I have written a couple of articles for the Guardian over the last week or so.
The first looked at the idea of "Responsible Capitalism". This is a concept currently being championed by both David Cameron and local Streatham MP, and Shadow Labour Business Secretary, Chuka Umunna. It is however really a cop-out, which means that the real underlying causes of the financial crisis which we are all facing are not being addressed.
The second article was for today's (Saturday's) Guardian, which built on this. It looked at how we desperately need a 'Transition Economy' and suggested some alternatives to the approach on offer by the three biggest parties. It also suggested that the Green Party is now the natural inheritor of the radical tradition in British Politics which Labour has abandoned.
A blog with news and comment from Lambeth Green Party. For the main Lambeth Green Party site visit lambeth.greenparty.org.uk
Showing posts with label jonathan bartley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jonathan bartley. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Thursday, 13 October 2011
Lambeth and Southwark housing 'extremely unaffordable'
An interesting report out today from Shelter looking at the affordability of the private rented sector around England.
It found Southwark and Lambeth to have the 9th and 11th most expensive rental prices (for two bedroom homes) in England, with average monthly rental prices of £1,407 and £1,321 respectively.
The most interesting findings come though in terms of affordability. Average London
rents for two bedroom homes take up 60% of a Londoner’s median take-home pay, a rate
which is close to double that seen in most other regions. Southwark comes in at number 10 in the most unaffordable places with 63% of average take-home pay spent on rent, and Lambeth at number 12 with 59%. This earned them a classification of 'extremely unaffordable'.
Given yesterday's unemployment figures, the ongoing rise in rental prices lack of social and other housing alternatives the picture looks very bleak indeed. There was a good report on the human cost on Radio 4 this morning.
It found Southwark and Lambeth to have the 9th and 11th most expensive rental prices (for two bedroom homes) in England, with average monthly rental prices of £1,407 and £1,321 respectively.
The most interesting findings come though in terms of affordability. Average London
rents for two bedroom homes take up 60% of a Londoner’s median take-home pay, a rate
which is close to double that seen in most other regions. Southwark comes in at number 10 in the most unaffordable places with 63% of average take-home pay spent on rent, and Lambeth at number 12 with 59%. This earned them a classification of 'extremely unaffordable'.
Given yesterday's unemployment figures, the ongoing rise in rental prices lack of social and other housing alternatives the picture looks very bleak indeed. There was a good report on the human cost on Radio 4 this morning.
Lambeth’s chief executive moves up pay league table despite cuts
Analysis by the Green Party has revealed that Lambeth council’s chief executive Derrick Anderson has moved up the league table of London council chief executive’s pay, despite implementing some of the most far reaching cuts of any London borough.
The latest figures show that during 2010-11 Lambeth’s head earned £215,963 (this is excluding pension contributions, which were an additional £30,976, giving a total annual salary of £246,939) moving from fourth to third place among the 32 London boroughs. The Green Party analysis (based on each council’s 2010/11 Statement of Accounts) found that the average pay of council chief executives across London in fact fell by 4% during the same period.
In the previous financial year (2009-10) three chief executives of London councils were paid more than Derrick Anderson. In the face of cuts, many council heads cut their salaries. Lambeth’s did not. Anderson subsequently became the third highest paid council chief executive in London during 2010-2011, only marginally behind those of Tory run Hammersmith and Fulham (£225,785) and Kensington & Chelsea (£220,976).
In April this year, Anderson finally announced that he would take a pay cut for 2011-12 and waive his entitlement to a bonus. This was strange as Lambeth had previously claimed he received “no performance related pay or bonuses”.
The figures came to light through London-wide analysis by the London Green party. The amount earned by Anderson in 2010-11 is over 17 times the minimum wage earned by some of Lambeth council sub contractors and over 13 times the Living Wage which the council pays its direct employees.
Lambeth has still to pay a Living Wage to all those who work on behalf of the council. Green councillor Rebecca Thackeray campaigned in 2009 to get Lambeth to adopt a Living Wage for all who carry out work for the council. This was opposed by Labour councillors who only accepted that Lambeth’s direct employees should received a ‘Living Wage’.
Last month Lambeth came second from bottom in a league table of all councils in England, measuring the severity of cuts to disabled people’s services. This included a 22% cut to adult care and support.
It is a stark contrast that whilst Lambeth has some of the highest executive pay in the whole country, it is imposing some of the most severe of cuts for its most vulnerable residents.
People in Lambeth will wonder why, in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, where the cuts are so deep, Lambeth’s head took so long to take a cut in his own pay, whilst many of his contemporaries did so across London.
But the priority must be for Lambeth council to increase the pay of all those it employs as other councils have done, so everyone gets a Living Wage. It isn’t just Lambeth’s chief executive and Lambeth residents who are being treated in different ways. The staff who implement vital council services are also subject to double standards.
Key figures for all boroughs in London are as follows:
Borough Staff paid more than £150k* Chief exec remuneration* No. of times higher than living wage
Barking and Dagenham 3 £162,087 10
Barnet 9 £200,976 12
Bexley 3 £199,248 12
Brent 2 £203,853 12
Bromley 3 £177,135 11
Camden 6 £204,961 12
City of London 1 £142,000 9
Croydon 4 £204,520 12
Ealing 1 £183,854 11
Enfield 1 £194,693 12
Greenwich 5 £189,667 11
Hackney 5 £177,956 11
Hammersmith and Fulham 5 £225,785 14
Haringey 2 £189,890 11
Harrow 2 £195,965 12
Havering 1 £180,213 11
Hillingdon 1 £183,250 11
Hounslow 1 £156,901 9
Islington 1 £210,000 13
Kensington & Chelsea 2 £220,976 13
Kingston 1 £179,000 11
Lambeth 5 £215,963 13
Lewisham 1 £192,387 12
Merton 1 £200,390 12
Newham 5 £188,022 11
Redbridge 1 £181,542 11
Richmond 1 £178,744 11
Southwark 5 £182,089 11
Sutton 1 £156,195 9
Tower Hamlets 2 £186,528 11
Waltham Forest 2 £180,000 11
Wandsworth 9 £191,122 12
Westminster 3 £200,543 12
London total / average 95 £188,983 11
* Total remuneration including expenses, excluding pension contributions.
