carbon footprint by cycling to work you are still penalised for having a "gas guzzler" parked outside of your house.

Fact #10  A car is rated according to manufacturers data, actual emissions are actually a direct function of servicing and basic maintenance.

Fact #11 No allowance is made for whole life costing.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Glad you choose to cycle every day, but let's not forget the many for whom cycling is just not an option, whatever the reason - even if every road in London was completely traffic-free.
> 
> Hence the preference for better public transport, rather than the 'green' option of just taxing car owners off the road.



Yes and Ive just read in Standard that Boris is taking "Tube Lines" back into TFL ownership. Gordon Brown pushed for a PPP for the Underground and its been a disaster. So hopefully things will improve.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (May 10, 2010)

co-op said:


> but increasing CPZ charges on the largest, most expensive and worst-polluting cars. You could still park for free if you don't want to driver some ridiculous tank.



What has size got to do with it? My 7 seater car (band G) is more fuel efficient and less polluting than my motorbike (free).


----------



## Gixxer1000 (May 10, 2010)

Gramsci said:


> Yes and Ive just read in Standard that Boris is taking "Tube Lines" back into TFL ownership. Gordon Brown pushed for a PPP for the Underground and its been a disaster. So hopefully things will improve.



They can only get better, its a disgrace that I can (if I was so inclined) presently drive into the city at rush hour faster than I could get in by Tube.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Fact #7 Most family MPVs are taxed at the highest rate.
> 
> Fact #8 "City cars" (surely an oxy moron) are encouraged by this form of taxation.
> 
> ...



A lot to answer here - too much for my energy levels at this time of the evening - but yes there are problems with using the CPZ fees as a behaviour-change levy; probably the fairest form of "green" taxation would be on fuel thereby directly penalising the unwanted outcome ie emissions. But that is a central govt option only and the discussion was about options for local govt.

Re Fact # 10, though, I would argue that actual emissions are dictated by multiple factors, not least the driving style of the individual motorist; maybe it's my imagination but big 4x4s seem to attract men who like driving like idiots - particularly the 20 yard foot-down-hard sprint followed by dropping anchor. No amount of servicing or maintainance is going to sort that out.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> What has size got to do with it? My 7 seater car (band G) is more fuel efficient and less polluting than my motorbike (free).



Size is relevant to it because the bigger and heavier the car, generally the less efficiently it carries its median load of one person.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (May 10, 2010)

co-op said:


> but big 4x4s seem to attract men who like driving like idiots



Your prejudices are blinding you.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> Your prejudices are blinding you.





Quite possibly. 

I'd say there are reasons to believe that 4x4s in a place like London will attract a certain type of aggressive/defensive driver. These cars are certainly advertised and sold (and presumably therefore bought) on emotional grounds - they embody "escape", "freedom", "safety". The grim rational reality of urban driving offers none of these things. They certainly aren't bought for going off-road etc. 

One key element of the emotional message is "safety"; I put this in inverted commas because it's not actual safety - as in the sort of thing that Volvo used to punt their motors on. But "safety" from the various threats that lurk on the urban street - primarily of course other people. This "safety" is illusory since it merely addresses urban paranoia, the source of which is inside the driver, not outside the car. But frightened people often behave aggressively ime.

They are also status displays; they are unnecessarily large, they are usually blinged as standard, they demonstrate the owners' ability to consume more than their fair share of space and resources (literally, 'power'); people who feel the need to demonstrate their superiority in this way will (again, ime) tend to do that across the board; aggressive, space-demanding, get-out-of-my-way driving is another way to achieve the same status display. 

Why wouldn't you drive like this if you drive a car that labels you a "Maverick", or a "Ranchero" etc etc? You are a law-breaker, a free-spirit. A Real Man. The fact that you are actually a suburban actuary or whatever does not mitigate this effect, it exaggerates it since the reality is rather shaming and must be publically denied as emphatically as possible.

But you'd surely be right in your suggestion that since I believe this, my observations are likely to be guided by these beliefs. I'd welcome it if some young keeny-bean psychologist went and did a study on it.


----------



## T.H.R (May 11, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Why do these nervous cyclists feel they have to use main roads?  There's plenty of back roads and cycle paths they can use, so no need to be nervous of traffic



When I started cycling from Tulse Hill to Borough, I used to go through the back roads, like Shakespeare Road and down by Myatts Fields. To be honest I found it safer and more convenient to use the main roads, where there are bus lanes and you get less erratic driving to contend with. 

