Hazel Blears in Imperial Court wheeze - *yawn*

User Kennington on Twitter posted a link from the Daily Fail to suggest that Hazel Blears is in trouble for not paying tax on a flat that she sold in Imperial Court. I'm bored by the whole MPs expenses row now so I'm not going to say any more except that I think that MPs' wages should stay in line with those of their Civil Service counterparts. There are some MPs who work jolly hard for their constituents, and who can be admired by all irrespective of their political party eg. the totally fabulous, very hard working and thoroughly independent Kate Hoey! Anyhow, raising MP salaries would allow the property allowances system to be tightened up so that the rules could not be bent in such a ridiculous fashion.

If you came here looking for information about Hazel Blears' Imperial Court property, you might be interested in a post I wrote about Alisdair Darling's Imperial Court flat and the reason that I don't think the flats are what I'd describe as "luxury" by any means...

The point of real interest in the Daily Fail article is the part that states "a source close to [Blears]insisted the sale was not to do with making money, but because the flat stood on a busy road and the ‘sirens at night were keeping her awake’." I'm not concerned with whether or not the sirens were the reason for the property sale. In any case, Blears is rather fortunate to be privileged enough just to "move" due to the property being too noisy. The frequency and noise levels of emergency sirens (mostly police, but some ambulances) on Kennington Road and Kennington Park Road is frequently noted by residents. Obviously living in the middle of a busy capital city, one should expect some noise, but because of where Kennington is situated between Kennington Road, Brixton and Walworth police stations, we do get more than our fair share of siren noise. Is it really necessary to have sirens on late at night when the roads tend to be empty? I'd encourage more MPs to actually work to resolve the noise issue as far as possible (particularly at night) than move house.

Does anybody else find the noise disturbing in SE11? I imagine that residents who live in SE1 near to the SE11 border on Albert Embankment must suffer from ambulance noise as well.

Apologies, I'm a bit over-active at the moment with so much SE11 news, so anybody that has signed up to the email list will receive a rather large bumper crop of posts today!

Lambeth Housing Audit - Conservatives drop bombshell

Personally, I'm not convinced that there's as much Conservative support in Princes ward as the number of blue/green boards in Kennington Road would have you believe. I think that the residents are highly likely to be local Tory MPs who have their London residences in the road. However, if the boards are representative, then Labour, Lib Dems and Green are going to have to work their socks off in the election to compete, as I've not seen as much visible signage anywhere else! Has anybody got reports of Labour/Lib Dem/Green signs up anywhere?

In the meantime, somebody from the Lambeth Tories has, according to Twitter, managed to get hold of a report from the Audit Commission, damning Lambeth Living (the organisation that manages Lambeth's Social Housing). It's an Arms Length Management Organisation, for those who like the lingo. Apparently, the Audit Commission has said that every single area audited within the Lambeth Living organisation is "weak". More information about this matter is on the Lambeth Conservative website.

And what's more, due to the fact that the Auditor's report is currently being witheld, the Tories say they're prepared to publish the document on the Lambeth Conservative website for everyone to read... Looks like red hot stuff to me. I hope they have good lawyers!

Reasons I love SE11

This is going to become a series over a period of time because I do love my postcode lots and lots.

Reason 1: SE11 is brimming with civic and community organisations, all set up to do similar work to further the aims of making SE11 a more hospitable place.

It has the Kennington Association, the RCDT (Riverside Community Development Trust) and the Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum (KOV). The KOV have a nice shiny new website, which they've used to make their comments on the Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy (the same one that I commented on).

Also SE11 (and surrounds) have tonnes of "friends" groups which I listed helpfully for you last year.

Do Not Allow The Singing of Happy Birthday in church

Dear Priests and Laypeople of the Diocese of Southwark[1],

Please, please, please could you refuse to sing "Happy Birthday" at the end of Sunday morning church services? Do it during your own personal devotions for all I care, but don't inflict it on the rest of us.

It's bad theology (baptism, not birth), bad liturgy (liturgy should be joyful/solemn play, not showtunes), bad music (need I say more?) and it's, like, really embarrassing to be a Christian when you insist on ruining things. So just stop it. OK? Or I'll have to be forced to name offenders.

I'm not going to say it again.

The annoyed Three Wheeled One[2]

[1] SE11 is all in the Diocese of Southwark, and this habit needs to be stamped on before it escapes. It has now happened in at least 8 of the churches I've attended recently.

