Yes it is true, no it isn't true: Michaela Free School debate continued (Part 2)

See here for Part 1 of the Michaela Free School debate, held on 18th July, in which Katharine Birbalsingh and a number of members of the school's steering committee made the case about why the proposed Michaela Free School would be good for Lambeth.  Part 2 in this post, is the questions and answers that arose as a result of the presentation.  I've added the names of questioners and people that added general views, where known, and have summarised questions and answers as far as possible and then grouped them next to one another.

Disturbance to local community?

Qn from older man:  "I am a local resident and heard about this only yesterday.  Do we want a school where after 5 years, there will be 800 youngsters messing around here.  I don't want the school.  When you say, it will be good for the community, which community are you talking about?  You don't live here."

KB:  'I know that a number of local people... are concerned about children behaving badly around the estate.  We're keen on excellent discipline and high standards. I'll speak to you in more detail about holding children to account and involving parents in school. One of the big things is the extended day.  If children get out at 3.30pm, there's more of a chance that they're going to behave in that kind of fashion.'

Ndubuisi Kejeh (member of Michaela Steering Committee): 'I went to Archbishop Tenison's School, and I was in school when the old Lilian Baylis was on site. In my Year 7, we needed the teachers of both schools to intervene because the Year sevens of my school were the targets, and every day before and after school, we would be victims of robbery... If I didn't believe that the new school would have measures to counteract behaviour like that, I wouldn't be sitting here.'

How free are Free Schools?

Qn from a woman with an educational background:  'A lot of your information was wrong...  Schools have been free to make their own decisions since Local Management of Schools was introduced in 1988.  In every State School the decisions are made by the governing body, many of whom are parents.  Decisions are not made by the Local Education Authority.  A Free School... will be free from local authority constraints, but will still have to obey constraints of central government, which is worse, because it's removing accountability from the very parents you're saying you want to help.  Also...have you undergone the professional training to become a head teacher?'

KB: 'Over the years, some schools have gained more freedoms, but there are different types of schools with different levels and types of freedoms.  Free schools are like Academies in the way they run.  It is not the case that ordinary maintained schools have the same freedoms.  They're not free to have an extended day, they can't do that.'

Interjection from same questioner:  'Yes, they are.  I don't know where you get your information from, but you're incorrect.'

KB: 'Heads of schools that have become... academies will explain various changes that they've been able to make because of those freedoms. Ultimately, if however, what you were saying is true, then we're opening a school just like any other school.'

KB:  'I have the NPQH (head teacher qualification).  However, I may not be the head of this school.  It is proposed that I might be.  It all depends on the Department for Education.'

Anna Tapsell: 'Can I ask whether it is the Department For Education that appoint the head?'

KB: 'From what I understand.'  

Interjection from previous questioner:  'Well, that makes it very different from other schools, then.'

Do U.S. Charter Schools have track record?

Qn from young male with education background: 'I don't doubt your commitment towards education.  But if you look at what happened with Free Schools in America... a lot of schools became even worse sink schools.  In the system, some schools go ahead, and some drop behind because of the intake problem.  You're saying that having your school up here will not affect the rest of Lambeth... I'd like to know what mechanisms you have in place to ensure your intake would be representative of the area...'

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  'You're right.  American charter schools are not an unalloyed success.  However, the ones that have been successful are the ones  that have been in extreme areas of educational deprivation. Kathryn mentioned Geoffrey Canada.  I'd also ask you to look at KIPP, the Knowledge Is Power program.  Both are in inner-city and difficult areas.'

Answer from young male with education background: 'Theose are one or two examples. My point is that the system does create an inequality between the schools being set up.'

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  'KIPP and Geoffrey Canada are not one school, but seven schools.  You're right in that  not every charter school is succesfuly.  But what we can take from them is a model of success...  So if you're saying, "how are we going to do things?", we have an example...'

Discipline and ethos at proposed Michaela Free School

Qn from Fred (Ethelred Community Centre):  '... how are we going to contribute a wider understanding to all of the cultures, because the demography is getting wider and wider in our society..?  I have witnessed... that we are employing doormats (that's terminology street talk from the kids) at school. We see police in uniform at school gates.   I want to know what form of discipline is going to implemented to avoid what we have now.'

Related qn from Anna Tapsell: 'What is it in the ethos and philosophy of your idea that makes you confident that you can deal with all of the things that the gentlemen [Fred] has expressed and have a well-disciplined school?'

Ndubuisi Kejeh (Steering Committee): 'I've been privileged to have gone to schools with several different types of discipline. Although born and bred mostly in the UK, I did go to school in Nigeria where there is corporal punishment.  The difference between the schools I've attended is level of consistency. With consistency, after a while, you get a culture. What we would hope to do in this school is not cane people, but work with the parents and contact parents, and have a document that the parents would have to sign so that they were kept informed of what the child was doing. Also, what we'd do is in the first year is have year sevens only. From primary school. These children would be immersed in the new culture. Their parents would continue this culture. This, I think, is a very good way to try to discipline and make a culture.'

KB: 'We talked about high standards of discipline, high standards of expectation from the children, soft skills in terms of manners.  Sometimes if a school were to  exclude a naughty child for the day, but the school don't want them to sit at home and watch television, they send them to a next door school, and are reciprocal.  In that way, schools support each other.'

Qn from male teacher: 'I'm a teacher, and I teach maths.  I've never heard of such a thing.'

KB: 'Schools do it all the time.  This is one example.  I'm giving an example of ways in which schools support each other.  There are other ways.  St Martin's have done it.  Dunraven have done it.  Tenison's have done it.'

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  'Part of the ethos would be provision of the extended day, until 5pm.  Another thing would be summer school.  There's lots of research about how pupils from deprived backgrounds fall back more over summer, so one of the things we want to do is have a two-week summer school.  Free schools do have a bit more freedom to adapt the curriculum to their pupils' individual needs...'

[Here it would be useful to hear from any teachers reading the blog on a point of fact.  Is it true that schools do swap "naughty" students for the day instead of excluding them and sending them home?  It seemed odd that some teachers prsent had not heard of the practice, but I've no idea whether this is common in Lambeth.]

