Who is the weakest link in Lambeth? Which department would you cut this week?

Ever wondered what it felt like to be Cllr Steve Reed, our esteemed Lambeth Leader?  It's the 2011-2012 budget consultation.  You have to save £80 million over the next four years.  £40 million of that must be cut in 2011-20102 although you're fighting the government to prevent immediate (or frontloaded) cuts.  You know that jobs will be slashed.  You know that services will be be eliminated.  Education will suffer.  Elderly people won't receive care at home any more.  Crime will rise as police services will be cut.  Children's services will suffer, risking more Baby P cases.  The youth budget is at risk, wiping out the good work done to prevent knife crinme.  Preventative and education services will go, costing the Council more in the long run.  Recycling and rubbish collection will happen less often.  Peoples' calls to the Council will go unanswered for days.  It sounds horrendous.  What would you cut?  Who is the weakest link?  The real Steve Reed is seeking to protect the £5 million youth budget in a bid to prevent future youth offending.  Note how the Evening Standard have used a photo of the Triangle Adventure Playground,  currently at risk of eviction by Lambeth.

Thanks to a free service, You Choose, provided by You Gov, Lambeth have been able to set up a simulation so that you can try on Cllr Reed's shoes, and attain control of the budgets.  Figure out how you'd make £25 million of cuts.  You control the money being spent at the moment, and you're told how much save.  You are given a few ways to bring in income, but these really don't amount to much.  You're not allowed to raise Council Tax. The choice is yours.  Each time you make a cut, you'll be told who is impacted and to what degree.  I started by slashing lots of back office stuff and was warned that I couldn't sustain those cuts because Lambeth would drop below statutory levels in various areas, so I had to make frontline cuts.  When you've finished with the simulator, email Lambeth Council and tell them what services you want to see protected, and where you'd place fees.

Working on a similar premise to Dostoevsky, who noted, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons", I figured that the same sentiment is true for the most vulnerable.  I resolved, in my budget, to lessen cuts to children who require the intervention of social services and to preserve provision for the elderly and those who have learning disabilities...  How did I do?  Do you agree with me?

1.  In children's services, I only cut £5.36 million (reducing the current budget by 8.4%), but I reduced provison of care to vulnerable children, introduced fees and reduced opening hours to youth centres and stooed the youth offending services.  I also reduced in school support.  That sounds like a large cut, but the spend on children's services is huge at £63.88 million.

2.  In adult social care, I kept reductions as low as possible and similarly cut £5.74 million (reducing the current budget by 9.2%).  Unfortunately, this resulted in reduced care in peoples homes, helping them to dress etc. and remain at home and reduced funding for residential day services.  Again, it sounds like a large cut, but under the simulation, £62 million was spent on adult social care.

3.  I decided that "Corporate services and benefits" didn't sound important so I reduced the current budget by 22%, and saved £6.75 million.  Of course, this had the effect of reducing internal support severely, increasing the risk of fraud and produced "significant delays" in contacting the council.  I cut the performance, policy, equalities and research to the minimum, just enough to continue statutory provision and I increased the delay in processing benefit applications (but I only delayed it, rather than cutting it to the bone).  I also reduced the communication budget substantially, but that means there are less staff to focus on core campaigns.

4.  Next I had to look at streets, waste, recycling and consumer protection.  I reduced the current budget by 11.2%, and managed a saving of £2.74 million.  I had to stop the food waste collection pilot.  Our roads will be covered in pot holes because the highways are now only inspected once a year.  I ceased all food premises inspections and stopped product safety checks.  After that, I reduced the operational hours for the noise service.  It now doesn't work on week days.

5.  My next budget was libraries, sports, parks and culture.  Oh dear.  I'm a huge champion of libraries, so I didn't want to cut those.  And cutting sport would be a mistake.  I ended up cutting £2.11 million, much of it in parks, reducing that budget by 13.6%.  I didn't merge any libraries.  I had to restructure the sport and leisure department to deliver the same level of service at lower cost (eek, how does that work?).  Culturally, we're now unable to deliver any arts development.  (Argh, but remember, I was focused on reducing cuts to the children and elderly).  But parks took the brunt of my cuts, since I felt that having no wardens and increasing cemetry charges and reducing tree maintenace wouldn't actually remove the parks as a resource.  They could always be recovered at some later date, right?

6.  Next, regeneration and enterprise.  I'm afraid that took a big hit.  I saved a mere £757k, but reduced the department by a shocking 24%.  It's only a small department, but I was trying to preserve services for youth etc.  Now, unfortunately, we will reduced investment in town centre management, local business promotion and job creation.  A small price to pay, but won't the recession be slowed by the fact that we're less able to assist with job creation?  I had to cut something!

7.  Finally, I took a look at community safety.  I slashed it by 19% (deciding that it was the police's responsibility), but it only had a small budget anyway, so I only sliced off £302k, nothing compared to the other departments.  Now Lambeth is unable to deal with drug and alcohol issues, and tackle offenders.  (And slashing my park rangers above isn't going to help either).

Positively, I was able to bring money in through events income (I did wonder whether there would be a department left to run the events), and through parking by £400k (ouch), but I chose not to raise fees for cultural services because that would hit sport.  I also managed to save some money by working more closely with health services (but that only netted 90k) and altered the way I provided social and welfare advice.  Note, I did not renegotiate Adult Social Care contracts or find efficiencies in Adult social services management costs.  I thought that those sounded like they'd make the care worse.  I also decided not to cut the few public toilets we'd got left.  The 175k saving was barely worth making.

The electorate are rightly angry.  Did I do the right thing?  What would you do?

The Con Dems are cutting local council budgets, but it was under a Labour administration that we ran up the debt in the first place.  Should we just keep blaming the bankers?  Welcome to the Big Society.

Leafy Lambeth Leans Leftier with Labour Love-in - local elections

I'm afraid I've been away for the week, sunning myself on far-off shores, so have failed to provide anything of an analysis of the local elections.  The election night itself, and the post-election summary have both been covered exceedingly well over at Onionbag blog.  I was particularly keeping an eye out on Bishop's, Princes and Oval wards, since they're pertinent to this hyper-local patch.  I made a few Twitter predictions, but I hope nobody placed any bets as a result...!

I predicted that Princes Ward would stay Labour on account of the fact that none of the Lib Dem candidates really appeared in the ward before the election itself.  In that prediction I was correct, but that was my only correct guess.  Particular congratulations should go to Cllr Mark Harrison, who despite only winning his seat at the by-election last year, actually received the highest number of  votes in the ward.  It seems his hard work has paid off, and as a regular commentator here at Lurking about SE11, I'm quite relieved (in a non-partisan manner) that he's still around.  I was somewhat surprised that the Green Party's Joseph Healy did not receive a more substantial vote.  Dr Healy was present at all of the hustings, had a good online presence and has been dragging himself around campaigning locally.   Nobody had really heard of or from his colleague Dr Butterworth before the election, and yet she was awarded a greater number of votes.   Very strange.  I'm still convinced there might be something in the Onionbag's first-in-the-alphabet theory.  Anyhow, happily Joseph has said that he's going to keep blogging in some form, which is encouraging, as additional constructive political criticism is always good for democracy.  In Prices, the Tories also increased their percentage of the vote from 2006, but only very marginally, and the national elections might account for that trend.

I thought Bishop's ward might be lost by the Lib Dems to Labour (I was utterly wrong, since there were nearly 200 votes between the trailing Lib Dem and the leading Labour candidate), so Bishop's remains stubbornly Lib Dem.  I've got this vague hypothesis that Bishop's (surely a wealthy ward?) is only Lib Dem on account of the fact that none of the residents will allow themselves to vote Tory (since they live South of the river in the dangerous urban inner-city that is Bishop's ward), but neither can they bring themselves to vote Labour...  Why any Tory with any political ambition would live in Lambeth is somewhat beyond me...  Lambeth must be one of the few places in the country which can veer further towards the left at a time when everybody else was figuring how to get rid of Gordon Brown.