[2] And I reserve the right to be as spiky as I like because it's my blog.

81 Black Prince Road grounds of appeal

OK, after a number of hiccups, I now have the 81 Black Prince Road grounds of appeal in .pdf document form. It's only about 4 pages long so will not take as long to read as other recent missives!

Quick history:
As you'll have seen from the previous post on 81 Black Prince Road, Ristoia Ltd put in a request for planning permission to build a 23 storey building on the above site. The request was refused on 5 grounds by Lambeth Council. Ristoia Ltd have now appealed against Lambeth's refusal to the Planning Inspectorate. Consequently, those individuals (and groups) who objected to the building before can now object to the reasons for appeal and those objections must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

I'm going to provide a quick summary, but I suggest that those people (or groups) that are appealing refer to the document itself

[NB. I'm slightly confused because Lambeth's minutes noted four grounds for refusing the building (see my previous post), but the document I'm quoting lists five.]

1a. Lambeth's ground 1 for rejection:
"The harm that would be caused to the setting of the World Heritage Site"
2a. Lambeth's ground 2 for rejection:
"Impact on the setting of listed buildings and adjoining conservation areas"

1b and 2b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth:
Professor Robert Tavernor (probably helps that he's a professor) did the assessment and decided that the proposed building wouldn't be harmful to either South Bank House or London Fire Brigade Headquarters. By the way, here's a picture of the absolutely exquisite South Bank House:

Isn't it fabulous? And since they don't think it would harm (or overshadow) buildings such a these, they think that it complies with Policies 45 and 47 of the Lambeth UDP.

Additionally, they list policy 33 of the UDP, which assesses the criteria for suitability of sites and states that major development needs to take into account the adjacent townscape (which they think it does) and they also list the regeneration aims for the Albert Embankment, and, importantly, "consents granted for other tall buildings in the area" as reasons to proceed.

Also, they note that Policy 58 of the UDP states that the Albert Embankment is a "key stretch" of Lambeth's Thames frontage for "several major development proposals". Bizarrely, they consider that the fact that the building has "been designed as a sculpted pinnacle" is something that adds (rather than detracts) to the Albert Embankment.

Finally, Ristoia Ltd appeal to to Policy 40 in the UDP. Policy 40 is the "tall buildings" policy.

1c and 2c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:

Focus on why you don't think it complies with policies 45 and 47.

They're citing "other tall buildings in the area" as a reason to build. This threatens to set a dangerous precedent. There are some other tall buildings which were granted permission on Stockwell/Vauxhall border, and St George's Wharf in Vauxhall, but erecting this building risks making the Albert Embankment into another area in which tall buildings might be permitted. The Salamanca Tower is tall enough and I suggest that no new building be higher than that.

In objecting to their interpretation of Policy 33 and 58, I would argue as follows: "Yes, the Albert Embankment is listed as a focus for development proposals, but this site is not on Albert Embankment, it's actually on Black Prince Road, which is a highly residential area and full of low rise /medium rise buildings." The "sculpted pinnacle" effect does not work well when looking from Black Prince Road on to the Albert Embankment (south to north).

Finally, look closely at Policy 40 in the Lambeth UDP. The first aloowance that they give for tall buildings relates to Location and notes very specifically, "Tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character of "conservation areas", "listed buildings", "riverscape and townscape", "strategic views" and "the Palace of Westminster Heritage site". Also, let's think back to some of the work I did recently on the draft Core Policy for the Local Development Framework. p63 (Vauxhall) notes that 'Along the river, Lambeth are anxious to avoid creating a wall effect, blocking out the Thames and want sufficient gaps between buildings.' Also, I failed to spot this line at the time, but p56 of the draft Core Policy says "Appropriate locations for tall buildings are the Vauxhall and Waterloo London Plan Opportunity Areas and the borough’s major town centres, subject to appropriate accompanying urban design assessments." It is very important to note that Black Prince Road could, by no stretch of the imagination be considered Vauxhall or Waterloo. I would argue that it is the riverside portion of Kennington, and most people might once have referred to it as just "Lambeth" due to the proximity of Lambeth Walk.

3a. Lambeth's ground 3 for rejection:
"Proposal would have an adverse impact on setting of Palace of Wstminster and Westminster Abbey World Heritage Site and would undermine important setting of St Stephen's Tower". [Ed: Where did this one come from? It doesn't seem to be in the meeting minutes...]