Intake at proposed Michaela Free School

Qn from young male with education background:  I want to know about the intake.

Daisy (member of Michaela Free School Steering Committee):  Free Schools have to abide by an admissions code.  We want to take the Fair banding route approach, so we ensure a representative intake.  The pupils who apply are split into 5 bands academically, and you take the same percentage from each band.  The Deapartment For Education decide the banding system on a nationwide basis.

KB: I admire your concerns. You're worried a free school will pop up, and all of the clever kids will want to go there..  I admire your sentiment because you're worried about the other schools.  But we want to implement banding.  We're not expecting all students to go to unviersity.  We would want to ensure our intake was completely comprehensive.  The committee are really committed to inner city kids.

Grateful parent
Woman sitting at the front:  My question has been answered.  I was going to thank you all for the wonderful work you're doing with the community... 

[I'm pretty sure this woman wasn't a plant from team-pro-Michaela, but she was the only person who wasn't from the committee/volunteer group who expeessed a positive view, so in the interest of balance, I've include it.]

Farcical Dispute with Councillor concerning Lambeth Secondary School Admissions

Cllr Mark Harrison (Princes Ward and chair of Scrutiny Commitee for Children and Young Peoples, Lambeth Council):   I challenge this idea that Lambeth has a shortage of 500 secondary places. That's not accurate.  About 500 pupils go to school outside outside the Borough, but that's not the same as  a shortage of 500 places.  We have a shortage of places in the south of the Borough.  But we have a site at Fenstanton Primary school, Tulse Hill, which we're turning into a new Academy that will meet demand pressures.  There is no shortage of secondary school places in the north of the Borough.  We have two excellent local secondary schools, Lilian Baylis and Archbishop Tension's, which are rated good with outstanding features by Ofsted.  Creating a glut of places in this area will have a negative effect on those two schools.  It's a waste of public money to provide places in a place where we don't need places, and it risks, one of the three schools becoming unviable due to pupil shortage.  I might be welcomiong a Free School if built in Streatham or Brixton or Norwood, but not up here.  It could do serious damage to others schools in the area.

Man in audience: Don't forget the new Academy opening at Durand School and the enormous new Academy opening on Archbishop Michael Ramsey site, bordering Lambeth and Southwark which will have a 50/50 intake.  We're also seeing a collapsing role at Charles Edward Brooke as children don't go there.  So this demand for places argument does need to be addressed.

KB: Southwark also has a massive shortage of places. In actual fact, it's about 800 pupils who don't stay in Lambeth for school. That's because some of them choose to leave the borough. This year, there were 452 year 6 pupils who did not get a place at a Lambeth School.

Cllr Harrison: No, every young person who applied for a place in a Lambeth secondary school got a place.

KB: That's not true.

Cllr Harrison: That is true.

KB: That's not true.

Cllr Harrison: That is true.

KB: If you look at the figures, that just isn't true.

[I'd be intrigued to hear from both sides about which figures were used to determine whether all Lambeth year 6 pupils were given a place at a Lambeth School.  In the previous article in the Telegraph, Birbalsingh claimed 433 students Year 6 didn't get places, so I'm concerned about a lack of consistency in the way the figures are being measured.  Feel free to leave both sets of figures in the comments for further analysis so I can help readers with no educational background].

Cost of site and risk to local schools of enforced government purchase

Cllr Steven Morgan (Princes Ward):  You mentioned that bidding for the former Lilian Baylis site is closed but should [the government] have had a chance to bid, would they have been able to match the best bid?  As we understand it, the government's got a fund of about £50 million to buy sites and refurbish. Assuming £2.5 million were allocated per site and land prices are high in inner cities (where there's demand), they won't be able to build more than 20 schools... As a council, we're worried that they will approach us and won't pay market rate for the site, and will want a big discount.  The problem with that is that the money for the site is going to go back into education to the capital programmes for Lambeth schools. It will be other schools losing out if the government buys that site for cheap.  Can you confirm the government would pay market value for the site?  

KB: All I know is what partnership for schools told me.  The £2 million mark didn't seem unreasonable to them.  I can't say how much money is involved.  I don't know that kind of detail.  I am guessing that no more than 30 free schools will end up being passed through for 2012.  I gather there were 291 applications, but I suspect the vast majority get through the application process. Ppartnership For Schools are keen on talking to the council about the site.

[I already speculated in part 1 that I think the site is worth well over £8 million.  And I'm pretty sure repairing it will cost £10 million, so it may be that the site is unusable (it's said to be riddled with aesbestos).  But, politically, this will be very interesting...]

Council option to extend bidding time by 6 weeks to allow Michaela Free School to bid?
Michael Poole-Wilson (local Conservative candidate in 2010): 'My question is directed to Cllr Steven Morgan re. achieving market rate for the former Lilian Baylis Site.  Would you be prepared to postpone the tender process to the autumn so that you could see whether funding could be matched, or is it an academic question because you're going to give the site to the highest bidder before September.

Cllr Steven Morgan: I'd be happy to ask Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth to delay, if you can get Michael Gove to announce that he'll pay market rates for all sites they wish to buy tomorrow morning.

Michael Poole-Wilson (local Conservative candidate in 2010):  The site has been sat there, unsold for 5 or 6 years, so we're saying a few months more won't make a difference

Cllr Mark Harrison: It make a big difference because we need to realise the saving in year. We have budgeted to dispose of that site and bring in capital receipt which is going to be invested into the capital programme in the rest of Lambeth schools.

[Of course, it is quite believable, given the cost savings Lambeth and other local authorities need to find, that 6 weeks could make a difference (but it looks like a weak argument, given the amount of time the site has sat empty).  However (and this is a huge problem), it's not at all clear that Lambeth can sell in this financial year given (see below) because it appears they might need permission from the Secretary of State to sell the site.  And it's fairly obvious to most people that Michaela Free School has several well-positioned "friends".  I see a huge political row brewing here...  I reckon Lambeth will be trying to rush through the bidding process now, but it might make no difference if the Secretary of State refuses permission to sell!]

Question of importance of distance between student and school
KB: ...We want to help children to travel as little as possible.  If Lambeth has a school site in the south of the borough, then we'd like to consider it.  But there are no potential schools sites.  If you have a choice between a school in the north of the borough or no school at all, it seems crazy to choose no school at all.