I also thought that Oval Ward would remain Lib Dem.  Arguably, that guess was closer to the end result, but since Labour now have two new Oval councillors, and the Lib Dems have kept only one seat, it seems that I was wrong!  It was a hotly-contested seat, with several re-counts and a late night for all involved, but Oval now sits very firmly in the red camp.

I'm afraid I must admit to more incorrect predictions.  How wrong could I have been?  *hangs head in shame*  I even predicted that Lambeth Council would be hung.  Well, it is.  Of sorts.  It's responsible for its own public hanging, for those readers who had hoped there might be some viable opposition against the Labour stranglehold.  But in terms of votes, I've done a quick map analysis of the 2006 elections (left hand map) and the 2010 elections (right hand map), and you can see the map has gone several shades red-er, but more interestingly, it has become stripier too:

By stripier, I mean that a larger number of wards are now represented by more than one party.  In 2006, only Herne Hill and Clapham Common had wards with split votes.  In 2010, Thurlow Park, Clapham Common, Vassall and Oval are all wards that will have to work out partnerships for the common good.  I wonder whether Clapham Common will continue to act so accurately as a barometer for the country as a whole.  If David Cameron and Nick Clegg fall out of bed, will Clapham return to Labour and the Lib Dems?  Maybe home-owners should use this map to figure out where to buy property.  If you bought in Clapham Common, you've done well, since everybody else did too...  Perhaps the Tories will shift their focus from the south-east corner of the Borough to the west.  I'm hoping too that the Greens won't give up on Lambeth as a lost cause.

Anyhow, all of this talk of a Lib-Con partnership at a national level matters not a jot for SE11-ites.  If you find yourself living in SE11, it's with Labour you'll be contending for the next four years.  That means, we need to focus on their election promises.  Only, I can't find them online.  Does anybody have any of the literature created by Bishop's Lib Dems, Princes' Labour or Oval Labour/Lib Dems?  I've found an Oval Labour postcard, but it doesn't really contain any promises.  Likewise, the Bishops' Lib Dems appear to have written to everybody, but I can't see that the letter contains any policy.  The Straight Choice website has a Vauxhall Labour leaflet, which will have to be used for the purpose of glimpsing the future:

1.  Council tax has been frozen for two years (good move).  But that, of course, does not really point to what will happen in the years to come.

2.  Labour seem to be planning a "borough-wide hit squad".  Jean McCarthy (quoted in the literature) is usefully a Princes resident, so I'll keep my ears open for any additional bobbies on the beat in Princes that might help reduce local crime.

3.  "Kate fights for local pool facility" reads the headline on the literature.  But it's not clear where Kate has been fighting that particular battle, unless it was for the laughable 12 metre swimming pool.  The leaflet then goes on to mention the former Lilian Baylis hub, which I will continue to focus upon.  I was unaware (but hopeful) that a pool was planned for the site.  In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear news of the officers' report (see comments) on the site that Cllr Harrison was trying to procure back on the 18th March.

The above leaflet has more of a Hoey-esque focus, so it would be good if the Princes, Oval and Bishops election winners could leave some comments about their aims and ambitions for the next four years.  Links to election campaign literature is very much welcome, as I don't seem to have received much.

The SE11 Lurker is not impressed by the Lambeth Labour Lefty Love-in at a time when the rest of the country has returned a hung parliament.  I'd like to see a more transparent council, with document digitisation and the opening up of non-confidential Council papers, as they pertain to our individual wards.  There has been some stinging criticism made recently of Council officers, and I'd like to know how Councillors think internal bureaucracy might be better scrutinised by the electorate, who pay the officers' wages.  I will personally continue to demand local political accountability by focusing on the following:

1.  Former Lilian Baylis site - This now needs public consultation, or failing that, to be turned into a community facility that has more longevity and investment than current SAZ meanwhile use.  A swimming pool would be great, but the building needs over £10 million worth of repairs, and we're still waiting to hear what Labour's "community hub / John Lewis model" looks like.  Has a preliminary paper been written on the topic?  When might it be viewable?

2.  Former site of Beaufoy Institute - It would be good to see discussions about the future of this site, especially if it is to be an educational establishment, made public early.

3.  Re-zoning Kennington tube from Zone 2 to Zone 1 - I know Caroline Pidgeon has raised questions about this, but it's one for the Mayor. I'll also be closely observing tube closures and news about transport improvements.  I've seen some good news for the Northern line, which I'll write about shortly, but South London desperately needs improved transport infrastructure.

4.  Additional River Thames piers in Lambeth - Another one for the Mayor, but this would be a rather inexpensive means of improving the transport infrastructure for those in Bishops, Princes and Oval wards.

5.  Further development of Mayor of London / Lambeth Council planning documentation - It's not enough to keep blaming the Mayor's plan for permitting tall buildings, when the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document could be used to keep the ambitions of wayward developers in check.  Vauxhall should benefit from development and regeneration, but such development must occur as a result of proper town-centre design, instead of developing through ad-hoc developer planning applications.

6.  Council housing issues / leaseholder charges - The less said, the better, but I'll be reporting on any correspondence I receive re. the performance of Lambeth Living.

7.  Cycle issues - I will keep focusing on the development of the Cycle Superhighways, and on cyclist injuries/fatalities and on the development of local cycle routes/facilities.  The 20mph speed limit campaign could probably use some attention, so that's something that's worth keeping an eye on.

8.  Crime - Dangerous dogs, gangs, petty theft, burglary etc. will all be monitored, and there's no reason that we couldn't see a reduction in crime by closer resident co-operation.  Would be interesting to see if the Council have any local initiatives that might help with this, other than just increasing police presence.

9.  Green issues / recycling - I'll be looking out for an improvement in recycling levels within the Borough, as well as news on allotments/growing and healthy living.

Fallout from Vauxhall hustings - the good, the bad, and the downright mad

Local hustings might generally considered to be good for democracy, a time to question the candidates and distinguish constructive policies from dross. Sometimes they're even entertaining. What I hadn't realised was how effective they are for bringing all of the mad people (candidates and audience) out of the woodwork. Let a candidate speak for long enough, and one is left with no illusion about their suitability for office.

It all began well with quick intros from all candidates in which we learned that Tory Glyn Chambers has, as an Oxbridge economist, "skills and intelligence" to keep the country running. That as well as a track record locally for being a school governor gives him a passion for education. Additionally, he has "a record" through some kind of local campaigning to "keep Clapham Swimming", which he admitted "didn't happen". Oh dear.

Jeremy Drinkall, the anti-capitalist up next. He wanted to talk about his door stepping. Two of his party's policies are apparently very popular locally; to nationalise the banks and bring the troops back to the UK. On his tails was the green Joseph Healey, a local disability activist, but also an historian. He doesn't want us to make the mistakes of history all over again. He would also stop the war and spend money on the NHS.

Labour's reliable old hand Kate Hoey must be a bit tired of attending hustings. She launched into a "standing on my record" routine. She wanted to be known to have helped locally and made it known that the Vauxhall constituency has a high caseload, particularly re. immigration cases. She also wanted to stand on her record as somebody who gets things done and helps get peoples' voices across. Slight lack of substance I felt. But she wanted to stress that she's honest, and independent. Possibly a bit too independent for some, but more of that later...

Jim Kapetanos was quite frank about being a protest candidate, and made clear that his main role would be to speak up for the voiceless and for animals. If Kate Hoey were to resign her position (as MP or Countryside Alliance person, it wasn't clear), he suggests that he wouldn't be standing.

Daniel Lambert is a very very old style socialist who advised that people should not vote for him if they wouldn't shoulder the responsibility of so-doing. He wants "a society where the industrial resources of the our planet are the heritage of all". Quite a bit of waffle. Rather short on fact.