3b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth
The applicant was supported by a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment which concluded the development wouldn't harm either of the two sites or the views, and in fact, there's a neglible impact on the skyline from Whitehall.

3c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:
This one is a bit odd. It's entirely subjective. Lambeth say "X is true" and Ristoia basically just say "X is not true". I've no idea how one goes about disagreeing with a Visual Impact Assessment in an objective manner.

4a. Lambeth's ground 4 for rejection
"Poor quantity and quality of the proposed amenity space."

4b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth
Interesting. On this one, Ristoia's reason of substance is "Reason 4 for refusal is unreasonable." and "The treatment of the open space is of a sufficient high quality".

4c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:
Hmm. Again, rather difficult to be sensible here. Perhaps it might be possible to proceed on the following grounds... p31 of the draft core strategy of the Local Development Framework states something like, "Lambeth, particularly in the north has little open space relative to population." If I recall correctly, it even talks about hectares... Hmmm. Oh yes, p16, "There are 1.54 hectares of unrestricted open space in Lambeth per 1000 of the population, but access is unevenly spread and limited in north of the borough". So perhaps objections might centre around the fact that with limited open community space around here, an extra special effort must be made to provide more than would ordinarily needed. What do readers think?

5a. Lambeth's ground 5 for rejection
"Overbearing impact of the proposed development and the creation of a sense of enclosure (particularly re. Salamanca Square)."

5b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth
Development has been carefully designed to minimise overlooking issues and designed so that distance between adjacent buildings wouldn't have overbearing impact on nearby residents. Therefore, the proposals wouldn't result in sense of enclosure and overbearing impact. They quote policies 33 and 40 of the UDP.

Also, the development is sustainable and brings employment and housing that should regenerate the area.

5c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:
Oh dear. Again, it's another tit for tat objection. I have no idea how the Planning Inspectorate views these in any objective manner. Perhaps it's time to order some planning law books!! What's the likelihood that there are some rather important people living in Salamanca Square eg. MPs, who don't want people looking in their bedrooms? :) Seriously though, I suppose it's time to enter the nitty gritty of polcy 33 in the UDP (p94). However, I can't see any way of objecting to this sensibly "xii" is "not creating unacceptable overlooking", but who exactly is supposed to say what "unacceptable overlooking is"?

Questions answered...

I now have a response from the Conservative candidate, Michael Poole-Wilson on all of the questions distributed to Princes ward candidates. The Labour candidate, Mark Harrison, has assured me that his response will soon be forthcoming. (This is becoming quite exciting, don't you think?) How do SE11 residents think the campaign is going so far?

I await the Lib Dem, Green and English Democrat answers, but I'm giving everybody a little more time before publication of the answers due to the fact that the early candidates have had slightly more time to provide responses, and I don't want to give away opposition party ideas to any of the candidates.

Former Lilian Baylis site and difficult hustings questions

I promised yesterday that I'd post about the former Lilian Baylis site and political parties. The history of the topic is now tedious and long. The reason it's so important in the local election is that there is both considerable support in favour, and considerable consternation against the All Nations Church (ANC) bid to own the former Lilian Baylis site. Nobody is talking much about that because nobody knows exactly how many ANC constituents there are in Princes ward (to gain votes from if one supports the proposals), or exactly how many LGBT votes one would lose in Prices ward by supporting the ANC ownership possibility. So it's a bit of a problem for the local candidates.

There are a number of questions that I suggest the public ask at potential hustings:
1. Do you support the bid of the ANC to own and act as lead partner at the former Lilian Baylis site?

This is the key question. Labour (so far) appear to be supporting this end, and are thus likely to garner the support of the ANC when it comes to winning votes, but are they doing so by sacrificing the LGBT populace opinion? On the other hand, would the Lib Dems, Conservative or Green party really be able to do any better?

2. How would you respond to the fears of the local LGBT community who are concerned about a public asset landing in the hands of an organisation that (whilst currently respectful towards them) might struggle to hold that homosexuality is a sin, at the same time as welcoming LGBT meetings at a public space?

3. Do you consider it better for the site to be held in trust with a local organisation or for it to be owned by a group, such as the ANC, outright?

4. What form of oversight would you like to see put in place to ensure that a former council building remained in inclusive community use?


5. At a time when council house rents are rising (and housing is scarce), is it possible for the site to be partially sold off for public use, at the same time as redeveloped for ANC, Ethelred and SAZ use?