The latest figures show that during 2010-11 Lambeth’s head earned £215,963 (this is excluding pension contributions, which were an additional £30,976, giving a total annual salary of £246,939) moving from fourth to third place among the 32 London boroughs. The Green Party analysis (based on each council’s 2010/11 Statement of Accounts) found that the average pay of council chief executives across London in fact fell by 4% during the same period.
In the previous financial year (2009-10) three chief executives of London councils were paid more than Derrick Anderson. In the face of cuts, many council heads cut their salaries. Lambeth’s did not. Anderson subsequently became the third highest paid council chief executive in London during 2010-2011, only marginally behind those of Tory run Hammersmith and Fulham (£225,785) and Kensington & Chelsea (£220,976).
In April this year, Anderson finally announced that he would take a pay cut for 2011-12 and waive his entitlement to a bonus. This was strange as Lambeth had previously claimed he received “no performance related pay or bonuses”.
The figures came to light through London-wide analysis by the London Green party. The amount earned by Anderson in 2010-11 is over 17 times the minimum wage earned by some of Lambeth council sub contractors and over 13 times the Living Wage which the council pays its direct employees.
Lambeth has still to pay a Living Wage to all those who work on behalf of the council. Green councillor Rebecca Thackeray campaigned in 2009 to get Lambeth to adopt a Living Wage for all who carry out work for the council. This was opposed by Labour councillors who only accepted that Lambeth’s direct employees should received a ‘Living Wage’.
Last month Lambeth came second from bottom in a league table of all councils in England, measuring the severity of cuts to disabled people’s services. This included a 22% cut to adult care and support.
It is a stark contrast that whilst Lambeth has some of the highest executive pay in the whole country, it is imposing some of the most severe of cuts for its most vulnerable residents.
People in Lambeth will wonder why, in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, where the cuts are so deep, Lambeth’s head took so long to take a cut in his own pay, whilst many of his contemporaries did so across London.
But the priority must be for Lambeth council to increase the pay of all those it employs as other councils have done, so everyone gets a Living Wage. It isn’t just Lambeth’s chief executive and Lambeth residents who are being treated in different ways. The staff who implement vital council services are also subject to double standards.
Key figures for all boroughs in London are as follows:
Borough Staff paid more than £150k* Chief exec remuneration* No. of times higher than living wage
Barking and Dagenham 3 £162,087 10
Barnet 9 £200,976 12
Bexley 3 £199,248 12
Brent 2 £203,853 12
Bromley 3 £177,135 11
Camden 6 £204,961 12
City of London 1 £142,000 9
Croydon 4 £204,520 12
Ealing 1 £183,854 11
Enfield 1 £194,693 12
Greenwich 5 £189,667 11
Hackney 5 £177,956 11
Hammersmith and Fulham 5 £225,785 14
Haringey 2 £189,890 11
Harrow 2 £195,965 12
Havering 1 £180,213 11
Hillingdon 1 £183,250 11
Hounslow 1 £156,901 9
Islington 1 £210,000 13
Kensington & Chelsea 2 £220,976 13
Kingston 1 £179,000 11
Lambeth 5 £215,963 13
Lewisham 1 £192,387 12
Merton 1 £200,390 12
Newham 5 £188,022 11
Redbridge 1 £181,542 11
Richmond 1 £178,744 11
Southwark 5 £182,089 11
Sutton 1 £156,195 9
Tower Hamlets 2 £186,528 11
Waltham Forest 2 £180,000 11
Wandsworth 9 £191,122 12
Westminster 3 £200,543 12
London total / average 95 £188,983 11
* Total remuneration including expenses, excluding pension contributions.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Knights Youth Centre facing cuts to vital programmes
Today the Government's Victim's Panel comes to Lambeth, following the recent riots and looting. This is being welcomed by Labour councillors.
The good work that this might do will be undermined however by the fact that central Government and these same councillors between them are pushing ahead with cutting youth services in Lambeth. This is already having a serious affect on youth centres around the borough, and will do so on young people and communities for years to come.
This includes Knight's Youth Centre in Clapham/ Streatham, which I remember from 40 years ago when I was growing up. As reported in the print edition of Tuesday's South London Press (not online at the moment) the Centre gets 200 children through the doors each week (mainly from the Clapham Park Estate) but is already having to cut staff and services. It is £85,000 short on the funding it needs for this year alone (about half its budget). A vital mentoring and apprenticeship programme looks as if it may have to close, which would be a tragedy, as this trains up children to be youth workers themselves.
The Centre is applying for a small amount of money from the NatWest community fund, and it will get the grant if enough people vote for it. You can do so here (You have until 23rd October to vote).
The good work that this might do will be undermined however by the fact that central Government and these same councillors between them are pushing ahead with cutting youth services in Lambeth. This is already having a serious affect on youth centres around the borough, and will do so on young people and communities for years to come.
This includes Knight's Youth Centre in Clapham/ Streatham, which I remember from 40 years ago when I was growing up. As reported in the print edition of Tuesday's South London Press (not online at the moment) the Centre gets 200 children through the doors each week (mainly from the Clapham Park Estate) but is already having to cut staff and services. It is £85,000 short on the funding it needs for this year alone (about half its budget). A vital mentoring and apprenticeship programme looks as if it may have to close, which would be a tragedy, as this trains up children to be youth workers themselves.
The Centre is applying for a small amount of money from the NatWest community fund, and it will get the grant if enough people vote for it. You can do so here (You have until 23rd October to vote).
Blackfriars Bridge flashride
There's a flashride this afternoon (Wednesday) to push the Mayor and TfL into action over plans for Blackfriars bridge.
It's a cross-party event, and our mayoral candidate Jenny Jones will be there. Over 400 hundred people have already signed up to say they're coming, and hundreds more are expected on the day. Blackfriars bridge falls in Southwark, which is part of the Lambeth and Southwark constituency for the GLA elections.