Anna Tapsell:  My children were young in the days of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA).  We didn't feel strongly about sending our children to school in Lambeth.  There was a lot to be said for the ILEA system because it gave parents an enormous amount of choice.  There is a history to all of this, which is not about neglect or good work, but what was left when the ILEA was disbanded.

View from woman at back of audience:  'We've gotten you to accept the need for places is at the south of the borough.  Actually, travelling from Streatham to here is a lot further than travelling out of borough to the nearest school.  When my kids went to school, the local Kennington primary schools were feeder schools for Pimlico school.  I don't see any problem with that.  I'd actually much rather they did that than had to travel down to Streatham for school, which is what you're expecting Streatham parents to do.' 

Dasiy (Michaela steering commitee member):  ' Crossing a borough boundary is not necessarily the be all and end all.   All I would say is that speaking to a lot of parents on the door step, for some of them, it isn't just that they live across from a borough boundary that happens to be on their street.  Some of them do feel that they're sending their children a very long way, to Battersea, to Croydon...'

Katharine Birbalsingh's relationship with teaching unions
Qn from young male with education background: Will you carry over your antagonistic/abusive relationship with the teaching unions into your management of the school?  Would you  continue to write in the national press about the unions and managing a school...?

KB:  I'm obviously entitled to hold opinions...  I don't know if what you say is accurate.  But you're entitled to your opinion.  I haven't really considered continuing writing yet.  That's way off in the future...

Answer from young male with education background: KB's views seem to have been imported from the American free school system... the idea that unions eer evil, and one of the reasons why schools are so awful.  I think that is a worrying attitude to take towards organised teachers.  Teachers' means of organisation is a means of ensuring the school is accountable, that their livelihoods and work isn't put at risk... 

Daisy (steering commitee member): I have been a union rep.  I do think unions have a role to play in education and in wider society.  One of the thing that attracted me, as a rank and file classroom teacher, to someone like KB is the support she gives to teachers facing the daily problems that teachers face in schools.  I can't answer about the national press... My perspective would also be that I'm not sure the unions treated KB very well either.

Suitability of former Lilian Baylis site
Anna Tapsell: Is the listing something that also affects the way in which any developer will look at it?
Cllr Mark Harrison: Yes. being listed dramatically reduces what you can do with the site.  The reason the Lilian Baylis moved is because the school building is not really suitable for a modern secondary school.

The future, given the closure of the site bidding process

Woman from team-pro-Michaela:  I'm a former chair of governors at a primary school, and this evening, I was planning to bring a parent-govenor with me... We had a big black plastic bag full of letters of support for this free school idea.  People couldn't care less about location of the school.  I live inthe centre of Brixton, and a lot of local children are going to Wimbledon.  The distance makes no difference whatsoever to us.  We just want to see something new.  We've seen a correlation between excluded children and ending up in crime.  We can get the support from the community.  We're not representing any particular political party.  We haven't got an axe to grind.  Why can't we give her the chance?  But what happens in a situation where Lambeth appear to have put the siteup for sale?

KB: Unfortunately, the councillors who are here seem to be confirming that they plan on making sure it's gone to developers before 6 weeks are through... I think it's a great shame.

David Boardman (Kennington Association Planning Forum):  The Deparment for Education are normally pretty sticky-fingered when it comes to educational land, and normally you need the Secretary of State's consent if you are to treat land as surplus to educational requirements.  Has the Sec of State consented to the sale of the site?  Has it been declared surplus to educational requirements?  

Cllr Mark Harrison:  Not to my knowledge.  And obviously that's an issue. As far as we're concerned, it is surplus to educational requirements.  It's a technical question.

Response from David Boardman: If you haven't an appropriate, necessary consent, then anybody can make representation to the Secretary of State to say, "wait a bit please"

Cllr Mark Harrison: That it has consequences for the rest of Lambeth schools that require investment from our capital programme.

Summing up

Anna Tapsell:  Thanks to all for coming.  The Kemnnington Association is a mixture of individuals with different views.  We'll go away and talk about this.  We learned a lot from you coming, so thank you to everybody for coming.  

Michaela Free School debate continued: A non-meeting of minds... (Part 1)

A discussion meeting (organised by the Kennington Association for local residents) about the proposed Michaela Free School on the former Lilian Baylis site was held two weeks ago on 18th July.  Apologies that this write-up has been delayed, but it's well worth reading, if only for a couple of dramatic flare-ups in the meeting, on account of most participants arriving with firmly entrenched views.   [Part 2 of the writeup containing local resident questions and answers is here too.]

I was hoping that I'd be able to present a clear Lurking about SE11 opinion after the meeting, but that seems difficult on account of one or two rather major factual disagreements, as you'll see.  There were the pro-free school people who, (other than one lone parent) arrived to support team-hooray-Michaela.  Then there were the anti-free school people, made up of a loose and disparate band of local councillors and angry teachers or union people.  These shall be known as team-angry-people.  As usual, there was odd-ball ranting, and general off-topic rambling, but Anna Tapsell, who was chairing the meeting for Kennington Association, managed to ensure that everybody had a chance to speak.

Katharine Birbalsingh (KB) initially introduced two other members of the steering-group, Daisy Christodoulou (a teacher) and Ndubuisi Kejeh (a former Lambeth school student).  She then offered a brief summary of the plans.  The steering group, we learned, exists as a group of teachers, parents and ex-Lambeth school pupils who all are "deeply committed" to state-education.  What they like about free schools/academies is that power can be devolved down.  The steering group, we heard, want to give parents another choice of school in Lambeth.  KB also noted that the Michaela bid has been submitted to the government.  I'd advise you to visit the Michaela Free School site for more info. as this post is long enough already!  We learned briefly that the proposed school plan to offer the Baccalaureate (on account that it provides a broad foundational knowledge on which to build skills).  KB stressed that "traditional knowledge is important".  We also heard several times about the plan to implemented an extended school day, since this would provide an opportunity for additional subjects such as  Mandarin Chinese, media-awareness and literacy etc.  It was again stated that Kate Hoey had offered her support, and I also found that in print in the Evening Standard.