See below for a very potted history. I'm just quoting some of the main bits that I've found, but I'll elaborate if any commentator says I've forgotten anything major.

1. In January 2005, the Lilian Baylis School moved to a new building.

2. The Lambeth Council Unitary Development Plan (proposed by the Lib Dem council in 2005, but published by Labour unchanged in 2007) says of the former LB site: "(b) Appropriate proposals for the Grade II listed Lilian Baylis school and its grounds would be supported... to enable redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses, including a mixed tenure housing scheme, community and leisure uses."

Labour welcomed the idea, in 2007 (proposed by the Lib Dems), that the site might be used for (amongst other things), housing. There were some older proposals for the site under the Lib Dems (which did support demolition of it), but these were not approved by the Lib Dem Council of the time and the above Lib Dem proposal went through unchanged by Labour.

3. Lambeth Council community consultation published by external agency in February 2006. Unfortunately, response rate was only about 17% and local people wanted the site to be used for leisure, housing (public, not private) and community purposes.

4. On 16th March 2006, the RCDT reported breakthroughs made at the Area Committee meeting by the then local Lib Dems who argued in favour of:
"a. Keeping part of the Lilian Baylis site for community and sports facilities for local people
b. Keeping a gymnasium if possible- and all potential purchasers to consider keeping the gym
c. Money from the sale of the site to go to new recreation centre and swimming pool in North Lambeth
d. Further consultation with local people about what’s on offer and what’s best for the community
e. A local project board, including residents and local groups, to oversee community provision on the site"

5. The "breakthrough" terminology used by the RCDT was disputed by Labour's Sam Townend (the naughty one) , who argued that an Area Committee can't make decisions, that the statements were ambiguous, that there was no "breakthrough" and the RCDT was being party political. The RCDT then requested a statement from Sam about the Labour position (this is made in March 2006, and involves two councillors still in position in 2009):

"‘We are committed to retaining and enhancing the current community, leisure and sporting uses of the site and adding to it educational and other social uses of the site by and for local people. Importantly the retention for the use by the community of the three gyms and sports hall. We want to see an expansion of the uses of the site by local people including potentially by Ethelred nursery..., use of the education facilities...... and the Sports Action Zone, and the large number of other local community organisations... We won’t allow the loss of the open playing spaces if at all possible. This does not mean that the site necessarily has to remain or entirely remain in the ownership of the Council. My preference would be for ownership to be transferred to a Community Trust, run and managed by local people. This obviously depends on if there is sufficient interest and commitment from people to carry out this work.... We would also like to see Ethelred TMO residents play a role in such a Trust as the site is in the middle of their estate."

6. Elections were held in May 2006. All three Lib Dem councillors were voted out. 3 new Labour councillors were voted in. Until May 2006, Lambeth Council (Lib Dems / Conservatives) apparently wanted to sell off the former Lilian Baylis School site on Lollard St. However, it does appear (above) that despite wanting to sell it off, they also wanted to retain it for use by local people.

7. On 17th March 2008, the Lambeth Council (Labour) agreed: "that All Nations Centre be placed ‘at the centre of any development at Old Lilian Baylis as a lead partner with security of tenure on an appropriate part of the site consistent with their needs.’" Quite an important statement, but nothing is said about ownership.

8. The Council (Labour) declared in January 2009 that it has chosen 3 "partners". These are: All Nations Church, Ethelred Nursery and Sports Action Zone (SAZ). It's leaflet is sketchy. It does not mention any issues related to ownership, governance or oversight. It does not mention relations with local community organisations. It has lost sight of many of the original organisations that might once have been involved. Are the Ethelred TMO still involved?

I made a mistake here in thinking that Mark Harrison (Labour) was attempting to save the site from the Council's plan in January 2009 and do something new (that was my error), but he has asserted here that he is campaigning in support of ongoing Labour council plans, and is concerned that, "The Lib Dems have recently been heard to be talking about selling off the site and abandoning the negotiations to set up a community trust to buy the site.". I've asked for clarification on that point, and I doubt we'll know any more until the Lib Dems answer their questions.

It's all rather unfair on Mark because he's the only one publically proposing any substantive policy so it looks as though I'm picking on him, which I don't intend to do.

Phewww.... sheer exhaustion has set in... Quite frankly, I'm surprised that four years have passed (part Lib Dem control, part Labour control), and that nothing appears to have happened. The current Council has proceeded with their campaign despite only a 16% community response to their consultation.