London Cycling Campaign has produced excellent images showing how the junction at the northside of Blackfriars Bridge can be dramatically improved for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Two cyclists have been killed on the bridge in recent years, and several serious crashes have been reported already this year.
It’s estimated that LCC’s new cycling-safe design would add only 1% to the cost of the three-year Blackfriars development, but could save lives and prevent serious injuries.
The Blackfriars Bridge flashride meets at 5.45pm by Doggett's pub on the southside, in Southwark.
It's a cross-party event, and our mayoral candidate Jenny Jones will be there. Over 400 hundred people have already signed up to say they're coming, and hundreds more are expected on the day. Blackfriars bridge falls in Southwark, which is part of the Lambeth and Southwark constituency for the GLA elections.
London Cycling Campaign has produced excellent images showing how the junction at the northside of Blackfriars Bridge can be dramatically improved for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Two cyclists have been killed on the bridge in recent years, and several serious crashes have been reported already this year.
It’s estimated that LCC’s new cycling-safe design would add only 1% to the cost of the three-year Blackfriars development, but could save lives and prevent serious injuries.
The Blackfriars Bridge flashride meets at 5.45pm by Doggett's pub on the southside, in Southwark.
Transport apartheid in London
There is a debate in Parliament today, initiated by Lisa Nandy MP, on accessible transport. (I did an event at the Labour party conference with Lisa Nandy a few weeks ago, and amongst other things we discussed disability).
It is scandalous that whilst we will be holding the Paralympics in London next year, so much of London's transport system is inaccessible - most notably the tube. As part of the GLA campaign, we will be highlighting this issue as much as we can in Lambeth and Southwark. In many respects there is a system of apartheid in place, where whole areas are only accessible to one part of London's population.
Transport for All, based in Brixton, would like the Government to:
- Reject proposals in the McNulty Review to cut staff at train stations, who provide essential assistance to disabled and older passengers. (Southwark will be particularly hard hit in this respect)
- Change the law to ensure that all buses and coaches are equipped with the audio-visual equipment that makes them accessible to blind and deaf people
- Increase funding for stepfree programme as way of kickstarting economy. At present, almost half of disabled people say their choice of job is restricted due to inaccessible transport and nearly a quarter have had to turn doen a job because of transport.
- Protect bus routes which are so essential to avoid isolation and maintain activity and independence, especially for older people.
It is scandalous that whilst we will be holding the Paralympics in London next year, so much of London's transport system is inaccessible - most notably the tube. As part of the GLA campaign, we will be highlighting this issue as much as we can in Lambeth and Southwark. In many respects there is a system of apartheid in place, where whole areas are only accessible to one part of London's population.
Transport for All, based in Brixton, would like the Government to:
- Reject proposals in the McNulty Review to cut staff at train stations, who provide essential assistance to disabled and older passengers. (Southwark will be particularly hard hit in this respect)
- Change the law to ensure that all buses and coaches are equipped with the audio-visual equipment that makes them accessible to blind and deaf people
- Increase funding for stepfree programme as way of kickstarting economy. At present, almost half of disabled people say their choice of job is restricted due to inaccessible transport and nearly a quarter have had to turn doen a job because of transport.
- Protect bus routes which are so essential to avoid isolation and maintain activity and independence, especially for older people.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Petition launched to lower speed limit in Lambeth to 20 mph
Lambeth has one of the highest rates of road casualties in London, with the second highest casualty rate in London for both pedestrians and cyclists.
The lowering of the speed limit on residential roads in Lambeth, is something for which we have been campaigning for several years now. Last year, George Graham and others brought the ‘20s plenty’ campaign to Lambeth and organised a public meeting in Herne Hill. We have found widespread support – even from motorists who recognise that a 20 limit helps traffic flow.
Over 7 million people in the UK now live in areas where the speed limit has been dropped – showing that the campaign is both realistic and achievable. Several studies have shown that it doesn’t just reduce road casualties, but improves air quality, and encourages walking and cycling.
We have now launched an online petition to show that there is public support in Lambeth for such a move. Please sign it here and pass it around your friends, neighbours and networks.
The lowering of the speed limit on residential roads in Lambeth, is something for which we have been campaigning for several years now. Last year, George Graham and others brought the ‘20s plenty’ campaign to Lambeth and organised a public meeting in Herne Hill. We have found widespread support – even from motorists who recognise that a 20 limit helps traffic flow.
Over 7 million people in the UK now live in areas where the speed limit has been dropped – showing that the campaign is both realistic and achievable. Several studies have shown that it doesn’t just reduce road casualties, but improves air quality, and encourages walking and cycling.
We have now launched an online petition to show that there is public support in Lambeth for such a move. Please sign it here and pass it around your friends, neighbours and networks.
Friday, 7 October 2011
Lambeth bottom of league over cuts to disabled services
Lambeth Council have come 151 out of 152 local authorities in England in a league table of cuts to services for disabled people.
The findings are contained in a report published last month by Demos, in partnership with disability charity Scope.
As we know there is a 28 per cent cut over a four year period to local authority budgets from central Government. Councils across the country have made decisions about what they are going to axe.
Disabled people are disproportionately reliant on public services, and the new report Coping with the Cuts, throws light on how the government cuts to local authority budgets are affecting disabled people’s services across the country.
Data came from hundreds of FOI requests which revealed the disparities between the level of budgetary cuts local authorities were making to their social care budgets, and the changes being made to the front line of care and support. Some councils had very large care cuts – up to 22 per cent - but were not raising service user charges, or tightening eligibility criteria. They weren’t closing any services either. On the other hand, some councils were increasing care funding by up to 10 per cent, but reported closures, restrictions in eligibility and large increases in charges for things like meals on wheels and respite.
The results are presented graphically, but a crucial finding is how disabled people in Lambeth are being particularly affected. Of particular note is the 22% budget cut in support for disabled adult care and support. Lambeth has also increased the cost of using specialist transport by 67 per cent and reduced the number of annual trips that can be made by a disabled person under the taxicard scheme from 144 to 96.