Many of the candidates were quite clear about how they didn't originally come from London. Lib Dem's Caroline Pidgeon decided to capitalise on the fact that she has lived in South East London for 16 years and proclaimed "a strong track record" in Southwark (which rather leaves Lambeth wide open!). She also mentioned that she had taken up many Vauxhall transport issues in her Assembly role, and had tried to save post offices, and had been trying to save SLAM and wanted to clean up politics... Phew. A lot to cram into an opening speech.

Our ex-DJ vicar host for the evening had also decided to throw in a question about where the candidates got their "moral compass" from. This led to lots of piffling about rural northern Ireland and Christian upbringings (though nobody mentioned any actual, you know, church attendance or practice). The alternative secular equivalent was socialism and vague notions of preventing exploitation of the defenceless. The best answer moral compass answer came from Joseph Healy who was actually able to name his heroes... St Francis, William Morris and Thomas Paine, and then provide some fabulous quotes! I particularly liked the way that he used St Francis as an anti-establishment character; it demonstrated some thought on his part.

Having got the tedious bit out of the way, we were able to move on to audience questions. My one criticism would have to be the chairing at this point. Whilst hustings are a time to hear the views of the candidates, and all candidates have a right to speak freely, it does not seem to me that everybody needs to be given the same access to the platform. There were some questions that really only needed to be put to one or two candidates. Some of the candidates utterly failed to self-censor, and so we were left listening to the lunatic fringes when it might have been better to actually quiz Kate Hoey on what she has been doing for Vauxhall over the last 5 years, or Caroline Pidgeon on the mansion tax or Healy on economic policy. It is not necessary to hear from every candidate on every question, and time would better have been spent taking more questions from the floor.

We had questions on whether David Cameron was fair in his assessment of "broken Britain", on the triangle playground, on the state of education, on the environment, on whether capitalism was a workable system and on representation of the gay community,

Healy thinks broken Britain was caused by David Cameron, and our schools are in a terrible state! Hoey doesn't accept that everything is broken in Vauxhall, and made the excellent point that people do actually work together locally, be they rich or poor. We can only hope she's right, or these co-operative style local governments aren't going to get off the ground. Hoey then started off the housing theme for the evening, and made the point that Labour has not focused enough nationally on housing. Caroline focused on gang culture. Glyn Chambers perhaps uttered the best quote of the evening when he seriously tried to compare today's crime rates with the crime rates of 100 years ago. Drinkall positively countered the broken society stuff, said that crime levels are actually going down, and welcomed further immigration. Exciting words from Lambeth politicians!

The Triangle playground was thrown into the mix as a bit of a trap for local politicians to see if they knew of its existence and issues. Hoey headed this off at the pass, and blamed the Council officers! Brilliant move... Maybe she should replace Brown on this week's Leaders' debate. Socialist Daniel Lambert utterly failed to mention the triangle in his response, and instead tried to consign capitalism to history again!

On education, Pidgeon was very keen on extra investment prior to the age of 7, and smaller class sizes. She sold the Lib Dem commitment to education. Kapetanos felt he had a platform to speak on education on the basis that "he want to school", but somehow also managed to be concerned that there might be "too big a green space in Vauxhall that Kate would have an eye on it for her hunting brigade". Hoey immediately flung back the most fantastic riposte when she commented that there are "masses of foxes in Vauxhall" and still managed to respond that we need to be proud of the achievements of local primary schools, and reinforced a commitment to church schools. A quiet evening, this was not! Healy would give academies back to the state. Drinkall wants smaller class sizes and to end academies and private schools. Glyn admitted there had been an improvement in local schools, but felt there was more work to be done re. GCSE results.

Everything had been progressing relatively smoothly to that point (except for ex-DJ vicar continually having to ask Daniel Lambert to sit down, as though he were a naughty Socialist school boy) until one audience member wanted to know whether any of the candidates thought that Jack Straw and Tony Blair should be taken to court. Ex-DJ Vicar decided to soften the question by turning it into a general question about the Iraq war. That was a slight mistake in my view, since unusual questions can be quite interesting springboards for debate. Audience member is unsurprisingly irked. Cue lots of shouting. Hoey stepped in diplomatically to re-iterate that she did not support the war. Hoey really is a genius politician because she managed to use the point to introduce Peter Tatchell and his "brave" action relating to the arrest of Mugabe in France several years ago, and thus ensure that the point about taking politicians to court was not lost. Glyn Chambers thought the war was wrong too. Phew. But then he also answered somewhat diplomatically that it's not the role of politicians to decide who is brought before court. Thank goodness the Tories still know how to keep the legislature and the judiciary separate. I was hoping Chambers might use the opportunity to object to the Terrorism Bill, but no such luck... Disaster narrowly averted.

...Until Caroline Pidgeon boldly stepped in to proclaim "it was an illegal war", which cued more shouting of, "are we going to indict Jack Straw and Tony Blair?" Ex-DJ vicar told audience member to sit down, and then to shut up! Crumbs. Not sure I can handle that much anger in one evening. I was beginning to feel a modicum of sympathy for the ex-DJ vicar on the basis that it's much easier to go off-air when on radio, but then the vicar threatened to call the police! Quite astonishing. I know it's harder than it looks to chair a debate, but still... Not a great performance.

I wasn't the only one with technology-fail, but at that point my recording device died so I turned to Twitter. We moved on to questions about the environment, but I'm afraid I started getting anxious in case nobody got a chance to question Hoey on her gay-rights record. Healy committed to renewable energy and tried to get us to think about reducing consumption. Hoey countered with her support for growing food locally. In my view, Hoey tried to score an easy point because it's hardly as though anybody /isn't/ going to support local food growth, and it's not going to have a huge impact on the environment. Glyn is unhappy things didn't work out at Copenhagen, but backs nuclear energy. Pidgeon does not back nuclear energy production, and wants to target flying (that's more like it; it's certainly more likely to reduce our carbon footprint than growing a small amount of local food).

At last, the Hoey question on gay rights pops up. Hoey appears affronted, since she has stuck her neck out on gay rights in Northern Ireland. But the question still stands. Hoey makes a clever move by retrieving Peter Tatchell from earlier conversation, and using him to make a point about free speech, and how people should not be barred from speaking their mind on certain matters. [In case anybody gets a chance to ask this question again, it's the absences that are more crucial than the voting record. I fail to understand Hoey's absence on the equality act regulations and the repeal of Section 28, and I'm not convinced that the Tatchell defence was strictly necessary.] Fortunately, Healy came to the rescue by condemning Hoey's record. Pidgeon supports the "hand-holding day" (what is this?) and is upset about B&Bs. Glyn Chambers seems to want free speech, equal LGBT access to goods and services, and freedom of expression for religious groups. Good on him, but one wonders if he might not be backing himself into the same corner as Hoey.

We're nearing the end, but there's time for a question on what the candidates think of capitalism. (This one has to be a plant. With four candidates ostensibly standing on tickets that range from pink (Hoey) to bright red (Drinkall), it really ought to be clear.) But Hoey's answer is really quite revealing of her as new-Labour, rather than old-socialist, since she says that she's just looking to "control the excesses of capitalism" on the basis that Stalinist societies won't help ordinary people! Kapetanos uses this moment to admit that he doesn't really want to be an MP! Healey thinks capitalism doesn't solve the carbon problem. And Pidgeon brings us back to policy (thank goodness) by revealing that the Lib Dems will bring in mansion tax and allow the first 10k of all income to be tax free.

Somebody slips in a brief question about domestic violence. This one should be easy, since everybody can be against it, and nobody needs to actually /do/ anything, right? But Hoey wants to ring fence money for domestic violence refuges, and help people go to court. Pidgeon mentions that she's been trying to ensure that Boris keeps promises on rape crisis centres, and calls for support of the voluntary sector. But suddenly, Daniel Lambert blames domestic violence on poverty. Whoa! Even Kapetanos manages to avoid using the opportunity to insult Hoey on fox hunting and instead argues that the roots of domestic violence are more complex...