Have any readers got far enough to make any comments?

Final candidate - Janus Polenceus is English Democrat candidate

All Princes ward candidates had to submit their nominatons by 5pm this evening, and it appears that the fifth (and final) contender for the seat in the 2009 election is Janus Polenceus for the English Democrats. I'd not heard of the party until tonight, but I'm one of those people who always gets a little nervous about the use of the St George cross in political campaigns. Still... I promised to remain non-partisan, so I await Janus Polenceus' policy suggestions for Princes Ward with interest.

Tomorrow, I intend to throw a few comments into the ring re. the former Lilian Baylis site in SE11, as it's something of a political hot potato and Mark Harrison (Labour) has today made a useful clarification about his position (I might possibly have wrongly represented him, so I shall rectify that), but it's late now and time to catch some Zzzs.

I've still had no response from any of the first three candidates who should have received an email of my questions about their strategies for the area. Tomorrow, I shall chase for those and email the two new chaps who have entered the race today.

Green candidate for Princes Ward

I've been asking about this for a few weeks now, but the good old folks in the Twittersphere have apparently announced a Green party candidate (just in time, it would seem) for the Princes Ward by election. The candidate is Joseph Healy.

It's great that there are so many candidates.

He even has a blog with its own posts here already. Early comments? I like the fact that he has agreed to appear at hustings organised by the Lambeth Disability Forum. I saw a request for the Tory candidate to attend the same forum, so it will be interesting to know who attends. You won't keep me away if it's open to the public! However, I have heard that some of the other candidates have tried to organise public hustings too, so it would be sensible to do that soon...

I'm not too sure whether it's publically permissible to "out" candidates these days, even if they're not closeted... I think I'd be asking a few questions about the wisdom of that, considering the smear campaigns that have been conducted previously against gay candidates in the ward, but what's said is said. It would appear that we have a very pink line up of candidates for this election (which may well be representative of the ward... it certainly appears that way in Tesco).

Our green candidate certainly seems to be promoting Vauxhall City Farm, so one presumes (from the comments yesterday about John Roberts (Lib Dem) long relationship with the farm) that he and John will have lots to talk about! Joseph appears not to live in Prince's Ward, but then I don't think one should consider that a hindrance because it's hardly as though Camberwell is far away.

I'd love to know who his commentator "Princes" is because there are rather a number of interesting alibis appearing in the SE11 related blogosphere at the moment.

Lambeth Council - "Check the label" campaign

In case you thought that the SE11 youths of Lambeth were a singular mass of menace and nuisance, 24dash reports that Lambeth Council have launched a campaign (named "check the label") to tell you otherwise. That means that if you see any scary looking people on posters, you can read the text next to their faces and be reassured that they just look scary, but are in fact fine, upstanding citizens. So that's alright then!

Less than 3% of Lambeth youth is (apparently) involved in crime (those would be the ones they've caught), so our local youth need Lambeth Council's backing to improve their image. I still wonder why these aspiring youth need to look as menacing as they appear to in the photographs. I'm presuming that all of this local area blogging is turning me into a social conservative, and that I've aged before my time, but really! Why aren't there any young smiling people? And more importantly, where are the black women with the "aspiring" labels on them? It may be that the selection of four photographs on the Young Lambeth website is not representative of the entire campaign and I know that one can't seek to represent everybody, but I think it's a question worth asking.

I didn't know about the existence of the Young Lambeth website until today, but it seems like a new initiative. Let's hope it doesn't go the sad sorry way of the Lambeth LGBT forum which doesn't seem to have had its meeting dates updated since 2007, has a defunct "discussion board" forum, a distinct lack of information in the Police Update Board section amd no up and coming events. What is our council tax being spent on?

This is terrible, I seem to be becoming the resident whinger of SE11.

Princes Ward election - registration and housekeeping

I've been so busy keeping up with the gossip news about the local candidates that I utterly failed to remind fellow SE11 lurkers that it is necessary to register in order to be able to vote in the upcoming local (Princes Ward) and European elections. There's a handy site here that will allow you to change your address from a previous address and print out a form to send off to your local council.

Also, to make life easier for you all, I added a box (see the right hand side of the blog) which means that you can now subscribe by email. Just enter your email address, and then click on the email you receive to confirm that you are who you say you are. You'll receive an email each time I update the blog, in case you haven't got a handy feed reader set up.