The findings are contained in a report published last month by Demos, in partnership with disability charity Scope.
As we know there is a 28 per cent cut over a four year period to local authority budgets from central Government. Councils across the country have made decisions about what they are going to axe.
Disabled people are disproportionately reliant on public services, and the new report Coping with the Cuts, throws light on how the government cuts to local authority budgets are affecting disabled people’s services across the country.
Data came from hundreds of FOI requests which revealed the disparities between the level of budgetary cuts local authorities were making to their social care budgets, and the changes being made to the front line of care and support. Some councils had very large care cuts – up to 22 per cent - but were not raising service user charges, or tightening eligibility criteria. They weren’t closing any services either. On the other hand, some councils were increasing care funding by up to 10 per cent, but reported closures, restrictions in eligibility and large increases in charges for things like meals on wheels and respite.
The results are presented graphically, but a crucial finding is how disabled people in Lambeth are being particularly affected. Of particular note is the 22% budget cut in support for disabled adult care and support. Lambeth has also increased the cost of using specialist transport by 67 per cent and reduced the number of annual trips that can be made by a disabled person under the taxicard scheme from 144 to 96.
Monday, 12 September 2011
Boundary Review: All change for Lambeth
So, it seems it's all change in Lambeth as far as Parliamentary constituencies are concerned.
The Boundary Commission Review, due for public consumption at midnight, has already been leaked on the net and is being discussed widely. Under the proposals it appears as if Battersea, Streatham, Tooting and Vauxhall constituencies would be abolished and several new constituencies created instead, which would take in parts of both Wandsworth and Lambeth.
Three new constituencies are being proposed that each contain parts of the two boroughs. In addition a fourth new constituency would be created comprised of remaining wards in Lambeth.
Streatham and Tooting Constituency
The first is 'Streatham and Tooting' which would take four wards in from each borough. These are not specified by name, but look likely to be Tooting, Graveney, Furzedown and Bedford from the Wandsworth side, and Steatham Hill, St Leonard's, Streatham Wells and Streatham South from Lambeth.
Battersea and Vauxhall Constituency
The next is 'Battersea and Vauxhall'. Again, this would take four wards from each borough, and again they are not specified in the leaked Boundary Review.
Clapham Common constituency
The third is a new Clapham Common constituency, which would be slightly different in that it will take in just three Lambeth wards (probably Thornton, Clapham Common and Clapham Town) and five Wandsworth wards.
Brixton Constituency
A fourth constituency would also be created made up of the remaining eight Lambeth wards in the central part of the borough.
Predictably, jokes are already being cracked about which of Miliband's MPs would get the Labour nomination to fight the Streatham and Tooting seat - Chuka (Umunna) or (Sadiq) Khan. It's quite possible that Sadiq could fight Streatham and Tooting, whilst Chuka ends up fighting Brixton. But there is likely to be some healthy competition for the Labour nomination in Brixton, given that Tessa Jowell's seat would also go.
But that is to get ahead of the game... There will now be a 12-week consultation period on the proposals, and later a vote in the House of Commons. Given the many changes throughout the country, a lot of MPs may yet have a change of heart on whether scaling down their number in the House of Commons is such a good idea after all.
Lambeth Ward map available here and Wandsworth ward map here
The Boundary Commission Review, due for public consumption at midnight, has already been leaked on the net and is being discussed widely. Under the proposals it appears as if Battersea, Streatham, Tooting and Vauxhall constituencies would be abolished and several new constituencies created instead, which would take in parts of both Wandsworth and Lambeth.
Three new constituencies are being proposed that each contain parts of the two boroughs. In addition a fourth new constituency would be created comprised of remaining wards in Lambeth.
Streatham and Tooting Constituency
The first is 'Streatham and Tooting' which would take four wards in from each borough. These are not specified by name, but look likely to be Tooting, Graveney, Furzedown and Bedford from the Wandsworth side, and Steatham Hill, St Leonard's, Streatham Wells and Streatham South from Lambeth.
Battersea and Vauxhall Constituency
The next is 'Battersea and Vauxhall'. Again, this would take four wards from each borough, and again they are not specified in the leaked Boundary Review.
Clapham Common constituency
The third is a new Clapham Common constituency, which would be slightly different in that it will take in just three Lambeth wards (probably Thornton, Clapham Common and Clapham Town) and five Wandsworth wards.
Brixton Constituency
A fourth constituency would also be created made up of the remaining eight Lambeth wards in the central part of the borough.
Predictably, jokes are already being cracked about which of Miliband's MPs would get the Labour nomination to fight the Streatham and Tooting seat - Chuka (Umunna) or (Sadiq) Khan. It's quite possible that Sadiq could fight Streatham and Tooting, whilst Chuka ends up fighting Brixton. But there is likely to be some healthy competition for the Labour nomination in Brixton, given that Tessa Jowell's seat would also go.
But that is to get ahead of the game... There will now be a 12-week consultation period on the proposals, and later a vote in the House of Commons. Given the many changes throughout the country, a lot of MPs may yet have a change of heart on whether scaling down their number in the House of Commons is such a good idea after all.
Lambeth Ward map available here and Wandsworth ward map here
Southwark to be hit hardest by rail cuts
Southwark could be the hardest hit area in the country if proposed cuts go ahead which would leave many railway stations unstaffed.
The Government is considering proposals in a report by businessman Sir Roy McNulty, which recommends cuts of £1 billion across the national network. This was highlighted last week by the TSSA union and reported in the Evening Standard as well as the South London Press.
The TSSA union drew up a “hit list” of 675 ticket offices to be closed nationwide. As there are no platform staff at these stations, they will be left unmanned.
Two stations in Lambeth could be affected: Brixton and Gipsy Hill. But the situation is even worse in Southwark, where eight out of eleven stations in the borough could be impacted, making Southwark stations ‘no-go’ areas for many travelers.