Next up, we heard from Ndubuisi Kejeh (a willing poster boy) who was taught at secondary school by KB.  At university, he studied electrical engineering, was the chair of his university's political philosophy society, set up an NGO and is now working to meet future energy needs sustainably.  He asked KB if he could be on the steering group and has acted as a mentor to children in primary and secondary school.  The parents of Kejeh's mentors claimed that State education faces the issue of narrowing options.

After that, Katharine Birbalsingh was given about half an hour to present the school proposal and to address potential criticism.  She was quite clear that the steering group's heart had been set on Lambeth because there is a "huge shortage of places", both at primary and secondary level in Lambeth.  This year, apparently 452, year 6 Lambeth children did not get a place at a Lambeth secondary school.  "That's not true" interjected Cllr Harrison, but his right of reply came later. The steering group and volunteers have handed out 20,000 leaflets at Brixton market and around Lambeth and have had another 20k printed.  Birbalsingh observed that free schools were set up on the basis of charter schools in the US to transform education in the inner-city.

Working on the rough figure of 450 children without places (which will be disputed), Birbalsingh suggested that the Michaela School would  only offer 120 places at Year 7, and suggested that there'd still be a shortage of some 300 places in Lambeth.  Additionally, she acknowledged peoples' views that the shortage is more severe in south Lambeth, but noted  there aren't any suitably-sized school sites in the south.  I was certainly impressed by the manner in which Birbalsingh stated her case...  "If the former Lilian Baylis site is sold to a developer for flats, it would be a great shame because the one opportunity that Lambeth has to establish a secondary school that is desperately needed, would be taken away.", she lamented.  And indeed, one might concur, especially if there is an enormous shortage of sites at present.

The only problem, according to KB, is that Lambeth Council  asked for bids on the former Lilian Baylis site to be submitted by 5th July, but the government, on behalf of the Michaela steering committee can't put a bid in until September, because they won't hear whether they have approval until then.  That seemed to me to be a rather major flaw in the Michaela Free School proposal, but then, it's not clear that the Council can sell off the site immediately either (which became clear later).

"Free Schools", Katharine Birbalsingh offered, "work as a gift to the community."  That's because the money to fund them comes from central government.  (Mind you, it's all tax at the end of the day...)  It was acknowledged, however, that if the proposed Michaela  Free School were to take children from local schools, those schools would lose out on account of receiving less money per head.  Note that point carefully.  It will matter later.  Much of the argument is predicated on the notion that there is a "huge surplus of children and a shortage of places", which means that Birbalsingh was happy to announce that an extra school would soak up existing local children, with the added benefit that Lambeth would receive a huge injection of cash from central government.  Still following?  There is, of course, the added issue that the huge injection of cash might not be so huge on account of a compulsory purchase, but we'll come to that.

Birbalsingh has a natural gift for anticipating opponents' arguments.  "You might make the argument that a developer would pay more money than central government for a school", she suggested.  That's just what I'd been thinking.  But here she proposed that because the building is listed and has a considerably reduced price-tag, central government might have a chance to compete.  I'm still rather sceptical about that.  Later we learned that central government would only be offering about £2.5 million for each school site, and I'd be more than happy to bet that even despite listing, the former Lilian Baylis site is worth well over £8 million.  But that little question did not arise, and Birbalsingh continued to sell the Free School...

The question the public need to ask, according to Birbalsingh is "whether we'd  prefer the site be sold to developers" or used by a school?  (Note that when politicians present either/or options, there are usually more possibilities to be considered).  At this point, nearly all of team-angry-people, who might normally be in the anti-developer camp looked as though they'd happily sell!   But just as the cogs in the brains of those present were springing into motion, Birbalsingh had moved on to "why Lambeth?"  After all, apparently some enthusiastic people had said "why go to Lambeth?  Go to a Conservative borough".  Birbalsingh even claimed that some Conservative boroughs are purchasing sites for Free School use.  So, why Lambeth?  Apparently, the steering committee chose Lambeth because ordinary people "who don't have the option" live here.  Birbalsingh felt that if Free Schools try to open up in the poorer areas, they're "hounded out".  I felt there was a certain mood of "woe-is-us" and martyr mentality on this point, and it's tied in with the whole "the rich are trying to keep us out" Telegraph column, but who knows, perhaps she's right.

This lead to a suspiciously Conservative-party sounding speech about how poorer children should have the same opportunities as richer children.  (And really, who in their right mind would disagree with this?  The question is how or whether to let market forces dictate the quality of education to which children are entitled...)  But, there was no time for theoretical debates, since we learned that belief in poorer children is why team-hooray-Michaela have been "in the rain... marching around constantly" handing out leaflets to "ordinary" (note... loaded word, that) parents.

There was a brief detour to suggest that that free schools and  academies are nearly the same.  Presumably, this removes the teeth from the arguments of local people who might be opposed to free schools.  Lambeth seems to have a fair number of academies (or planned academies).  Birbalsingh was big on "freedom" and "choice".  Academies and Free Schools "have the same freedoms".  That apparently means "freedom from" local authority to do what you think is best for your community of children.  It meant that an extended school day could be offered.  The steering committee are concerned about Lambeth children leaving school at 3:30pm to go and hang out in chicken shops. Birbalsingh felt that keeping them until 5pm meant they would be likely to do that.  (Again, it's not really possible to disagree here, but I'm not clear about whether ordinary schools aren't free to extend their days, as I know very little about education).  We were also told that the proposed Michaela school would hold media awareness classes "because young black boys look at MTV and think they want to be a gangster or a rapper".  I felt this was something of a racial stereotype.  Young boys (whatever their colour) want to be footballers and celebrities...  But you get the general gist of where the argument was going.  So, this interlude finished with the assertion that if you're against free schools, then to be consistent, you should be against academies too.  I hadn't entirely figured out why anybody would be against either, but I think I wasn't necessarily part of the target audience.  Nobody expects the Lurker, after all. 

