With the changes we are making to the structure of the Cabinet, the removal of one full Cabinet place and the introduction of four Deputy Cabinet members, Southwark's Labour Administration will have achieved savings of over £100,000 on the amount of money which we spend on councillor's allowances over the past 12 months. All of this money is contributing to the savings which we need to make so that we can carry on trying to provide high quality front-line services for Southwark's residents.
Within days of taking office last year we reversed Lib Dem/Tory increases and were able to make savings of over £70,000. This years changes will add another £30,000 to that sum.
Some have criticised our decision to introduce allowances of approximately £2,700 for the Deputy Cabinet members - but taken in the context of our overall savings I believe that we are demonstrating real efficiency.
We have already brought an end to the dither and delay of the previous administration - providing clear political leadership right across the borough. This is an administration which makes savings and delivers results for the people of Southwark.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
A Tour of the Aylesbury with Grant Shapps
This morning Grant Shapps, the Housing Minister, came down to the Aylesbury Estate to see how the Council is taking the project forward. The government undermined the project last November by removing £170 million of PFI credits, but since then we have taken stock and are approaching the project in a slightly different way.
The plans to build 4000 new homes on the existing Aylesbury site are ambitious, and depend on us being able to drive up land values in the early stages of the project. So it is at the early stages that the finances are most difficult. Whilst we were not expecting the Minister to provide any immediate financial help, he clearly demonstrated his interest in this major regeneration project.
We will be letting him know further details about how the finances work for the next phase of the scheme, as much will be affected by the Government's changes to housing benefit and grant subsidy for new homes. So the Minister indicated that he would like to look at the next phase as a 'case study'.
Delivering the Aylesbury regeneration will not be easy, but we have the political commitment and determination to make sure that it happens!
The plans to build 4000 new homes on the existing Aylesbury site are ambitious, and depend on us being able to drive up land values in the early stages of the project. So it is at the early stages that the finances are most difficult. Whilst we were not expecting the Minister to provide any immediate financial help, he clearly demonstrated his interest in this major regeneration project.
We will be letting him know further details about how the finances work for the next phase of the scheme, as much will be affected by the Government's changes to housing benefit and grant subsidy for new homes. So the Minister indicated that he would like to look at the next phase as a 'case study'.
Delivering the Aylesbury regeneration will not be easy, but we have the political commitment and determination to make sure that it happens!
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Cllr Tayo Situ, the Mayor of Southwark
My friend and colleague, and our Mayor of Southwark Cllr Tayo Situ died yesterday after a brave fight against cancer. His death is a grievous blow to his family, all those who knew him and to our borough of Southwark.
Tayo was one of life's truly gentle men. His life was informed by his religion and his devotion to his family and community. Even before his election as a councillor for Peckham Ward in 2002 Tayo was a respected community leader, and an effective representative of the Nigerian community in London and the United Kingdom.
After our election victory last May I discussed with Tayo what role he might take on in the new administration, and persuaded him that it would be an honour for his Labour colleagues if he were to become the new Mayor and First Citizen of our borough. He agreed, and I know from every conversation which I had with him since last May that he regarded it as a great privilege to be the Mayor of Southwark, and undertook the role with genuine pride and dignity. He met people and took part in events which he thoroughly enjoyed - and which showed him to be a great representative for our community and borough.
Tayo was also delighted to have seen his son, Michael, elected as a councillor in Livesey Ward last year.
He will be greatly missed by us all.
Friday, May 06, 2011
The Lane By-Election
A quick word on the result of The Lane by-election yesterday, which saw Rowenna Davis elected as a councillor with a majority of well over 2,000; the Lib Dems knocked into third place behind the Green Party; and a turnout of nearly 40%.
In short the result was stunning! This was the only local election taking place in London yesterday, and it saw a swing from the Lib Dems to Labour of 12.4%. In the best Peter Snow traditions our calculations suggest that if, just if, this swing were repeated across Southwark at the next local elections Labour would win 60 seats, and the Lib Dems would be reduced to just 3! Whilst I don't discount the possibility, even I have to admit that the prospect is pretty overwhelming!