Southwark stations facing cuts: East Dulwich, Elephant and Castle, North Dulwich, Nunhead, Queen's Road Peckham, South Bermondsey, Sydenham Hill and West Dulwich are all listed as part of the “hit list” of 675 ticket offices to be closed nationwide. Only Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye and London Bridge would escape.
This is a case of rail users being kicked when they are down. Fares are already due to increase by 25% over the next three years, meaning lower safety levels at a much higher price. And it will be some of the most vulnerable members of our community who are most affected. With the huge increase in the cost of living, and cuts to benefits and services, more and more have no option but to rely a public transport system which is accessible and affordable.
At a time when the economy is struggling to maintain any momentum at all, as other countries in the world are recognising, we need more investment in transport infrastructure, not less. Indeed, cuts to station staff would be a false economy. Redundancies and the resulting increase in vandalism and other crimes, not to mention the detrimental impact upon rail use itself, call into question any hypothetical savings.
The Government is considering proposals in a report by businessman Sir Roy McNulty, which recommends cuts of £1 billion across the national network. This was highlighted last week by the TSSA union and reported in the Evening Standard as well as the South London Press.
The TSSA union drew up a “hit list” of 675 ticket offices to be closed nationwide. As there are no platform staff at these stations, they will be left unmanned.
Two stations in Lambeth could be affected: Brixton and Gipsy Hill. But the situation is even worse in Southwark, where eight out of eleven stations in the borough could be impacted, making Southwark stations ‘no-go’ areas for many travelers.
Southwark stations facing cuts: East Dulwich, Elephant and Castle, North Dulwich, Nunhead, Queen's Road Peckham, South Bermondsey, Sydenham Hill and West Dulwich are all listed as part of the “hit list” of 675 ticket offices to be closed nationwide. Only Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye and London Bridge would escape.
This is a case of rail users being kicked when they are down. Fares are already due to increase by 25% over the next three years, meaning lower safety levels at a much higher price. And it will be some of the most vulnerable members of our community who are most affected. With the huge increase in the cost of living, and cuts to benefits and services, more and more have no option but to rely a public transport system which is accessible and affordable.
At a time when the economy is struggling to maintain any momentum at all, as other countries in the world are recognising, we need more investment in transport infrastructure, not less. Indeed, cuts to station staff would be a false economy. Redundancies and the resulting increase in vandalism and other crimes, not to mention the detrimental impact upon rail use itself, call into question any hypothetical savings.
Friday, 9 September 2011
Caroline joins coalition to reform faith schools
It’s great to see it announced today that Caroline Lucas has joined the Accord Coalition to reform faith schools.
This is an initiative that I was involved in founding a few years ago. It brings together teaching unions such as the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, religious groups, identifiably secular organisations like the British Humanist Association, as well as a range of individuals like author Philip Pullman, former education minister Polly Toynbee, former Minister for Education Baroness Blackstone and the former Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway.
The idea is to make faith schools more inclusive by bringing an end to their discrimination in both employment and admissions. Accord has a good databank of independent evidence on faith schools, but in summary they are more likely to have homophobic bullying, and take fewer children with Special Educational Needs and fewer eligible for free school meals.
The Accord Coalition also seeks an end to the legal requirement for all maintained schools (faith schools and others) to hold an act of collective worship each day. A BBC survey showed this week that not only do most parents not want their children to have to take part in this, but also that most schools aren’t holding them regularly.
I did an interview with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 live on the subject on Tuesday. You can listen to a snippet here.
This is an initiative that I was involved in founding a few years ago. It brings together teaching unions such as the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, religious groups, identifiably secular organisations like the British Humanist Association, as well as a range of individuals like author Philip Pullman, former education minister Polly Toynbee, former Minister for Education Baroness Blackstone and the former Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway.
The idea is to make faith schools more inclusive by bringing an end to their discrimination in both employment and admissions. Accord has a good databank of independent evidence on faith schools, but in summary they are more likely to have homophobic bullying, and take fewer children with Special Educational Needs and fewer eligible for free school meals.
The Accord Coalition also seeks an end to the legal requirement for all maintained schools (faith schools and others) to hold an act of collective worship each day. A BBC survey showed this week that not only do most parents not want their children to have to take part in this, but also that most schools aren’t holding them regularly.
I did an interview with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 live on the subject on Tuesday. You can listen to a snippet here.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
London elections – a choice between policy and celebrity
The news that ‘I’m A Celebrity…’ participant Brian Paddick is to stand as the Lib Dem candidate for mayor, seems to confirm that next year's contest for London mayor will be a clear choice between policy and celebrity.
The attraction to the limelight of both Livingstone and Johnson is well known. Indeed, Lembit Opik, who was unsuccessful in his bid to be the Lib Dem candidate stood on an explicitly ‘celebrity’ platform, arguing that his party needed someone of similar status.
But the choice of celebrity politicians with which Londoners are now faced, should be of concern for a different reason entirely. As we have seen with Boris Johnson over the last few years, celebrity can be compensation for some very uncreative, and poor policy-making. It also appears to contribute to a lack of accountability. It makes it easier for policians to charm their way out of difficult situations, without addressing the issues that really matter.
As Green mayoral candidate Jenny Jones has pointed out, what London needs is not more of the same, but fresh ideas for the economic and social climate which London now faces. If celebrity was ever affordable in easier times, it certainly isn't now that the stakes are so much higher.
As the cuts bite, times get tougher, and the election approaches, the importance of the choice between policy and celebrity will become even clearer.
The attraction to the limelight of both Livingstone and Johnson is well known. Indeed, Lembit Opik, who was unsuccessful in his bid to be the Lib Dem candidate stood on an explicitly ‘celebrity’ platform, arguing that his party needed someone of similar status.
“Boris and Ken are celebrity politicians. I fear the party doesn't grasp the implications of this”...he told the Standard, as he conceded defeat. His point? Paddick is a celebrity of sorts, but the Lib Dems needed a bigger one.