And the evening ends with a question about what one piece of legislation each MP would seek to pass via a private members' bill. Am not convicned that all candidates knew what a private members bill was! The answers are rather shallow. Kapetanos would protect animals. Drinkall would merge all banks and form one large government bank. Lambert would abolish capitalism. Healy would introduce further taxation to pay for green jobs. Pidegon would invest in helping leaseholders across borough boundaries, and borrow money for building council housing. Chambers wants a separate vote on who gets to be Prime Minister. Hoey focuses on a bill for over-crowding and housing.

And that was that.

I was rather disappointed that the English Democrat and the Christian candidate weren't able to be present, but on the other hand, we'd never have left the venue if we'd had to hear them answer every question too.

I know there's a certain individual with an official journalistical career, who is tracking the every move that local bloggers make, but I utterly failed to notice (or meet) either @Jason_Cobb or @GarethWyn (who were both tweeting from the building) or anybody else with whom I'm supposed to be in league. That meeting will clearly have to wait!

I'm afraid I went to question Caroline Pidgeon about whether there are any Lib Dem PPC leaflets detailing her policies for Lambeth (I need this one for my collection), and she admitted sadly that the leaflets have not yet arrived from the printers. A serious case of #libDem fail!

You might want to look at the scarily similar reports of the evening from Jason and Gareth.

Vauxhall Prospective Parliamentary Candidates 2010

Lambeth Council have listed the nominated candidates motley crew representing the Vauxhall Constituency in the Parliamentary Election on May 6th 2010.  There are rather more than candidates than initially predicted, and whatever people say, I tend to think that elections are won on sound bites and slogans.  I've therefore tried to summarise each candidate's likes and dislikes as succintly as possible so that you can avoid watching televised debates or reading tedious campaign literature.  If in doubt, just vote for the person with the best picture:

Glyn Chambers (Conservative)

Likes: Faith & parent-promoted schools, renovating council houses, ombudsman schemes & greater"say" for leaseholders, cheap home-helps, pavement/road investment, planting trees, using bicycles and progressing leisure facilities.
Dislikes: Badly behaved pets, closed lavatories and residential dustcart depots.



Jeremy Drinkall (Anticapitalists - Workers Power)
Likes: Defending council housing, stopping wars, representing trade unions, taxing wealthy people, providing unemployed people with jobs, education for the masses, Revolution and meeting fire with fire.
Dislikes: Capitalism & the "free" market, paying for the bankers' crisis, privatised academy schools, pay-cuts for workers and poverty


Joseph Healy (Green Party)

Likes: Eco-socialism, stopping wars, supporting carers, trade unions, Palestine, LGBT rights and the welfare state.
Dislikes: Spending cuts that might affect people with disabilities, benefit slashing and ID cards



Kate Hoey (Labour) - Current MP

Likes: Fox hunting, supporting Zimbabwe, accountability in football, ousting Speakers, keeping her expenses trim, causing trouble, Boris Johnson, (to be continued as her website is down)

Dislikes: The war against Iraq, global warming, the digital equality bill, Trident missiles, Lycra lout cyclists, LGBT rights and student top-up fees

James Kapetanos (The Animal Protection Party)

aka "Fantastic Mr Fox" due to lack of available photo

Likes: Foxes, badgers, bears, dogs, cats, mice, birds, reptiles, hamsters, insects, snakes, wasps, hornets, squid and vegans.

Dislikes: Fox-hunting, dissecting live animals (vivisection), hunting, animal testing and the Countryside Alliance.

Daniel Lambert (The Socialist Party)

(A rather general statement from the party, I'm afraid, due to lack of available info.)

Likes: Making the world a better place, democracy, common ownership, peace, non-discrimination and material security for all.

Dislikes: Career politicians, poor schools, poor hospitals and poor housing, wages that don't pay bills, profit in general, and the failures of the current dreary system

Larna Martin (The Christian Party)

(Another general statement from the party, I'm afraid, due to lack of available info.)

Likes: Jesus, low taxation, abolishing inheritance tax, driving fast, "reasonable force" by classroom teachers, cutting green house gases, the abolition of the FSA, public sector cuts, nuclear deterrents and her husband (whose right ear is visible here)

Dislikes: Imprisoning drug users, the sex trade, bailiffs, primary sex education, the NHS, loose border controls and redefining marriage.

Jose Navarro (English Democrats)

(Another general statement from the party, I'm afraid, due to lack of available info.)

Likes: Fiscal devolution, a market economy (but not unrestrained), expanding manufacturing, ending mass immigration, individual liberty, St George, marital families (mother, father and children), the military and improved care for the elderly.

Dislikes: The EU, stealth taxes, Scotland, political correctness and the Commission for Equality & Human Rights 

Caroline Pidgeon (Liberal Democrats)

(Can't seem to find a Vauxhall Constituency Lib Dem manifesto, so this is rather generalised)

Likes: Public transport, promoting good mental health care, being a strong voice, affordable housing, leisure facilities, local issues.

Dislikes: Identity cards and profiteering from expenses, 

Kate Hoey's new HQ

This is Kate Hoey's campaign headquarters for Vauxhall constituency.  It's located on the site of the old Amici in Kennington, SE11 (which makes me wonder whether the old restaurant is no more).  It's a bit dark as the photo was shot at night.  I promised, "more later", so now I feel obliged to write something!

This shop is an astonishing declaration of intent, in the heart of Kennington.  I'm lead to wonder whether any of the other parties have the budgets to set up shop front offices in central locations, such as these.  Indeed, I feel the stirring of an impassioned rant about the weaknesses of first past the post voting systems emerging.  I've no objection, per se, to campaign headquarters, but I sometimes wish that the platform for political expression was more level because I hardly think the Lib Dems or Greens could afford to do the same.

On the other hand, prominent campaign headquarters are certainly preferable to all of those nasty estate-agent style Tory boards that have appeared on Kennington Road and some of the squares in the area (photo taken by Labour's Jack Hopkins):

Political stripes revealed - will not remain neutral in face of Labour smear campaign

A few days ago, after a bit of Boris-bashing, I was accused of being politically non-neutral.  That is probably true.  I'm deeply non-neutral, despite my best efforts.  I have now written in the "About me" link that:

"Politically, I'm generally on the side of the people who do not currently hold power in local or national government."

The problem is that my non-neutrality tends to reveal itself under the guise of dislike or disgust of some policy or lack of action.  I am not a member of any national political party, and I'm a true floating voter.  I tend to vote for people, rather than parties as I tend to think you're better off with local politicans who act on your behalf, rather than those with whom you might agree on every issue.  I thought I'd give you a guide to my current general South London political feelings so that you can see that my non-neutral feelings are not particularly uni-directional.

Boris Johnson - Unimpressed by super highway that, in reality, is just blue paint.  Unimpressed by abandonment of cross-river tram.  Unimpressed by attempts to close the South London line.  Unimpressed by refusal to turn Vauxhall into a high-rise mecca, despite supposed dislike of tall buildings.  Unimpressed by attempt to regenerate Nine Elms by "intensification", without having any funding plan for Northern line extension or solution to overcrowding on Victoria line at Vauxhall.  Unimpressed by attempt to include Elephant and Castle in the Crossrail levy, despite it not being anywhere near Crossrail.  Unimpressed by money being found for Crossrail in North London, but no equivalent South London transport investment.

Local Labour lot - Pleased that none of current Labour councillors have run off to Bristol like the last one did.  Pleased to receive regular email updates re. planning consent and bike plans.  Unimpressed that former-Lilian Baylis project still has no legs, and refuse to be fobbed off by the SAZ occupation.  Unimpressed that Beaufoy project was scuppered by insiders at Lambeth Council and is also going nowhere.  Accept that current Councillors appear to do their job adequately, but would be pleased to see a bit more vision and "fight" for the local area.