Next, Birbalsingh rounded off the previous argument by point out that Lambeth already has academies and are converting schools into academies when an audience member interjected, "they're being forced to".  Yes, it was acknowledged that some teachers who may be being forced into it, but the heads are not...  So there appeared to be lots of political hot potatoes being thrown around, which will be tricky to understand if you're not familiar with the inner-workings of the education system.

At that point, Anna Tapsell interjected with the first question about local people knowing that the former school site wasn't currently safe for children, and wondering whether the money for the capital project would come from.  Birbalsingh was confident that the money would come from central government who would buy the building from Lambeth and provide money for refurbishment.  (I'm sure I read a Council document that suggested it needed £10 million worth of repairs...).  Anna Tapsell further pressed the point about whether it was refurbishable, and Birbalsingh admitted it was out of the steering committees' hands, and up to Partnership for Schools to decide.

Birbalsingh had clearly done her homework on the likely voting patterns of those present, and was doing everything to avoid being tarred with the Conservative brush.  She noted that some people had asked how free schools could be good if they're a Conservative idea?  But she quickly batted that back and suggested that Academies emerged from Labour (supported by Kate Hoey, MP), and Free Schools are basically the same, ergo, they couldn't be all bad.  Lots more impassioned pleas about "freedom to do what's right for their children" were added.  Also, more on "ordinary families" being "desperate" for a new school.  Birbalsingh distanced herself from the Conservatives, "I'm not a Conservative.  I'm not." and clarified that she believed that "the black community" (and then everybody) should be floating voters.

Anna Tapsell asked about the submission process.  The bid has apparently already been submitted.  The interview will be in August.  It is  possible that the Michaela Steering Committee will go for interview and not pass it.  If the interview is passed, Partnership for Schools will write a report on the school's viability.  If the school isn't viable, Michaela Free School "may be forced" to go to another London Borough.

I will leave Part 1 (a whole post dedicated to Birbalsingh's argument) with her final offering and summation:

You may feel that for yourselves, or your children, that the school is not right for your children.  That's fine and your choice, but would you want to stop others?  I myself, have nothing to gain personally from it.  When I ended up in the media, people said, that I wanted a political career and doing things in government, but I didn't go there.  I'm not and I'm here talking to you about a school because my heart is in education.  I continue to speak of education. It's hard.  From my perspective, you should know that it's not easy being me. 

Part 2 of the Michaela Free School debate continued provides a summary of all of the points, questions and clarifications made in response to Katharine Birbalsingh's speech above.

Michaela Community School: Kennington Association to hold Public Meeting concerning proposal

I've stayed out of the Michaela Free School debate so far due to a short break from blogging and because I felt that I didn't have enough solid information to make an informed post.  At present, it's not clear where the proposed school would be situated or whether any funding has been agreed for the proposed opening in 2012.  Yesterday, however, I wrote a long  post on the protest concerning the retention of the Shelley site (something that was raised at the last KOV meeting and which I've been tracking closely), which unfortunately has not yet received any comments, except to ask my views on the Michaela Free School!! So...

A representative from Michaela emailed me in May, requesting that I publicise the Michaela Free School website and noted that an open day would take place on the 21st May, which I had hoped to attend.  Unfortunately, the open day was cancelled at the last minute on 20th May, and I've not spotted a public meeting since.  Consequently, I was delighted to note that Kennington Association have seized the mantle and agreed to hold a public meeting to discuss the proposal on Monday (18th July), 7pm at Ethelred Estate Community Youth Club, 7 Lollard Street, SE11 6QH.  After that, Lurking about SE11 hopes to have enough information to put forward a reasoned response.

In the mean time, many of the arguments for the retention of the Shelley site can be marshalled for the Michaela Free School, mostly concerning the secondary school aged population projection within the next few years.  At present, Lambeth is unable to send all students that live within the Borough to Lambeth secondary schools, and has to ship them out of the Borough for secondary education.  In addition, the demand for secondary education will increase on account of the building due to take place on the VNEB developments, especially because the Vauxhall (and thus Lambeth) developments appear to being approved faster than the Wandsworth developments.  Even worse, the VNEB proposals thus far do not appear to have accounted for a secondary school, so there is a clear argument (although perhaps the case is equally strong for Wandsworth) that additional secondary school places be provided for local students.  It's not clear (and seems unlikely) that the proposed Michaela School would have capacity for all of the additional students required across Lambeth (or Wandsworth), so it may be necessary for the council or free school trust to open one large new school or two/three smaller new schools.  Alternatively, (unless the LEA wishes to continue to send its pupils outside of the borough), some inventive means to expand current schools would need to be found (which should not include eating up local Playground space!).

The reason the Michaela School appears to have become so contentious is on account of its founder, Katharine Birbalsingh.  Birbalsingh made a speech at the October 2010 Conservative party conference about how she perceived the State to be failing to provide for the nation's children and to admit that she had voted Tory for the first time. Consequently, one can see how a slightly controversial start might have put some backs up in Lambeth, which is an entrenched Labour stronghold.  That, I suspect, is most likely the reason that some local hackles appear to have risen.

There is a Guardian article, outlining some of her views on State schools, written earlier this year and you can find further information about her from a comprehensive Wikipedia article.  Birbalsingh has written about 121 articles for the Telegraph (click "older entries" to read through the list), with the most recent article published today (just before Monday's meeting), on why she thinks middle class women on bikes (in Lambeth?) want to prevent working class children from receiving a good education.  It seems a tad impolitic to raise local backs further, before people have had a chance to hear about the Michaela School proposals, but presumably she hopes people will hear the free school ideas with open minds despite an article that appears deliberately provocative.  I am already wondering whether we're going to hear open and positive suggestions about Michaela free school from a diverse range of staff and parents or a Birbalsingh-only version of what Michaela Free School might look like.  The two are potentially quite different, so it's worth listening closely...

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.