But the choice of celebrity politicians with which Londoners are now faced, should be of concern for a different reason entirely. As we have seen with Boris Johnson over the last few years, celebrity can be compensation for some very uncreative, and poor policy-making. It also appears to contribute to a lack of accountability. It makes it easier for policians to charm their way out of difficult situations, without addressing the issues that really matter.
As Green mayoral candidate Jenny Jones has pointed out, what London needs is not more of the same, but fresh ideas for the economic and social climate which London now faces. If celebrity was ever affordable in easier times, it certainly isn't now that the stakes are so much higher.
As the cuts bite, times get tougher, and the election approaches, the importance of the choice between policy and celebrity will become even clearer.
Monday, 5 September 2011
Money for disabled children fails to bring about accessible play area
Last week I had a second meeting with representatives of Lambeth council to try and address what can reasonably be described as huge failings concerning the new play area in Norwood Park.The new playground is based on water play, which if implemented correctly can produce activities which children of varying abilities can enjoy together.
The new play area is located 20 yards from another playground which is designed only for able-bodied children. Like most playgrounds in the borough, this has few (if any) accessible activities for children with impairments.
The idea of the new water play area located next to it was that it would provide an additional space with facilities that disabled children could access, but which would also be inclusive, so young people of all abilities could play together.
Accordingly, the new project brought together a number of funding streams and cost in excess of £250,000 including around £60,000 of Aiming High money for disabled children.
The project has been plagued by problems from the beginning, with allegations of mismanagement. Lambeth has already apologised for some of the events.
But now the play area has finally been completed it is being publicly celebrated as a great resource which can be accessed by all children in the area. Rather than being inclusive and accessible however, most of the area and activities are completely inaccessible to children and parents who use wheelchairs, and have impairments to their mobility. This is a moumental failing, given that it was funded and created to be quite the opposite. What in effect has been created is another segregated play area, despite the funding for disabled children.
There are for example three new sand play areas, but these have foot high rims all the way around making it impossible for a wheelchair user to access them. When I asked how these were inclusive and accessible, I was told that the have special bottoms under the sand, made of material that provides a firm base for wheelchairs and buggies. At present however no wheelchair or buggy can utilise them to discover whether they work.
The central activity for the water play are water pumps, which children use to dispense the water which then flows down channels. They are fundamental to the play activity. The pumps however are all too high for children in wheelchairs to use. Observation showed that they were even too high for some small children to use (the playground is designed for children up to 12 years of age). One has a large rock placed underneath it for children to climb on, but this means a wheelchair user cannot get near it.
When it comes to the central feature of the area - the channels down which the water flows, and in which children are supposed to play - all have been made too narrow for wheelchairs to fit. Even if wheelchairs could fit many of the channels have high rims which can not be crossed. The sides are also far too steep. This all has implications for many other children with physical impairments. It is only really agile, able-bodied children, who can climb down into them. This is a tragic, as wider, less steep, accessible channels might have provided an inclusive play environment throughout the area.
The exclusion continues across the other play activities. I was told that some activities were designed so that able-bodied and children with impairments could play together. However in many activities there is little, if any, chance of collaboration. Many tasks are clearly for the sole use of able-bodied children, with no realistic possibility of collaborative play. For example, this water mill over which water can be poured, is on the side of some rocks behind a wooden barrier, under which water can't even be transferred from one child to another. It would be hard to find a more inaccesible area in the whole playground in which to place the activity.
Other activities are also located behind wooden rails, presumably placed there for safety. Whilst safety is crucial, the decision to place key play activities on the other side of these barriers is extremely puzzling in an environment which is supposed to be inclusive.One redeeming feature is a ramp (in addition to many steps) which children can climb, at least to approach (if not use) some of the activities. But even with that, I was told, only half has been made usable for wheelchairs or buggies. 50% of the surface is too uneven. There is therefore only one way up and down for wheelchair users, whilst able-bodied children have an additional ramp all to themselves. Rather than an oversight, this I was told, was deliberate, in order to provide a challenging play environment for able-bodied children. It is important that able-bodied children have challenging play environments. However, the decision to create such a thing on a ramp has to be questionned, particularly given the predominance of steps and rocky terrain throughout most of the rest of the play area.
The list of problems and barriers goes on and on. The most serious concern however are the exposed edges which run throughout the playground, next to drops and sheer inclines of between a foot and several feet. Whilst in some areas wooden rails are used innapropriately and unnecessarily, in other areas it appears there are no safeguards at all. If a wheelchair user puts a wheel over the edge in many places, they are likely to have a serious accident (possibly a fatal one, particularly if a powered wheelchair user). This is compounded by the fact that some edges are already cracking and breaking. (This one moved when applied with pressure) 
The issue of safety was highlighted last year but the concerns were apparently dismissed.Some parents I have talked too are incensed. Children I have talked too are extremely disappointed. And it comes at a time when Lambeth Council has announced that it has signed up to the Every Disabled Child Matters Disabled Children’s Local Authority Charter.
As it currently stands, the play area is a monumental and expensive failure in its aim of providing accessible and inclusive play.
A lot of information has still to emerge. I have been told that much of the Aiming High money for disabled children was used to refurbish the toilets in the adjacent playground.
Along with parents and children, I have now met twice with representatives from Lambeth council and others who organised the project. It seems that there are a number of reasons for the failings – not least mis-management and a lack of proper consultation. I will continue to press for a full explanation about what has brought this situation about, and assurances that the same things do not happen again in the future, elsewhere.
The immediate task however is to try and do something to rectify the situation, and ensure changes are made to make as much of the play area as accessible as possible, within the constraints of what has now been created. Some of the failings are so large and inbuilt - such as the inaccessible water channels - that it may take huge upheaval and large expense to put things right. There are also the immediate safety concerns which must urgently be addressed.
Along with representatives from Lambeth, I have been with parents and children to visit the playground, highlighting the (dozens of) problems, and making suggestions for what changes might be made.
Now that the project is completed and the budget all spent, this will be a challenge. But inaction is simply not an option when such a sizeable number of children and parents have been so let down. Whether the council has a real commitment to inclusive play will be judged not just by the project, but the way that they respond to its huge failings.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Re-powering Streatham
Last month I attended a meeting organised by Transition Streatham, with a view to setting up a community-based energy company.