Lambeth Labour lot (in power) - Deeply deeply unimpressed that the campaign to re-elect Labour is proceeding on the basis of "slag off the Lib Dems" and videos that contain no policy content.  Not impressed by the level of leisure facilities available (or rather, unavailable) to Lambeth residents (particularly re. swimming).  Not impressed by the number of Lambeth leaseholder service charge queries that I(!) have received due to the outsourcing of accommodation management to Lambeth Living.  Annoyed by general Labour smugness.  [I have said on Twitter, in recent days, that unless the Lambeth Labour lot clean up their act, and cease publishing antagonistic videos, that I will refuse to be non-neutral in the next election.  Haven't decided who I'd publicly support, but I despise dirty campaigning.]

Lambeth Lib Dem lot (not in power) - Unimpressed that they only seem to pop up with vigour near to an election.  Unimpressed that, if not carefully watched, they could launch into an aggressive anti-Labour campaign, without detailing their own policies.  Quite impressed by local Oval councillor who spoke up persuasively at recent Nine Elms consultation meeting.

Lambeth Conservative lot (not in power) - Again, tend not to think they do very much outside of local election time.  Neither impressed nor unimpressed by them, but think they lack gravitas locally.

Caroline Pidgeon (Lib Dem London Assembly member)- Quite impressed that Caroline Pidgeon is so re-active when it comes to local SE11 issues.  Quite impressed to have received timely and relevant emails from Cllr Pidgeon when questionned.

Kate Hoey (Labour) - Generally impressed by Kate Hoey, as am in awe of anybody that can topple a speaker.  Particularly approve of Kate Hoey's anti-war and anti-trident stances.  Secretly admire Kate's public disavowal of the whole of Lambeth Council.  Deeply impressed to see Kate Hoey at a number of very small local meetings that couldn't really be used for political capital.  Unimpressed by Kate's occasional attempts in campaign literature to claim that the work of local organisations are somehow all attributable to her in the end.

Former Lilian Baylis costing tax payer £380,000 per year. Election Looming. Answers please.

So, I may not be the South London press and I might not get paid, and I haven't been to Journalist School (see Jason Cobb's recent comment battle on the SLP), but this blog has a fair old readership now, so I think it's fair to point out, once again, that the former Lilian Baylis site is costing Lambeth taxpayers £380,000 per year to maintain, there's been no progress in terms of developing it or selling it to a community organisation or private buyer, and there's an election coming up.

Back on October 22nd 2009, I sent a query about the former Lilian Baylis site to Steve Reed, asking, "Has the council issued statement on status of former Lilian Baylis bid by ANC? Rumour says the bid is off, but pls confirm."  I received a Direct Message from Steve Reed, advising that the council were, "Still negotiating a consortium to run the old school site, details public soon, intending it shd represent the whole community not just part".

Fair enough.  I can wait, I thought.  After all, the thing only kicked off in 2005, so we wouldn't want to rush matters.  (For a comprehensive post, and history, see my catchup on the definitive history of the former Lilian Baylis.)

Eventually, on the 14th December 2009, Lambeth council issued a decision to decommission the project from having as its focus the All Nations Church (ANC).  Reasons as to why they did this vary slightly, depending on whom you ask.  There was some local opposition to the ANC (a faith group) having the "lead partner" stake in buying a Council building that is currently essentially a community resource.  However, there are also rumours that the ANC were, by last year, only able to buy the building for a considerably smaller amount than they had originally offered (bear in mind that the Council would have given them a favourable rate, compared to the land's market value).  The Council state in a report dated 14th December, (this one is quite an interesting document which I'll dissect below), "Ultimately, the terms of the offers by ANC presented an unacceptable risk of challenge to the council and other elements of the proposed leasehold terms were also unacceptable in principle." and also, "The offer proposed by ANC entailed a substantial discount below market value, which the council could not justify through demonstartion of public benefit."

Remember back in February 2009 (see old council .pdf here) that the "hub" group were to comprise the ANC, the Sport's Action Zone (SAZ) and Ethelred Nursery.  It appears now that the ANC have been "dropped" from official plans (although, apparently, "The decision not to progress negotiations with ANC does not prejudice or preclude ANC’s involvement in alternative delivery arrangements.").  However, the new December 14th plan is to try and move forward with both Sports Action Zone (Kate Hoey is the patron of this organisation) and the Ethelred Nursery.  It is highly unlikely that either of these organisations have any money (SAZ isn't even a legal entity), so...

What might Lambeth Council do?

Let's see what facts are laid out in the December 14th plan:

1. "Pursuit of a maximised social and community outcomes approach is likely to be an overall capital cost to the council council, i.e., the cost of development would be greater than any capital receipt."

Translation: It costs money to pay for community facilities, when we wouldn't make money from those facilities.  And in any case, we're not terribly interested in providing Leisure facilities.  See Jason Cobb's post on the privatisation of Lambeth leisure facilities.

2. "The overall capital gain to the council would be maximised if the site were disposed on the open market."

Translation: Actually, we'd make more money (and we don't have much of this right now), if we were to sell the development.

[I can see that this one is going to be a bit troublesome, come the election, since the Lib Dems wanted to sell the building off, before they changed their minds, a few years ago...  So, you can see the accusations flying, Labour: "you wanted to sell", Lib Dem: "you said you'd develop, Lab: "you changed your mind", Lib Dem: "we didn't exactly... but in any case, you want to sell now", blah, blah, blah, let's pre-empt that boring old battle...]

3. "Potentially, the overall capital gain might be greater if other sites in the area were included in the redevelopment process allowing for the reconfiguration and consolidation of community outcomes on particular sites and realisation of the full development value of other sites."

Translation: We could make even more money, if we were to sell off some other bits of land. (This might allude to the Beaufoy, Lollard St playground and Kerrin point (or all of them). Would be useful to know the proposals because it's a far reaching statement.

4. "Note that the listed building status conferred on the site restricts the scope for development and agree for officers to investigate how this might be addressed in order to enable suitable development options." and "The listing of buildings of this period is not without controversy and presents a number of problems and constraints in this instance."

Translation: Let's try to get the building delisted, because then we can sell it off for more money, and don't have to worry about English Heritage. Interestingly, even the car park is listed (a result of some kind of ancient Council vendetta). We need to get all of this stuff delisted ASAP, so that we can get this building off our hands.

5. "To date the council have resisted pursuing the possible delisting of the site on the basis that there is little prospect of the Secretary of State agreeing. The council failed to stop the listing originally and no new evidence has been forthcoming to challenge the English Heritage assessment of the building’s special interest."

Translation: We're a bit doomed, really! 

6. "Increasing this estimate by construction inflation and factoring in the likely further deterioration in the condition of the property, a capital investment of as much as £10m may be required to bring the buildings back into an acceptable condition."

Translation: We're even more doomed. These buildings cost a fortune to repair, we have no money, and nobody will pay enough for them, considering that they're listed, and we can't figure out how to delist them, and the Secretary of State will never do it.  Wah!

7. "The site and buildings are insured as part of the council’s building insurance contract which includes a regular programme of health and safety inspection. It is possible that future inspections will identify works which would need to completed in order to ensure continuity of use and as a consequence may affect the Council’s ability to maintain the continued insurance of the property."

Translation: If the building fails a health and safety inspection, we don't have enough money to fix it, and nobody will be able to use it at all. We need to sell it off really really quickly.

8. "Since 2005 SAZ have been successful in attracting considerable external investment (Nike, Barclays Spaces for Sports, Football Foundation) and voluntary investment which has helped to transform the complex into a successful community facility. SAZ is negotiating currently to bring in up to £4m of capital funding for a community basketball initiative, with an ambition to provide a basketball facility and venue of international standard."

Translation: Even though the building might fail a health and safety inspection, we really like this SAZ organisation, and they're good for the area. Also, they're backed by Kate Hoey, so it would be politically embarrassing to try and dispose of them.