I can understand why people are nervous of cycling through London streets though - main roads or otherwise - and to be honest, unless you've cycled around them yourself, you're not really in a position to dismiss people's concerns out of hand.


----------



## happyshopper (May 11, 2010)

co-op said:


> The fact that you are actually a suburban actuary or whatever does not mitigate this effect, it exaggerates it since the reality is rather shaming and must be publically denied as emphatically as possible.



This shows the dangers of generalising. I'm not sure if I'm the only suburban actuary in Brixton but I most certainly don't own a "Maverick", or a "Ranchero". Nor am I ashamed of my profession.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2010)

happyshopper said:


> This shows the dangers of generalising. I'm not sure if I'm the only suburban actuary in Brixton but I most certainly don't own a "Maverick", or a "Ranchero". Nor am I ashamed of my profession.





You've missed my point. It wasn't that being an actuary was objectively shaming; just that if you're trying to project a maverick ranchero persona via your car, then it is likely to be.

You aren't, therefore it isn't.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2010)

co-op said:


> You've missed my point.



Although re-reading it, I didn't exactly make it very clear.


----------



## ajdown (May 11, 2010)

T.H.R said:


> unless you've cycled around them yourself, you're not really in a position to dismiss people's concerns out of hand.



The fact that I am aware of the dangers of cycling, and therefore choose not to cycle, does put me in a position where I am in fact able to question other people's choice - rather than "dismiss their concerns" as you put it.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2010)

ajdown said:


> The fact that I am aware of the dangers of cycling, and therefore choose not to cycle, does put me in a position where I am in fact able to question other people's choice - rather than "dismiss their concerns" as you put it.



The principle "danger of cycling" is motorists and their driving behaviour - specifically eg speeding, driving on while on their phone, jumping red lights etc etc.

Yet I have never seen any sign whatsoever that you are "aware" of these dangers since you confine yourself to sneering at cyclists and are clearly either unaware of them or choosing to overlook them.

Given your BNP-style obsession with muslims etc I'm pretty clear that you have an agenda and that it's the latter. Crawl back into your hole.


----------



## T.H.R (May 11, 2010)

ajdown said:


> The fact that I am aware of the dangers of cycling, and therefore choose not to cycle, does put me in a position where I am in fact able to question other people's choice - rather than "dismiss their concerns" as you put it.



But if you're aware of the dangers of cycling, and therefore choose not to cycle,  
why say "there's no need to be nervous of traffic"?

What are the dangers of cycling if traffic isn't a concern?


----------



## ajdown (May 11, 2010)

co-op said:


> The principle "danger of cycling" is motorists and their driving behaviour - specifically eg speeding, driving on while on their phone, jumping red lights etc etc.



... and that's somehow worse than cyclists going through red lights, weaving in and out of moving traffic, riding on the pavement, not being aware of those around them, etc etc etc?

I've seen cyclists riding whilst using mobile phones - or walkie-talkies - too.

You also have the added danger that there is no training required to ride a bicycle, no roadworthy test, nor insurance.  I accept that being hit by a vehicle is likely to be more painful to a pedestrian than being hit by a cyclist, but that's not really the point.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (May 11, 2010)

co-op said:


> The fact that you are actually a suburban actuary or whatever .



No I also chose an macho career to compensate for having a small willy or whatever


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2010)

Gixxer1000 said:


> No I also chose an macho career to compensate for having a small willy or whatever



Well I didn't mean you personally, I thought that _was_ clear from my post. I was talking about my generic and horribly generalised 4x4 driver.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2010)

ajdown said:


> ... and that's somehow worse than cyclists going through red lights, weaving in and out of moving traffic, riding on the pavement, not being aware of those around them, etc etc etc?



Yes, rather obviously worse since it kills and injures thousands of people every year. Complicated stuff this, isn't it?


----------



## T.H.R (May 12, 2010)

I must admit though, it gets on my nerves when I see cyclists ignoring red lights, ignorantly speeding off across a busy junction while the traffic is beginning to move across it in the other direction, etc. I cycle so I know there are some exceptions but that kind of attitude does make us look bad.


----------



## co-op (May 12, 2010)

T.H.R said:


> I must admit though, it gets on my nerves when I see cyclists ignoring red lights, ignorantly speeding off across a busy junction while the traffic is beginning to move across it in the other direction, etc. I cycle so I know there are some exceptions but that kind of attitude does make us look bad.