Several people locally were interested in the possibility of setting up a local not-for-profit initiative. (Similar plans are already moving forward in Brixton )
It comes as a new report from Ernst and Young suggests that falling solar costs and rising fossil fuel prices could make large-scale solar PV installations cost-competitive without government support within a decade.
The search is on for a suitable building which can house the first 10-15kW installation in Streatham (so if you know of anywhere you think might be suitable do get in touch).
If you would like to get involved, there is an open meeting on 15th September at 7.30pm, at The Streatham Business Centre, 1 Empire Mews, Streatham, SW16 2BF where the Re-powering Streatham plan will be outlined, there will be a presentation on way similar schemes have worked in Germany, and members of the board to drive the scheme forward will be selected.
If you would like to attend, send an email to film (at) transitionstreatham.org to book your place.
Several people locally were interested in the possibility of setting up a local not-for-profit initiative. (Similar plans are already moving forward in Brixton )
It comes as a new report from Ernst and Young suggests that falling solar costs and rising fossil fuel prices could make large-scale solar PV installations cost-competitive without government support within a decade.
The search is on for a suitable building which can house the first 10-15kW installation in Streatham (so if you know of anywhere you think might be suitable do get in touch).
If you would like to get involved, there is an open meeting on 15th September at 7.30pm, at The Streatham Business Centre, 1 Empire Mews, Streatham, SW16 2BF where the Re-powering Streatham plan will be outlined, there will be a presentation on way similar schemes have worked in Germany, and members of the board to drive the scheme forward will be selected.
If you would like to attend, send an email to film (at) transitionstreatham.org to book your place.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
London at a crossroads
Home Secretary Theresa May made an almost throwaway comment on Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning - that we have a tradition in this country of “policing by consent”.
To a large extent this is true. Our policing may have failed in many ways. But we have also avoided some of the heavier-handed and undesirable approaches evident in many countries around the world.
But we are now at a crossroads in London (and other parts of the country). The police were outnumbered and outmanoevered during the events of last night. So this can go one of two ways. There is talk this morning of the use of curfews, the army, watercannon and even rubber bullets. If these kinds of tactics are employed on a large scale, in the long run it will be hard to go back. It will likely end with more powers for the police, which it has been suggested have been part of the problem, not the solution. And it will further weaken the “policing by consent” approach, reinforcing the "us" and "them" divide.
Another way forward, and one far more in keeping with the British tradition of policing, is to use community power. We are already seeing it in action with the widespread clean-up initiatives taking place this morning throughout London, organised by local people. We have seen it too, with numerous stories last night of people helping one another and walking them home to ensure their safety, as well as local groups coming together to protect property non-violently (notably migrant communities). In contrast with groups employing social media to organise to loot and burn, there is a more hopeful story of groups organising to put things right.
But the two approaches are also distinct, and cannot easily be pursued at the same time. Again, we saw this last night, with police asking people to leave the streets so that they could get on with the job (which by implication did not involve local people). What might things have looked like if whole communities came out onto the streets instead in a well organised and intentional demonstration of solidarity?
The road that we now travel down will depend a great deal on how the problem is perceived. Despite the claims that this is “just criminality”, the picture that seems to be emerging is more specific. This seems to be largely (but not entirely) a phenomenon of some (and only a few) young people in a certain age range. The actions seem to be of a specific type – arson, robbery, looting and the destruction of property. And there seem to be socio-economic factors at work, including social exclusion and inequality.
The analysis is only just beginning, and the issues are complex. We shouldn’t rush in with sweeping generalisations. We should not engage in knee-jerk reactions which we will later come to regret. But neither can we afford to ignore what lies beneath. What we believe the problem to be will also shape the approach employed. Both the way we want to be policed and our beliefs about what has gone wrong, will determine our response.
It has been put well by Ally Fogg (reproduced here and hat tip to Mark Braud) who says:
What we may well be seeing is young people engaging in criminal acts due in part, or at least made far easier, by their disconnection, alienation and exclusion from society. (This is not an excuse, but to point to a potentially significant contributory factor). If this is the case, the answer is not more social exclusion, but social re-engagement and inclusion. Indeed, to fail to engage local communities and resorting primarily to heavy-handed approaches, may be inadequate in the short-term and make things far worse in the long-term.
There is no magic wand to wave. But a way forward surely lies in encouraging as much as possible the engagement and mobilisation of communities – particularly the friends, families, institutions and networks around the people at the centre of the current troubles - to address together the problems which lie at their heart.
To a large extent this is true. Our policing may have failed in many ways. But we have also avoided some of the heavier-handed and undesirable approaches evident in many countries around the world.
But we are now at a crossroads in London (and other parts of the country). The police were outnumbered and outmanoevered during the events of last night. So this can go one of two ways. There is talk this morning of the use of curfews, the army, watercannon and even rubber bullets. If these kinds of tactics are employed on a large scale, in the long run it will be hard to go back. It will likely end with more powers for the police, which it has been suggested have been part of the problem, not the solution. And it will further weaken the “policing by consent” approach, reinforcing the "us" and "them" divide.
Another way forward, and one far more in keeping with the British tradition of policing, is to use community power. We are already seeing it in action with the widespread clean-up initiatives taking place this morning throughout London, organised by local people. We have seen it too, with numerous stories last night of people helping one another and walking them home to ensure their safety, as well as local groups coming together to protect property non-violently (notably migrant communities). In contrast with groups employing social media to organise to loot and burn, there is a more hopeful story of groups organising to put things right.
But the two approaches are also distinct, and cannot easily be pursued at the same time. Again, we saw this last night, with police asking people to leave the streets so that they could get on with the job (which by implication did not involve local people). What might things have looked like if whole communities came out onto the streets instead in a well organised and intentional demonstration of solidarity?