John Roberts / Lib Dems answer their detractors

Yesterday, I mentioned that there had been some possible slurs on the Lib Dem candidate for Princes Ward, John Roberts, left by an anonymous commentator on this post.

This morning, I've been left lots of comments by people assuring readers that John does not live in Whitstable, that he is resident on the Ethelred Estate and has been for 15 years, but that he does have family in Whitstable. Also, in the unlikely event that you believed that he was kicked off the Metropolitan Police Authority by Boris, the commentator notes that this was not the case. He resigned from local committees, apparently because he needed a rest after 20 years. Sounds fair to me.

In addition, other commentators have suggested that the negative slurs in fact originate from the Labour party. I'm not sure that there's really enough information to say one way or another because all commentators have made anonymous comments or posted with their first name only. Since this is a non-partisan blog, I will report on comments as I see fit, but I don't really want to see any more unsubstantiated criticisms of opposition parties for the sake of it (it's tedious for the rest of us!).

However, since there is currently a dearth of policy information for Princes Ward by both Lib Dem and Conservative candidates, it seems worth posting three more charitable comments left by readers over the past few weeks about both John Roberts and Mark Harrison:

1. One commentator (Zara) says of John Roberts, "I first met john when he was volunteering at kennington park estate community centre (in 1989) my son went to the youth club and john raised money to open the centre more nights. He then became chair of vauxhall City farm. He personally raised 20k to keep the farm open a few years back. i dont think its all about going to commitee meetings, but actually doing the work. you talk to anyone that is involved in the farm and you will know that a lot of his work is not known about. He was also chair of the vauxhall ridding for the disabled and raised enough money to buy a few horses through sponsorship schemes. (do people know that??) I bumped into him at christmas at the farm where he had been organising the christmas festival in lambeth as a volunteer. (and still living on the Ethelred) He said that his dad died which is why he was taking some "time out".Then i meet him again at the local KA bazzer this year making tea in the kitchen, for people. Some of us might not like his politics, but you cant knock him for not giving a huge amount back to the local community."

2. One commentator (Nicky Johnson) says of Mark Harrison: "I really hope Mark Harrison is the Labour candidate - he is very active around SE11, and has been for several years.". Another commentator (Rita Pobson) says of Mark Harrison: "I guess it was to be expected given how much he's been doing locally, but it's good news all the same. Mark is a really genuine guy, even though he does look about twelve..."

Somebody must have something positive to say about what Michael Poole-Wilson has achieved in the local area! I've been receiving much higher than expected queries for his name in my Google analytics (considering that the area is a Labour/Lib Dem strong hold) so we're in for a very interesting election indeed.

By the way candidates/political parties, I want your intended positive policy intentions for Princes Ward, which I will then comment on as I see fit (see yesterday's post). I'm not interested in reporting information that just slags off the other party because it's far too easy to conduct local politics in such an uncharitable manner and it does a disservice to local residents. I sent out emails to candidates direct (or a representative from your party), and I've not had any response to the questions asked yet.

Madeira Day in Kennington Park

Due to leaving SE11 momentarily over the Bank Holiday, I missed the fact that there was a Madeira Day celebration in Kennington Park on Saturday. Since Lambeth has a very high proportion of Portuguese residents (and very welcome they are too), we are the fortunate beneficiaries of Portuguese food, drink and festivals. However, I can't figure out what Madeira Day is a celebration of exactly... Is it just the place?

Fortunately, the Mayor of Lambeth was there, and has recorded the day (along with photos) on his blog in full. It looks quite busy! I found some other photos on Flickr, taken by somebody else that attended.

That will teach me not to leave London... It looks like a lot of fun, but I failed to see it advertised anywhere before I left. I wonder whether it's annual?

Questions for political candidates in Princes Ward

One of the difficulties with the literature that floods through the door at election campaign time is that much of it just slags off an existing political party without putting forward any type of positive campaign. I'm never interested in how the existing party has underperformed. I want to know what the candidate intends to do that will result in positive change.

Usually, the literature is in no way comparable. I've decided to address this issue by sending the following questions/email to those who are standing in the by election, and will publish the results as soon as I receive them...

Dear Three main representatives

I would like to request you pass on the following questions to the candidates in your party who are standing in the Princes ward by election.