Princes and Oval Ward hustings - what the candidates think

One of the difficulties with the Princes and Oval Ward hustings was that whilst plenty of candidates were present, only one representative from each party was able to speak.  The speakers tended to be the best that each party had to offer, and so delivered a more impressive (but less amusing) debate than at the Vauxhall constituency hustings.  There was no English Democrat present (disappointing, as they can offer some quite unique perspectives), so representation was from the usual selection of red, yellow, green and blue politicians.  Princes Ward was over-represented with Mark Harrison (Labour), Joseph Healy (Green) and Michael Poole-Wilson (Conservative) all speaking, which meant that the only Oval ward candidate at the front was the long-standing and somewhat rambly Andrew Sawdon.  In fact, I began to suspect that it would be fantastic were a multi-coloured selection elected to represent both wards, since I felt that each of the candidates' offerings contained some merit worthy proposals.  Healy deserves a special mention for appearing at Vauxhall hustings and Princes hustings, and being equally clued up for both.  Thanks should go to KOV for organising the hustings and to Vauxhall Gardens Community Centre for the venue.

The evening began with introductions and quick requests to all candidates to reveal which cabinet position they most coveted within Lambeth Council, were they to be given the option to take one up.

Dr Healy (Green) kicked off the proceedings and highlighted three issues that the Greens consider important for Lambeth.  The first was "twenty is plenty", a proposed national scheme whereby all of the roads controlled by the Council in an area would have a 20mph speed limit.  The second policy was the suggestion of a London Living Wage for all Council employees.  Lastly, Healy considered that the ALMO (Arms Length Management Organisation) had been an utter disaster, and proposed that council housing in the borough be returned to democratic control.  Due to his work with a disability organisation, he would like the Cabinet post of Health and Social Care.

Next up was Michael Poole-Wilson, whom I find considerably more impressive than Glyn Chambers (perhaps that is not saying much!).  The first priority for the Conservatives was Housing.  Poole-Wilson bounced off Healy's point that the ALMO had failed.  He added that social housing in the borough had been a failure as a result of rents and services charges having risen disproportionately compared with services offered, and also noted the scandal of empty properties in Lambeth.  The second Conservative priority was school places, which are considered not plentiful enough.  The last Conservative priority is to combat waste, not just resolving empty housing issues, but looking into 6 figure council officer salaries and non-performance related bonuses.  Finally, the Conservative candidate finished his opening gambit with the contentiousness issue of Lambeth Living, which the Conservatives would like to see abolished.  Poole-Wilson would take the Lambeth Council Cabinet position for Housing.

Lib Dem Cllr Sawdon noted that Lib Dems "take up local issues, working on behalf of local constituents on very localised problems".  I was wondering whether he was taking his cue from the League of Gentlemen, "this is a local shop for local people", but I'm afraid not!  Policy-wise, Sawdon mentioned housing and the total disaster of the re-structuring which resulted in the ALMO, which he maintained the Lib-Dems have always opposed.  Sawdon admitted that the Lib Dems were prepared to get rid of the ALMO, but that it is "hard to squeeze toothpaste back into a tube".  The Lib Dems are also determined to end the "scandal of empty properties".  Secondly, Sawdon mentioned the planning issues re. the huge Nine Elms development area and the question of how the mechanism for providing transport, social infrastucture and school places would be implemented.  Sawdon would take the Cabinet position for Transport.

Last up was Mark Harrison (Labour), the current (and most recently elected) Councillor in Princes Ward. Mark began by noting that "housing isn't where we want it to be at the moment", but housing aside, argued that Labour was standing on a strong record.  That record included freezing council tax, cutting £30m of waste and re-stabilising council finances.  Harrison noted that youth and road/pavement spending had been doubled, the safer neighbourhood teams had been boosted with PCSOs funded by the council, and failing services such as housing benefits and planning have been transformed.  The Council have opened 3 new schools so that the shortage of secondary school places was ended (although he admitted that there's now a primary school issue). The GCSE results in Lambeth are up, and better than the national average. Somewhat controversially, he noted that the Council had prevented the sell off of the former Lilian Baylis, and allowed SAZ to use the site (more on that below!)... In terms of Labour's priorities, they plan to keep council tax low, fund a police "hit squad" to tackle anti-social behaviour, invest in roads/pavements, cut carbon emissions by 20% and upgrade ten thousand homes which should hopefully lead to the ALMO's improvement to unlock central government funding. He'd take a cabinet position in Housing.

There then followed a series of questions, or general rambles which sometimes emerged into questions, and sometimes just turned into general moans.  Such is the nature of local democracy.

Qn: "How do you plan to change the relationship between the Councillors who are the policy makers, and the officers who don't carry out what they're supposed to have done?"

Healy (Green) noted that his colleagues who attend council meetings had seen the undisguised contempt that the council officers had for councillors and he would want to address this.  He borrowed one of Kate Hoey's points and argued that the top grade Council Officers are paid disproportionately high salaries, and felt that pay should be performance related.  He was concerned that council officers are able to insulate themselves from the complaint process.

Poole-Wilson (Cons) agreed on the problem, which he argued lay partly with pay disparity.  He'd focus on attaining buy-in from residents about whether they wanted an ALMO through a ballot.  He also suggested that pressure could be put on officers by publicising individual examples of malpractice, such as the neglect of removal of asbestos.

Sawdon (Lib Dem) also thought that very well paid top level people was a problem with the creation of the ALMOs, and that front line housing staff suffered demoralisation as a result of the reorganisation.  He noted that front line staff need to be remotivated, and tenants and leaseholders on estates need to be re-engaged. The Lib Dems want to restructure the ALMO on a more local basis and to reduce management costs.

Harrison (Lab) considered it a good question, that if councillors knew the answer to, would transform the Council overnight. He also admitted that officers aren't always as responsive to councillors or residents as the Council would want them to be. Harrison thinks the way to change that is through persistence and courtesy (I'm not convinced that that will work as effectively as targeted redundancy!). Harrison agreed with Healy re. performance related pay, but said that union opposition would need to be overcome, and there'd be a risk of demoralising the officers by changing the workforce structure. He said that Labour had set up a commission which has reviewed how staff could be encouraged to positively improve performance and services, rather than being told what to do.

At that point, the chair digressed somewhat and gave all of the candidates a lecture about the officers being unresponsive to councillors and the public. This caused Healy to point out that Southwark were using Lambeth's ALMO as an example to deter Southwark voters from voting Labour. Harrison pointed out that there was a £750m housing black hole in Southwark, before being told firmly by the chair that she wasn't interested in Southwark!  Poole-Wilson then interjected by commenting that he would extend Labour's ward purses to estates and also put empty council properties back into use. He suggested that companies could renovate empty properties, and then share the rent earned between the improvement companies and the Council. (One fears that the Council would become heavily reliant on such companies, and it would de facto privatise the public housing sector, but it was one of the few innovative proposals put forward at the hustings.)