The road that we now travel down will depend a great deal on how the problem is perceived. Despite the claims that this is “just criminality”, the picture that seems to be emerging is more specific. This seems to be largely (but not entirely) a phenomenon of some (and only a few) young people in a certain age range. The actions seem to be of a specific type – arson, robbery, looting and the destruction of property. And there seem to be socio-economic factors at work, including social exclusion and inequality.
The analysis is only just beginning, and the issues are complex. We shouldn’t rush in with sweeping generalisations. We should not engage in knee-jerk reactions which we will later come to regret. But neither can we afford to ignore what lies beneath. What we believe the problem to be will also shape the approach employed. Both the way we want to be policed and our beliefs about what has gone wrong, will determine our response.
It has been put well by Ally Fogg (reproduced here and hat tip to Mark Braud) who says:
Law and order is kept by a collective acceptance of mutual goals. If, as a society, we look after each other, offer everyone a share and a stake in the common weal, maintain some semblance of a Rousseauian Social Contract, then the vast majority of people will mostly stick to the rules without ever needing to see a police officer.
When people lose that sense of being looked after, no longer feel part of society, no longer feel like they have any kind of share in any kind of collective, the ties that bind begin to be broken.
Rioting, especially the type of vandalism & looting we've seen in London, is a sure sign that the social contract is unravelling around the edges. In the days and weeks and months to come, we shall see how far it has frayed.
There are few things more dangerous to a society than a populace with nothing left to lose.
What we may well be seeing is young people engaging in criminal acts due in part, or at least made far easier, by their disconnection, alienation and exclusion from society. (This is not an excuse, but to point to a potentially significant contributory factor). If this is the case, the answer is not more social exclusion, but social re-engagement and inclusion. Indeed, to fail to engage local communities and resorting primarily to heavy-handed approaches, may be inadequate in the short-term and make things far worse in the long-term.
There is no magic wand to wave. But a way forward surely lies in encouraging as much as possible the engagement and mobilisation of communities – particularly the friends, families, institutions and networks around the people at the centre of the current troubles - to address together the problems which lie at their heart.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Responding to Tottenham - and now Lambeth
The trouble that began in Tottenham has now spread to Lambeth.
Some politicians and commentators have gone no further than expressions of outrage, suggesting simply that what has happened isn’t supported by the overwhelming majority of people in a community, and heaping the blame on a few ‘criminals’.
But this does nothing to explain the timing, let alone make any headway in getting to the root of the problems and issues involved.
Several observations can be made, and there are concrete actions that should be taken:
1. To locate those involved in the rioting and looting ‘outside’ our communities is to wash our hands and abdicate responsibility. No one exists in a vacuum. What is taking place affects all our lives. Those directly involved also have friends, families, and surrounding networks, whose attitudes, opinions and behaviour will have a direct influence and bearing on what is going on. This is not simply about the behaviour of a handful of people, but the feelings and actions of whole communities.
2. Central are the relationships of these communities with the police, both in the broadest sense, but also in the events which were the catalyst for the rioting and looting - the shooting of Mark Duggan and the subsequent protest.
3. The Broadwater Farm riots in 1985 were triggered by the death of Cynthia Jarrett, who suffered a stroke after police officers searched her home. As we saw over her death the truth is a vital part of the healing and restoration process. A full and urgent investigation is needed into the shooting of Mark Duggan.
4. We need an urgent independent review of the wider relationship between police and local communities, and in particular of stop and search powers. I travelled through Brixton every day at the time of the Brixton riots 30 years ago, when the 'Sus' law under which anybody could be stopped and searched if officers merely suspected they might be planning to carry out a crime, were used. The Scarman report which looked into the riots eventually led to their abolition. But the impact of current laws needs to be urgently examined.
5. It is notable that the trouble has not taken place in the leafy suburbs, or the richer areas of London. The wider economic climate, in particular large rates of youth unemployment must be taken into account. The situation is made all the more worse by cuts to youth services. In Lambeth there have been cuts of £11.85m to the council’s children and youth services budget, including a £250,000 reduction to the youth offending team budget alone. This makes the possibilities of addressing the underlying problems even more remote. We need swift action to restore vital youth services.
Some politicians and commentators have gone no further than expressions of outrage, suggesting simply that what has happened isn’t supported by the overwhelming majority of people in a community, and heaping the blame on a few ‘criminals’.
But this does nothing to explain the timing, let alone make any headway in getting to the root of the problems and issues involved.
Several observations can be made, and there are concrete actions that should be taken:
1. To locate those involved in the rioting and looting ‘outside’ our communities is to wash our hands and abdicate responsibility. No one exists in a vacuum. What is taking place affects all our lives. Those directly involved also have friends, families, and surrounding networks, whose attitudes, opinions and behaviour will have a direct influence and bearing on what is going on. This is not simply about the behaviour of a handful of people, but the feelings and actions of whole communities.
2. Central are the relationships of these communities with the police, both in the broadest sense, but also in the events which were the catalyst for the rioting and looting - the shooting of Mark Duggan and the subsequent protest.
3. The Broadwater Farm riots in 1985 were triggered by the death of Cynthia Jarrett, who suffered a stroke after police officers searched her home. As we saw over her death the truth is a vital part of the healing and restoration process. A full and urgent investigation is needed into the shooting of Mark Duggan.
4. We need an urgent independent review of the wider relationship between police and local communities, and in particular of stop and search powers. I travelled through Brixton every day at the time of the Brixton riots 30 years ago, when the 'Sus' law under which anybody could be stopped and searched if officers merely suspected they might be planning to carry out a crime, were used. The Scarman report which looked into the riots eventually led to their abolition. But the impact of current laws needs to be urgently examined.
5. It is notable that the trouble has not taken place in the leafy suburbs, or the richer areas of London. The wider economic climate, in particular large rates of youth unemployment must be taken into account. The situation is made all the more worse by cuts to youth services. In Lambeth there have been cuts of £11.85m to the council’s children and youth services budget, including a £250,000 reduction to the youth offending team budget alone. This makes the possibilities of addressing the underlying problems even more remote. We need swift action to restore vital youth services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)