I wish to publish the answers to your candidates' questions on my blog, http://southeasteleven.blogspot.com/

1. Name the three main policies that you will make your platform for election in Princes Ward, eg. crime/transport/street care/environment etc. and highlight the strategies that you intend to undertake to implement the policies. Do not mention any of the opposing political parties in your answer.

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?

3. How will you demonstrate that you intend to serve the youth and older residents in Princes ward?

4. How will you demonstrate that you intend to serve those of low, modest and high income in Princes ward?

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)

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)

7. Please highlight your views on the ongoing property development in Princes Ward and the SE11 area.

Princes Ward elections - Political party watch

A quick roundup of where we are with the upcoming election:

1. Conservative candidate = Michael Poole-Wilson

Michael appears not to have his own website, but there's a new item about his selection on the Lambeth Conservative website here with a lovely comment from his mother, assuring us all that he grew up in the area. I'm not hugely sure that the campaign a photograph taken outside the Prince's Arms in Cleaver Square is the best way to appeal to the entire electorate in Princes Ward. As much as I am a fan of the pub, it might be deemed slightly exclusive. Cleaver Square is decidedly posh Kennington, but somebody has to campaign to keep those pint prices down.

Also, what manifesto is Michael actually putting forward? I'm not sure that being passionate about civil liberties is enough for Lambeth. Is there any more online literature of which I'm not aware? Any online literature will be brutally attacked and pulled apart (see below).

2. Labour candidate = Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison is definitely winning in the online presence stakes, since his party have their own blog. In case you've not seen the piece on his election, it's here on the Princes Ward labour blog and they've had lots of time to take photos. However, we think that Labour have a distinct advantage in that they've known that naughty Sam Townend was likely to stand down, and have had Mark as their "shadow" placement for quite some time now.

Anyhow, yesterday, whilst we were all enjoying the sun (or not), Mark was busy whipping up his anti-crime manifesto, which can be found here. A few comments...? Yes, I think so.

a. Who will actually be charged with putting the tags /on/ the dangerous dogs? Would you volunteer? If they're dangerous, they shouldn't exist in the first place. Do we wait for them to attack, and then tag them? Sounds a bit dubious to me. Is there an actual dangerous dog tagging procedure in place anywhere else in the country?

b. Where is Mark going to get the money to get the CCTV on the estates working again? I don't believe in money until I'm told what budget it will come from and who will authorise its release.

c. I will warn /anybody/ in this campaign right now to steer well away from anything related to the former Lilian Baylis School because I'm going to sit here behind my keyboard shouting "rhethoric" very loudly. Why?

The current Labour council have already declared their partners in the school to be: All Nations Church (ANC), Sports Action Zone (SAZ) and the Ethelred Nursery. That's public information, declared in February 2009 and found here. Any youth work will be ANC or SAZ related, but there isn't a "Plan B" for the former Lilian Baylis School, and the project is already quite advanced. Just try speaking with the council officer in charge of the project. The partners have been chosen, and that's that. Some of us are keen to know how the project will hold together, but if you have any more info, please inform me. So... What exactly does Mark propose when he suggests "Saving" the former Lilian Baylis?

d. I hardly think that Labour (or any political party) can act to prevent drug dealing in Lambeth. I presumed that that was up to the police.

e. I really like the idea of saying "no" to Boris' police cuts. See below, but it looks as though Mark is campaigning to prevent more job losses, which makes it look as though Mark is campaigning to prevent John losing his job!

In his favour, Mark actually does appear to have some policies, and to have given them some independent thought.

3. Liberal Democrat candidate = John Roberts

John appears not to have his own website, but there's a news item about his selection on the Vauxhall Lib Dem website here.

An anonymous contributor on the blog has written that they are surprised at John's standing because they have asserted that John might live in Whitstable and that he was kicked off the "MPA"? (I'm guess Metropolitan Police Authority) by Boris. It sounds like the slurs have begun. I've tweeted for a response from John, since the Lib Dems say that John lives on the Ethelred, but have so far heard nothing.

It seems to me that the Lib Dems are are a bit slow on the uptake with their campaign. Labour (if Twitter is to be believed) have been out canvassing for weeks. Let's have some firm and clear policies set out please, as it looks as though Labour have something of a head start, and one man campaigns are always rather tedious to report... I need something interesting to pick apart and since I've given Mark Harrison a good grilling, I need to give John Roberts a thorough roasting.

4. We've had no response from the Green Party in Lambeth to say whether there's anybody standing and I don't know whether there are any independents. Does anybody else know?