9. "Over the past month more detailed work has taken place across Council departments to specify the outcomes sought from the site, in particular with Cultural Services with view to a significant sports/leisure focus of activity on the site and with CYPS around education, young persons and play facilities, including provision for a new ENCC."

Translation: We installed a 12 metre (yes, that is right) swimming pool. What else do you want?

---

To be fair, at the 14th December meeting, Cllr Ashley Lumsden (Opposition leader), ask whether the Council outcomes stated in the December 14th 2009 report were the same ones as desired by the residents. Well, you may indeed ask! I certainly would.

Make of that what you will, but I doubt any movement (in terms of either sale or significant development) will be made in, ooh, let's say, the next 12 months (even with a change in administration). I'll write another post next year, around February 2011, keeping you up to date.

The question is, Cllr Reed, who is the consortium you said would be running the old school site?  The clock is ticking, and the election looms....

[Believe it or not, I had not read Peter Walker's Guardian article here, in which he seems utterly unaware that the current administration has suggested selling the site (and possibly other sites) to maximise capital, but it's a prime example of why hyperlocal bloggers do possess a much broader picture than some of the national press.]

Cllr Mark Harrison refutes Lambeth Leaseholder Service Charge Increases

Cllr Mark Harrison has asked me to publish a comment below from him, in order to avoid the Lurking About SE11 blog being used as "a mouthpiece for Lib Dem distortions". It seems to me that he is seeking to refute the views contained in the post I made earlier, entitled Proposed Service Charge Increases for Lambeth Leaseholders.

I'd certainly be interested in getting to the bottom of the matter. It would be very useful to be able to see the minutes, taken at the Labour Councillors Meeting on Monday evening, since those should clear up the matter of whether service charges were raised. It would also be interesting to see comments on this post from anybody with any further information about what took place at the meeting. I do not want this blog used as a mouthpiece for any political party, but I do wish to promote quality discussion about community issues. Cllr Harrison's statement follows:

"The Chair of the North Lambeth Leaseholders' Forum (a prominent Liberal Democrat activist) has put out a misleading statement about rents and service charges which we need to correct.

At Monday's meeting of the Labour Group of councillors the Cabinet member for Housing explained what officers have recommended as a rent and service charge rise for tenants (there was no discussion about leaseholder charges).

A rent rise of around £4.13 on average (5%) has been floated as possible; and an average of 83p (8%) service charge increase for tenants.

This is the very first stage in the rent setting process. At the moment, all figures are estimates, because the government has not yet confirmed what Lambeth's final financial settlement will be. The next step in the rent setting process is a series of scrutiny meetings and Tenants' Council.

Lambeth's Labour councillors will be looking to keep this year's rent rise as low as possible. We are looking for savings from Lambeth Living and Lambeth Council as well as greater investment in areas such as repairs which needs more money. However, councillors have a legal duty to balance the Housing Revenue Account, so our room for manouevre is limited.

To be absolutely clear: no decisions about the level of rent have been taken. And there was no discussion of charges to leaseholders at Monday's meeting. Leaseholder charges are set precisely according to the contracts between leaseholders and the Council.

Labour councillors are working tirelssly to try to achieve value for money, decent homes, good robust management and action on ineffective staff and processes. Transforming Lambeth's housing services takes time. Setting a fair, affordable rent which covers the cost of the service is part of that process.

Your Labour councillors in Prince's ward

Contact Mark Harrison: mharrison@lambeth.gov.uk"

Lib Dem Manifesto Planning session

I am very loathe to publish overtly political material on this blog and I've refused a certain amount of material recently in accordance with the fact that it's too partisan, so it's with some trepidation that I publish the following (and would add that I will publish similar invitational offerings from other parties if necessary). As an aside, I've been impressed by Labour Cllr Mark Harrison's attendance at various SE11 social events and public participation in local meetings (he has even added some comments to this blog!).

The Lib Dems are planning a manifesto named Lambeth Liberal Democrat Manifesto for 2010 and want input and ideas. They have organised some working groups for the different topics the manifesto will cover. Details of the first session here:

A resident-led council - devolution, value for money, diversity
Led by Gavin Dosworth on Wed 12th August 7pm

Gavin wants to send out a couple of items for people to look through before the session to give a starting point, so people are asked to inform Rosie Loveland, if they are able to be present on rloveland@lambeth.gov.uk and the venue will be announced once numbers are known.

Future sessions will be on the topics:
Environmental sustainability – greening the council, leading by example, helping residents go green
Children in the borough – safe at all ages, active and healthy, effective education (led by Roger Giess)
Quality of life – improved local environment, leisure and culture, ‘no’ to overdevelopment, lower crime & fear of crime, better health especially for older people (led by Andrew Sawdon)
Housing – a tenant-led service (led by Jeremy Clyne)

It's an interesting opportunity for SE11 residents to contribute to potential future local policy.

Accusations - response to criticism re LGBT hustings

I've received an accusation by a commentator who has called themselves "Fed up with Fib Dems" who states:

"I am very disappointed that the operator of this blog allowed an anonymous post to be written which was so blatantly from a Lib Dem. The LGBT business forum meeting was a disgrace - the organiser, who is on Lib Dem leaflets, deliberately told Mark the wrong time."

The commentator is referring to this post here. I did make clear on the guest post that was posted that I would be happy to receive guest responses from other commentators at the LGBT hustings. Nobody has emailed me with an alternative version of events, so I have no other material to offer. The commentator made no mention of their own political affiliation within the guest post and I can't quite see what marks the guest out as a Lib Dem (rather than Tory, English Democrat, Green or non-affiliated).

I will be conducting investigations into the allegations that a "wrong time" was sent deliberately to Mark Harrison. That is a serious allegation. The poster which was sent to me and other local blogs stated the time quite clearly here. However, I will need to investigate what private correspondence was sent to the speakers from the organiser, so it would be useful to see any emails or letters sent to Mark Harrison (and to confirm that he thinks he was misled).

In addition the commentator states:
"And the idea that Lambeth Council can ignore a bid from a church group is ridiculous - imagine the uproar if they refused to deal with Muslims, or the Catholic Church, both of which have aborrent views on gay people."

Obviously, I think this discussion should stay on the post upon which it started. There are a whole variety of different viewpoints on the matter of the former Lilian Baylis site and I've covered the topic in the past myself. I understand that the whole point of hustings is to hear the views of various candidates, so I will leave all commentators here to argue about the points of the debate. My only remark is that it might be more straightforward if people were to use established login names, rather than continue to refer to themselves as "anonymous".

The commentator also states:
"As for the last post, that is just pathetic. Mark has been attending Penwith Manor TRA meetings for months, not just during the byelection campaign - as he has for all estates. Unlike John Roberts, who only rediscovered his 'passion' for the area after being selected as the Lib Dem candidate...

Spare me future Lib Dem bleatings please 3 wheeled one."

In an attempt to demonstrate that this blog really attempts to be non-partisan, I've turned this comment into a post of its own. Personally, I have no idea how one could objectively compare Mark Harrison and John Robert's commitments in the area since they've both good good track records locally, but I did try by requesting answers from the candidates on a set of questions. Both Labour and Lib Dem candidates have done a considerable amount of work on different committees. However, if you remember, I did address all 5 candidates on the matter of their previous work in the area on question 2, here. Here are the two answers that the political candidates provided:

Question 2:
What, if any, organisation(s) have you been involved with which demonstrate your commitment to the area, and how long have you lived/worked locally?

Mark Harrison:
* I've lived on the Ethelred Estate for nearly five years.

* I serve on the Ethelred TMO Board; The Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum Board; and The Friends of Vauxhall Spring Gardens Board.

* I am a member of the Kennington Association and attend Safer Neighbouhood Team meetings.

* I attend other residents meetings like those of the Vauxhall Five, Vauxhall Gardens and Penwith Manor.

* With neighbours I am working to investigate setting up a community garden on Lambeth Walk.