Oh it annoys the crap out of me, I just resent seeing it used as an excuse for car drivers to do the same.

But then I'm middle-aged, a red light is quite a good breather these days.


----------



## ajdown (May 12, 2010)

co-op said:


> Oh it annoys the crap out of me, I just resent seeing it used as an excuse for car drivers to do the same.



Not once have I said that jumping red lights is ok for car drivers to do.  Red lights are there for a reason, and be it cars, bikes or pedestrians, obey them.


----------



## co-op (May 13, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Not once have I said that jumping red lights is ok for car drivers to do..



Funny, I constantly see you posting about bikes doing it and absolutely _never_ about cars doing it. It's almost like you're talking bullshit when you say,



ajdown said:


> Red lights are there for a reason, and be it cars, bikes or pedestrians, obey them.


----------



## 100% masahiko (May 13, 2010)

ajdown - did a cyclist fuck your wife or something?

You have such an irrational hatred that's all.
Makes one wonder...


----------



## Gramsci (May 14, 2010)

co-op said:


> Quite possibly.
> 
> I'd say there are reasons to believe that 4x4s in a place like London will attract a certain type of aggressive/defensive driver. These cars are certainly advertised and sold (and presumably therefore bought) on emotional grounds - they embody "escape", "freedom", "safety". The grim rational reality of urban driving offers none of these things. They certainly aren't bought for going off-road etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## se5 (May 18, 2010)

Returning to the Lambeth local elections - does anyone know if there have been any changes in the Lib Dem Group? I believe they were due to meet last night for the first time and I was wondering if there were any mumourings of doubt about Ashley Lumsden's leadership given that he lost five seats on Lambeth and in  the general election the Lib Dems didnt noticebaly do very well around these parts


----------



## cllr (May 25, 2010)

*By-election*

Seems Toren Smith, Labour councillor in Tulse Hill has resigned for "personal reasons". The gossip is that the police are bringing charges. Polling day will be 1 July.


----------



## Tricky Skills (May 25, 2010)

Also...

Dear old Kingsley Abrams, Labour's councillor for Vassall, has been suspended from the party, following an internal investigation


----------



## se5 (May 25, 2010)

Hmm interesting about Abrams - from the website linked to it seems he was accused of leaking information: anyone got any further details?


----------



## se5 (May 25, 2010)

se5 said:


> Returning to the Lambeth local elections - does anyone know if there have been any changes in the Lib Dem Group? I believe they were due to meet last night for the first time and I was wondering if there were any mumourings of doubt about Ashley Lumsden's leadership given that he lost five seats on Lambeth and in  the general election the Lib Dems didnt noticebaly do very well around these parts



It seems Lumsden survived the meeting to remain as head of the Lib Dem group. On the Lambeth website there is a listing and it seems that almost all of the Lib Dem councillors have spokesperson jobs of one sort or another


----------



## netbob (May 25, 2010)

ajdown said:


> Not once have I said that jumping red lights is ok for car drivers to do.  Red lights are there for a reason, and be it cars, bikes or pedestrians, obey them.



It's not illegal for pedestrians, and looks like it will soon be legal for cyclists to jump red lights when turning left (Boris is up for the idea apparently).

Some cyclists do just jump lights for hell of it, but a lot do it on in circumstances where not doing so is potentially very dangerous.


----------



## se5 (May 25, 2010)

Tricky Skills said:


> Also...
> 
> Dear old Kingsley Abrams, Labour's councillor for Vassall, has been suspended from the party, following an internal investigation



This is mentioned in today's paper http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/25/hugh-muir-diary


----------



## cllr (May 25, 2010)

cllr said:


> Seems Toren Smith, Labour councillor in Tulse Hill has resigned for "personal reasons". The gossip is that the police are bringing charges. Polling day will be 1 July.



The police are reporting that they have seized his computer.


----------



## cllr (May 26, 2010)

cllr said:


> The police are reporting that they have seized his computer.



Evening Standard have the story:

Councillor resigns after porn arrest
Justin Davenport, Crime Correspondent
26.05.10

A London Labour councillor has been arrested by police on suspected child porn charges.

Toren Smith, 42, was arrested at his home and questioned before being released on bail. His computer was seized for further examination. He has resigned his Lambeth council seat.

http://tinyurl.com/35o93p3


----------



## se5 (May 27, 2010)

cllr said:


> Evening Standard have the story:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/35o93p3



And on the BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/default.stm


----------