Qn: "We've had two KOV meetings on the Nine Elms Opportunity Area. This matter incorporates transport issues, and we wonder whether pressure would be put on local parking or cause Section 106 money to be diverted to transport instead of local areas? Could we have opinions on that?" 

Healy (Green) raised the issue of the American Embassy and potential security issues. Healy is suspicious that the only reason the Northern Line is being extended to Battersea is to enable US diplomats to travel to work more easily! Cllr Thackeray (Green) introduced a motion in the Loughborough Junction area to encourage Section 106 money to be spent as local residents desired, and the Greens would look to extend that policy.  (I felt that this didn't really do justice to the questions about the extent of the Nine Elms plans and local objections to tall buildings.)

Harrison (Lab) thought that "part of the problem with planning is that it's split between the Mayor and Lambeth."  He seemed to suggest that tall buildings were not the Council's fault because it was Mayor's decision to put tall buildings at Vauxhall, and "there's not a great deal that Lambeth Council can do about that". He was heartened to see local organisations involved with the planning process and wanted to ensure the planning department's full engagement with such groups.

This caused Cllr Sawdon to leap into action. "It's not wholly true that the Mayor decides everything", he announced with previously unknown vigour.  "The principle of planning is supposed to be that the Mayor decides the broader strategic issues, and the Borough decides the more detailed local aspects and the individual planning applications."  Straight from the horse's mouth.  So, what has gone wrong, I wondered?  Why are we faced with this influx of tall buildings?

Sawdon continued..."If you take the Vauxhall area, the London Plan had a broad brush approach from London planners as it had been developed under Ken Livingstone, for clusters of high buildings at Vauxhall. It was then legally speaking for the Borough to develop the Supplementary Planning Document to turn that into detail.  What happened was inherently political. The Supplementary Document was put on hold whilst the Council waited for the Mayor's view, which has resulted in the existing applications coming forward rapidly without a framework in place."

I felt that this was an incredibly strong answer (although I've cut out rather a lot of waffle).  Planners, please take note.  Sawdon also added that he felt that there's nobody within the Planning Department who is employed to engage with people in the development of a vision for their area, and he placed the blame firmly at the feet of the politicians.  (I'm rather presuming that he must be referring to the Labour politicians, since he is also a politician, but it wasn't clear...)

Poole-Wilson (Cons) wanted to tap into the expertise of local organisations (which is either a very wise answer, or veering towards the John Lewis model).  As a Tory boy, he quickly jumped to the rescue of Bo Jo by placing the last tall building decision firmly into the lap of  John Prescott!

Qn: "There will be a large residential increase in the area when expenditure on public projects will be limited, and investment in the Northern Line, will take years. There's a question of air pollution... What will you do to make walking and cycling not something hazardous, but something that is a non-polluting pleasure?"

Harrison (Lab) felt that Lambeth were going in the right direction. (What a relief!  It would be a nuisance for the local Council to have another Hoey-like thorn in the flesh that disagreed with them).  Harrison wants to remove the Vauxhall Cross gyratory and re-design to improve for pedestrians and cyclists. (Can anybody remember whose idea it was to install the gyratory in the first place?)  He supports a 20mph speed limit in residential streets.  Harrison (unsurprisingly) does not support Boris Johnson's attempts to cut down the time that pedestrians are given to cross the roads, just in order to keep vehicular traffic flowing.

Poole-Wilson (Cons) felt that bike hire schemes will help people who live in flats where bikes can't be kept. (I'm not convinced that these bike hire schemes will be affordable for all, but he didn't touch on that).  He felt that the Cycle Superhighway isn't perfect due to cars driving in them, but that they are a step in the right direction.  Sawdon (Lib dem) noted two recent deaths in Oval Ward and considered highway and junction design to be important. He added that a 20mph limit would make a great deal of difference, but there are issues in getting the Mayor and TFL to conceive that it's not just a matter of side streets, but the main routes.  (Lots more waffle, but rather short on substance.)

Healy (Green) mentioned that the EU is about to fine London's government because of appalling levels of air pollution and people dying from respiratory illnesses as a result.  He thought that single-use streets (an idea from Kensington and Chelsea) might be interesting, but was concerned that disabled and blind people be consulted about the effects of such ideas.  He commended looking into "new ideas" around "highway design", but wasn't any more specific.

Qn: "I am concerned about expense. There are two key things.  If you reduce the speed limit in an area, it's not expensive to put up signs.  There needs to be some attention to enforcement re. behaviour of cyclists and drivers so that everybody is given space. Would you commit to cycling to Council meetings at the town hall?

Poole-Wilson (Cons) committed to cycling twice to the Town Hall.   (I think he might have been deliberately ambiguous about whether he'd committed twice, or whether he intended only to cycle twice!!!)  He was enthusiastic about car parks housing vehicles for car share schemes.

Qn: "Labour have introduced the idea of co-operative government, and the Lib Dems have mentioned it in their manifesto. What would that look like more concretely?   It can be difficult to get people together to agree, and we're hoping that that's why we're electing councillors. Can we hear further from Labour about the Lilian Baylis hub, and from the Lib Dems?"

Harrison (Lab) was no more forthcoming in his response than Steve Reed has been. He uttered generalities about needing to be flexible and the dangers of imposing one size fits all model on groups. Labour are apparently "keeping an open mind about how we would introduce this over the next 4 years". Harrison promised a commission to see how the principles would be put in action.  He noted that the SAZ lease is temporary whilst a community group is established to run that site and asked anybody with problems accessing the site to contact their councillors.

Sawdon (Lib Dem) was more excited about the use of the co-operative model for sports areas on the basis that "there are a lot of people committed to sport."  He noted that the Borough's centre(?) is run by a company in Greenwich which is not responsive.  But instead of elaborating further on the co-operative model, he tried to get into a fight about Labour selling off the former Lilian Baylis to the All Nations church.  Fortunately, somebody interjected that both the Lib Dems and Labour have tried to sell off the site, and that whole row was stopped in its tracks!