*As Labour Action Team Member for the past two years I have helped arrange several community events, including a meeting on guns and gangs with the SE1 United Youth Group, and community coffee mornings for people to meet their neighbours and councillors.

John Roberts:
* I have lived locally on the Ethelred Estate (just off Black Prince Road) for over 15 years and have been involved with a wide range of local organisations, including:

- Vauxhall City Farm – I chaired the Trustees body for 7 years and helped save it from closure 2 years ago.
- Friends of Spring Gardens – I am a member and helped the campaign to save the open space when there were plans to build on it.
- Ethelred Estate Tenant Management Organisation – I have been a resident member of this right from the start in 1999.

* I have been a member of KOV forum since the start and a member of Kennington Association.

* I regularly support the local fetes in the area and you can generally see me in the kitchen making the tea and sandwiches.

* Last year I volunteered for the Ethiopian millennium celebrations at Kennington Park and spent the day in the children’s lost and found tent. It was a great day - and fortunately only a few children were lost.

* As a first aider I also help out and volunteer to support other fun days and art events including the Vauxhall festival where you could see me wearing my first aid tabard.

* Friends of Durning Library – I supported the fight to keep this open when the Labour run council wanted to close it down.

* As a former member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, for four and half years I channelled 200k worth of funding through the community police fund to numerous local projects, to help support people make a difference to their local community. We funded SE1 united, a local youth group, to develop the leadership programme, black and lgbt history month as well as inter faith football and other sports activities. I was the person that secured funding for cctv at the LGBT clubs in and around spring gardens and at Vauxhall city farm. My tackling crime track record is well known through out the council and police. I also worked with local police to get funding for extra police officers here in Princes ward, after a strong of violent attacks and rise in crime. I also got funding for a mobile police station after a rise in attacks in the Spring Gardens area..

* My team and I have already reported dozens of local cases of graffiti, dumped rubbish and vandalism to the council – if they are not tackled, it all adds up to making the area feel neglected and unloved.

Question 7: Views on building development in Princes Ward and SE11

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 7:
Please highlight your views on the ongoing property development in Prince's Ward and the SE11 area.

Michael Poole-Wilson:
I think we need to treat proposals for housing development on a case by case basis. In general, I share Mayor Johnson's concerns about tall buildings. In Prince’s ward, I am concerned about planning decisions that will mean increases in population density in an area already short of amenity space. Priority should be given to improving existing housing stock.

Janus Polenceus:
Building more houses/homes is good, providing that the priority goes to people who were on the housing waiting list for a long time before giving them to new comers.

Joseph Healy:
I would oppose any more largescale applications by large shops etc, and think that small businesses and local community based organisations should be supported.

I would also like to see more pedestrianised areas and the quality of the built environment is essential. As a historian by background I appreciate our architectural heritage and think it should not be swept away in the rush for profit.

I am opposed to the Lilian Baylis school site being used by an organisation which is homophobic, as I would be if it represented ideas hostile to any section of the community living in the ward. This is especially relevant in an area which has become London's second gay village and where many LGBT socialise at weekends etc, as well as having many LGBT residents.

Mark Harrison:
In general I'm supportive of any attempts to build more homes and space for businesses in the area, as demand for housing is at crisis point in our borough. Too many families are living in cramped flats, and too many people in need are stuck on housing waiting lists. Any responsible politician should be encouraging more housing, and in particular more social and affordable housing - it would be disgraceful and selfish not to do so.

That said, development should be of the highest quality, should be sustainable, and should not be detrimental to the area. I'm passionate about good-quality architecture and design, and think it is possible for us as local residents and as a Council to demand higher quality developments. The planning system is far from adequate, but I will do my best to work within it to advocate good quality developments and oppose poor ones.

I suspect this question has the Vauxhall riverside area in mind, as it is the focus of most intense development. The Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document has some good ideas about how Vauxhall can accommodate more homes and businesses. I'm minded towards encouraging high density, medium-rise development, rather than tall towers. I support removing the gyratory system, opening up the riverside and the railway viaduct, and creating better-quality public and green spaces in Vauxhall. I'm excited that new development in Vauxhall can help fund improvements to Vauxhall Spring Gardens, and other improvements to the surrounding area.


John Roberts:
I think that at the moment there is still a general presumption among planners and developers that tall buildings are always beautiful, especially in the Vauxhall part of Princes ward, and that the views of the local community don’t matter. I say this is wrong and they must genuinely listen to local views. I don’t want a Berlin style wall built along the river front that we blook our beautiful skylines.

For instance, the plans at No.81 Black Prince Road, if the planning inspector allows it, risks putting another barrier between the local community and the river. Two other very important points are that :
- when developments do go ahead, they should be sympathetic to local needs and that the priority for any section 106 money (which developers can sometimes be asked to pay to mitigate the impact of their development) must go towards the local community in Princes Ward to improve our area
- affordable housing targets are stuck to, as too often developers try to get away with too low a quota.

While we must realise that new developments are sometimes inevitable in inner London, there is a balance to be struck and at the moment it is too firmly skewed towards the developers.

Question 6: Ways in which you disagree with your political party

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 6:
Name one issue that your political party advocates with which you personally disagree. (To demonstrate independence of thought and refusal to be tied to party line)


Michael Poole-Wilson:
I think the party could go further in allowing schools more freedom to run their own affairs.

Janus Polenceus:
There are views that I disagree with other members in my party, but they are not included in our party manifesto so it does not matter.

Joseph Healy:
Tradable personal carbon quotas. I voted against this several years ago. I believe it to be socially unjust.

Mark Harrison:
I was angry at the abolition of the 10p tax band, and the fact it took the government too long to recognise the effect it would have on people on low incomes. I'm pleased that our MP Kate Hoey opposed the move from the start, and that eventually people were compensated through the rise in personal allowances.

I also think central government should go further in devolving power to local government, so that decisions are made at a more local level, and people take a stronger interest in the work their Council does.

John Roberts:
At the moment, the party’s policy on bioenergy mentions longer-term targets under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, a new assurance scheme to ensure bioenergy is sustainably produced and transported, and reform of existing woodland tax breaks.

While this would be a step forward, it doesn’t go far enough because I think that increasing fuel efficiency and going straight to second generation biofuels would be more effective.

Question 5: Why you belong to your chosen political party

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 5:
Name one issue that your political party advocates with which you strongly agree. (To demonstrate fidelity to your party and show why you are a member of your chosen political party)


Michael Poole-Wilson:
I oppose the government's ID card scheme. I think the scheme is both an affront to civil liberties and impractical. Reports have indicated it could cost in the region of £20 billion; a clear waste of money.

Janus Polenceus:
I strongly agree that my party is campaigning that this country needs an English Parliament on the same lines as the Scottish Parliament.

Joseph Healy:
I strongly support the concept of a Citizen's Income, which would guarantee all citizens, whether waged or not, a basic standard of living. I took voluntary redundancy in September and was signing on at Kennington Job Centre for four months. Fortunately I had savings as it would have been impossible to live on £60 per week. The treatment of unemployed people and their ritual humiliation is shameful and many people are experiencing this for the first time. The Labour government's Welfare Reform Bill is one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation ever enacted and is, of course, supported by the Tories. It would make unemployed people work for less than the minimum wage and hand over control of the Job Centres to private companies who would make a killing on the misery of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Mark Harrison:
Labour's commitment to high-quality, properly-funded public services is the primary reason I am a member of the party. At the national, London-wide, and Lambeth levels Labour has shown itself to be serious about rescuing our public services from neglect and investing properly in the future. The results can be seen in brand new school buildings and hospitals, better-paid staff, lower waiting times for operations, falling crime and increased police numbers, and a real commitment to improving and expanding social housing.