Another person asked about whether, if local government made cuts, anything could be done to lead to greater efficiency? The chair, unfortunately, over-rode with an unrelated question about what proposals would be in place to strengthen the viability of local businesses.

Healy (Green) was not to be deterred, and returned to the John Lewis model of council, which he noted that Cllr Reed has presented as a new model plan in very simple terms.  He was concerned that enacting a John Lewis model across a huge council is very dangerous. He wanted to know why, with the possibility of 30% cuts, the electorate haven't had flesh on the bones?  He stated, "We've heard new model ideas before, and they sound impressive and glossy, but what is behind it?"  Poole-Wilson (Cons) jumped excitedly on to the bandwagon, "there has not been flesh on the bone re. the John Lewis council and people in the area don't know what Labour mean by it."  But he went on to differentiate himself from the Green Party, by saying that he's more willing to give it a chance, whatever is meant by it. (That felt a bit like having your cake, and eating it too!)  Poole-Wilson then approved the idea of a third-party run school, funded by the state in the Beaufoy.  (It's sometimes difficult to separate the Tories from the Labour lot in Lambeth).

Sawdon then wanted to talk about supporting business (probably because the Lib Dems don't really know what they mean by a co-operative council either.  He thinks that over the last 4 years, there has been focus on grandiose projects and wants to return to a more localised town centre approach when supporting businesses.  But Harrison (Lab) though that Labour's business-loving record had been superb, since Labour had invented a Cabinet member for Business and Enterprise, formed a help desk for businesses navigating the council, created business awards and focused on worklessness.  He noted that the Streatham hub deal had been signed and considered it well worth the years of negotiation (this was a riposte to Sawdon's criticism of the grandiose projects).  In any case, Streatham's hub does not really address the lack of leisure centres around SE11, but perhaps Harrison should be awarded merit points for reading out very long lists of Labour's achievements.

Qn: "In 4 years time, looking back, what would each candidate most want to have achieved?"

Poole-Wilson: Better housing, speedier repairs, charges and rents that match with the service provided.  (Good answer, delivered instantly.)

Harrison: Windows replaced in Vauxhall Five Estate, a community set up on former LB site, a school on the Beaufoy site and housing service transformed.  (Another good answer, and some of it is on the way to being achievable).

Sawdon: Cure the backlog of housing repairs, see the end of the holes in the road and the removal of local puddles. (I really thought that this was weak.  The "removal of local puddles" really was the phrase used, and I thought the Lib Dems might aim for something a little grander!)

Healy: All housing properly insulated, starting with pensioners, and a statue of Charlie Chaplin erected in Vauxhall Gardens. (Again, a weak closing answer, considering that some of his criticisms are very good.  Can you really compare being proud of potential transformation of the housing service with a Charlie Chaplin statue?).

Qn: How can a greater number of local residents contribute their views to funding priorities in their neighbourhoods under the Sustainable Communities Act? [This one was from the chair]

Poole-Wilson (Cons) wanted to focus on getting Councillor's voices heard above officers.  Harrison (Lab) was rather flummoxed by the thing, and jokingly suggested that it changes its name so that people had some idea of what it was.  Sawdon (Lib Dem) denied that a "Sustainable Communities Act" was needed, and argued that "a local council with the will to devolve budgets to local areas, which will enable residents to be in charge and decide what projects they want to see implemented" would be sufficient.

And finally, the question that is on the hearts and minds of every voter in Lambeth....

Qn: "If Lambeth Living is replaced, where would statutory notices be published? Would it be put in the South London Press?"

Poole-Wilson (Cons) appeared to retract his earlier statement about abolishing Lambeth Living and felt instead that it could be replaced with a shorter newsletter, which did not include propaganda from Steve Reed.  Sawdon (Lib Dem) wholeheartedly agreed. He felt that newspaper ownership could be debated, but then came out with the most bizarre statement of the evening... "it would be a shame if all local newspapers were forced out of business by the withdrawal of local authority advertising, when they're often the only local independent voice"  Gah!  As though local newspapers would be forced out of business solely on the withdrawal of statutory advertising.  That seemed patently ludicrous.  Harrison came to the rescue.  "The statutory notices need to be put somewhere", he retorted. "The local press has a tiny circulation in Lambeth, and Lambeth Life goes to every home and ensures everywhere gets to see the notices.", he added.

Of course, that was like a red rag to a bull.  Various people immediately announced that they didn't receive Lambeth Life!! Another audience member suggested (in a bizarre hybrid of the Communities Act thing and the John Lewis model) that "local residents take control of the budget and Lambeth Life and put in it what they want!"  "Hear, hear" I nearly declared!  (After all, I can think of somebody who would make a great editor.)

But Healy jumped in with the last word by noting that lots of people don't receive the paper, at the same time as defending the need for a Council paper, and noting "there's a strange relationship in Lambeth between the South London Press and the ruling administration, as there have been recent tussles and police action."  Instead, Healy wants an independent council magazine.

The hustings enabled all participants to engage with audience members before the debate so there was lots of wandering around.  I was deeply unimpressed when I over-heard Sandra Lawdon (Lib Dem, Princes) admitting that she was not currently aware of specific issues affecting the ward, and would need to read-up on them were she elected.  I'm not sure whether that's quite the point, when trying to persuade local people to vote for you.  Other than Sawdon, the other two Oval Lib Dem candidates were not present and I didn't see any of the other Lib Dem Princes Ward hopefuls.  I was also rather unimpressed to hear that Marcus Letts, one of the Green candidates was down in Brighton, rather than appearing at his local ward hustings (what is it with these guys and Brighton?) and except for the ever-present Healy, none of the other Green candidates appeared.  I didn't notice Labour's Cllr Morgan or Cllr Campbell at the hustings (did anybody else?), although Jack and Jane (the Oval Labour folk) were present.  There was a good Conservative turn out, but I didn't manage to speak to any of them...

(Apologies for the delay and length in this report, but I hope its publication today might help anybody still wavering on which party to vote for.)

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.