John Roberts:
Many different reasons, I think the Liberal Democrats have a strong commitment to equal rights for all members of Lambeth’s diverse community and I was proud to have been awarded the Scarman Award by Lambeth Council recently for increasing equality and inclusion in the borough.
But I am especially proud of how my party led the campaign for the Gurkhas to be given full rights to come and settle in the UK if they wish – after all they have put their lives on the line for our country, so it is only fair we welcome them to these shores!

Question 4: Serving all income brackets in Princes Ward

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 4:
How will you demonstrate that you intend to serve those of low, modest and high income in Prince's ward?


Michael Poole-Wilson:
* Low and modest income residents can be helped by forcing Lambeth to think again on rises in social housing rents and excessive housing charges, and by campaigning for the abolition of income tax on savings for basic rate taxpayers.

* High income residents, like everyone else, want the basics done well - among other things, that means real progress in educational provision, clean streets, and properly managed green spaces.

Janus Polenceus:
I will serve everyone equally, but most of all I would focus on those who are more in need or at a disadvantage.

Joseph Healy:
* My priority is those on low and moderate incomes. I think those on high incomes have the wherewithal to access a lot of services etc. However, I would be an honest and approachable representative and would oppose planning applications etc, which I did not deem appropriate for the ward.

* For those on low and moderate incomes, I would try and ensure that the Council does more on actual job creation and debt counselling than at present. The Green Party's policy of free home insulation, which has been carried out in Kirklees, Yorkshire, would also lift many poorer residents, particularly pensioners, out of fuel poverty and give them a better quality of life, as well as helping the environment.

Mark Harrison:
* Labour is the party of equality, and as a Labour supporter I'm committed to representing all residents, no matter what their income.

* Currently I'm particularly concerned that this year's rent increase is hitting working people and pensioners on low incomes particularly hard. That's why I'm working with Kate Hoey and councillors to lobby central government for funding to reduce the increase. I personally live on a housing estate, and it's undeniable that we face some of our most serious issues on estates. I'm committed to working hard for people on our estates. However, I intend to work hard on behalf of all residents of Prince's ward.

* People on high incomes in street properties pay most for Lambeth's services, and it's right that they get value-for-money and high-quality services,including waste collection, streets, schools and libraries.


John Roberts:
* Low income –The local Lib Dems helped the campaign to stop the Lambeth Walk Post Office on Vauxhall Street from closure last year, as local financial services provided by the post office are especially important for those on low incomes, and our Parliamentary Campaigner, Caroline Pidgeon handed in a petition to keep it open to Post Office HQ. The Liberal Democrat Group is fully committed to supporting the Lambeth Savings and Credit Union as it offers an affordable way for people on low incomes to get loans and thereby protects them from loan sharks but the only problem is at the moment you have to go down to Brixton Hill to use its services – I would like to see the council working with it to try and find a base in the Kennington area as well for local financial advice surgeries.

* Modest income – I will work hard to keep the council tax down so people on modest incomes and just above the benefits line do not get a rough deal. I also fully support the new campaign launched by London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon to help get cheaper bus travel by allowing Oyster card users to travel for an hour on different London buses without paying for an extra journey – details at

* High income – no matter what their personal wealth, all local residents have a right to expect their local councillors to help them if they have a problem, so no matter how rich or poor you are I will do my best to help you!

Question 3: Serving the youth and older residents in Princes Ward

Nine days ago (before we even knew who all the candidates in the Princes Ward by-election would be), I sent out a series of questions, to be answered by all Princes Ward Council candidates. The questions and answers are intended to help SE11 voters choose who to vote for by ensuring the candidates speak about their policies, rather than focusing on name calling campaigns.

I now have nearly all responses (English Democrat has promised his are to come) and now intend to publish the results one question at a time. Anything in square brackets or in bold, I've added to standarise the format of responses across the parties or as summaries. I've not changed any of the text that I was sent by email, but I've had to move certain answers across to different questions in order to keep the answers similar (I've indicated in all cases where I've made any adjustments, so tell me if you object). I'll probably save my personal comments for a post at a later stage as I want these questions to represent the candidates as best possible. I've put responses in alphabetical order, depending on the name of the party, and I've colour coded them for your ease:

Conservative = Michael Poole-Wilson = Blue
English Democrats = Janus Polenceus = Purple
Green Party = Joseph Healy = Green
Labour = Mark Harrison = Red
Lib Dem = John Roberts = Orange

Question 1:
How will you demonstrate that you intend to serve the youth and
older residents in Prince's ward?

Michael Poole-Wilson:

* I will continue to fight for enhanced funding of youth facilities in our area.

* I will campaign for a £2,000 rise in the pensioner's personal allowance (non-taxable income) from £9,490 to £11,490. The weekend before this election was announced, I was out campaigning on Kennington Lane for exactly this policy. [We are sending a petition to Gordon Brown.]


Janus Polenceus:
As councillor it will be my job/duty to serve everyone who lives in the ward by listening what problems or needs they have and by trying to help them however I can.

Joseph Healy:
* I have worked closely with older people over the last few years and have campaigned strongly on issues such as ensuring a 24 hour Freedom Pass for pensioners etc. I would campaign strongly for better social care for older people and for important facilities such as the Felix Post Centre at the Maudsley Hospital (which helps older people with dementia) not be closed.

* On the youth side, I have always been a strong supporter of small local theatres such as the Oval House and the Blue Elephant in Camberwell. I think the experience of Venezuela shows that many young people from poorer areas (and there are many such in Princes) can be enthused and given new vision through the arts - such as the children of the barrios in Venezuela. The recent visit of the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra to the South Bank, which I attended, proved that. So I would say less funding on big 'Viagra Projects' and much more on community arts etc.


Mark Harrison:
* I intend to serve young people by supporting the community organisations that do so much good work with young people in the ward. Electing a Labour councillor will guarantee that the Old Lilian Baylis School site is saved from developers and secured as a permanent community facility with services provided by the Sports Action Zone. I strongly support Labour's doubling of spending on youth services. I'm a Patron of a local charity that works with young people to raise their aspirations - I want all young people in our area to grow up with a positive attitude and believing they can do good things in their lives and in the community. I strongly support Labour's introduction of a Lambeth Youth Mayor, which has galvanised young people's participation in political decisions about funding youth services in the Borough.

* With Kate Hoey I have visited several of our sheltered housing schemes to speak to older people living there. Issues raised included the need for greater support for older people to get the most out of the choice-based lettings scheme, the need for older people to be aware of the many services on offer to them in our area, and the need for older people in North Lambeth to involve themselves in the fora that represent them at the Town Hall. As a community campaigner I have already met with and acted on behalf of many older people in the ward. I feel it's particularly important for councillors to stand up for people who have worked all of their lives, contributed so much, and who deserve excellent housing, leisure and care services.


John Roberts:
* Older residents – I will fight the council’s appalling home care charges – they currently charge £17.50 an hour which is the highest in London! It is wrong that Lambeth – one of the poorest London Boroughs – charges the highest rate in the capital for essential home care services. And the huge hike in heating and hot water charges in Lambeth's housing estates has hit older people especially hard.

* Young residents – As a qualified youth worker and one of the last remaining youth workers in Lambeth- (I used to work on the Kennington Park Estate) I am experienced and fully aware of the issues facing our young people. My Lib Dem colleagues on the London Assembly, including former Princes Ward Councillor Mike Tuffrey, are working on plans to include a Youth Worker in police Safer Neighbourhood Teams, so the small minority of young people who do get into trouble have help and support before they get drawn into gangs and criminal behaviour. I think this is a really good idea and would like to see this funded for our area. I also fully back good plans that would give our young people more things to do – for instance in my manifesto I mention I fully support the Sports Action Zone at the old Lilian Baylis site, I have also fought for community resources that young people benefit from like the Vauxhall City Farm and the Durning Library. I want more youth and outreach workers in our estates so our most vulnerable young people are safe to play outside without fear or prejudice. I am so sick of the council demonising our young people. Working with thousands of young people over my career I can honestly say that they have all wanted the same as every one else, to be treated with respect and to be safe from harm.