Cllr Rowenna Davis will be a great asset for The Lane. She ran a superb and upbeat campaign, and I know that the many voters who met her were impressed by her. And Rowenna shares the commitment of our entire Labour Group to create a fairer future for all in Southwark - delivering free healthy school meals; improved housing; increased recycling and major regeneration projects which benefit the borough.
So well done to Rowenna and Southwark Labour!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Sir Simon Milton
I was very sorry to learn this morning of the untimely death at 49 of London's Deputy Mayor Sir Simon Milton. Simon has been Boris Johnson's Deputy and Chief of Staff since 2008 and was one of the most influential politicians in London. It is fair to say that if Simon supported or opposed a project it is likely that Boris would be of a similar view. His death does really leave a vacuum at City Hall.
I last saw Simon three weeks ago at a lunch given by Boris Johnson. There was little indication then of the illness which overtook him.
I had found Simon very easy to work with since last May. It is important for Southwark that we have a good working relationship with City Hall, and I always found him to be open to our ideas and proposals on planning and other subjects. We will miss him.
I last saw Simon three weeks ago at a lunch given by Boris Johnson. There was little indication then of the illness which overtook him.
I had found Simon very easy to work with since last May. It is important for Southwark that we have a good working relationship with City Hall, and I always found him to be open to our ideas and proposals on planning and other subjects. We will miss him.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Themed Council Assembly
Last night we held our first Council Assembly which adopted the procedure proposed by the Democracy Commission. This included a themed debate on 'The Future of Southwark' - a debate designed to throw up ideas about how the Council engages with the community in future, particularly at this time as we are facing unprecedented cuts to our budget. As I have said many times before the Council simply will not be able to do all of the things which it has done in the past and in the same way, so there is a need for some really creative thinking and innovation.
It was an opportunity for backbench and opposition councillors to give their input, all of which was going to be considered by my colleague Fiona Colley in her capacity as Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, in charge of the Council's Business Plan.
Labour members were absolutely fizzing with ideas and suggestions during the debate, with some exceptional contributions from Cllrs Patrick Diamond, Michael Situ and Mark Williams. Bizarrely the Lib Dem group staged a half-hearted walkout at the start of the debate. I am not sure why, or why they thought that the Future of Southwark was not an important issue for discussion. I do have to say that their contributions to the debate were petty and banal, complaining about process and concentrating on some really parochial issues. There was a complete lack of invention and innovation in their contributions, which was disappointing, and I got the feeling by the end of the debate that they realised that they had made a fundamental mistake in their approach.
But it just underlined for me that Southwark Labour Group has a depth and strength of ideas and experience which is unmatched in our borough.
It was an opportunity for backbench and opposition councillors to give their input, all of which was going to be considered by my colleague Fiona Colley in her capacity as Cabinet Member for Corporate Strategy, in charge of the Council's Business Plan.
Labour members were absolutely fizzing with ideas and suggestions during the debate, with some exceptional contributions from Cllrs Patrick Diamond, Michael Situ and Mark Williams. Bizarrely the Lib Dem group staged a half-hearted walkout at the start of the debate. I am not sure why, or why they thought that the Future of Southwark was not an important issue for discussion. I do have to say that their contributions to the debate were petty and banal, complaining about process and concentrating on some really parochial issues. There was a complete lack of invention and innovation in their contributions, which was disappointing, and I got the feeling by the end of the debate that they realised that they had made a fundamental mistake in their approach.
But it just underlined for me that Southwark Labour Group has a depth and strength of ideas and experience which is unmatched in our borough.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Camberwell Baths Re-Open!
Last Saturday we celebrated the re-opening of Camberwell Baths. It is 120 years since they first opened their doors to the public, and until 2008 it was feared that those doors might close and never re-open. But with some great support from Lewis Robinson as the incoming executive member for Culture, Leisure and Sport; £1.4 million from the last Labour Government after a visit by the then-minister, Gerry Sutcliffe; continued campaigning by local councillors and Harriet Harman MP, and the tireless work of the Camberwell Baths Campaign and Helen and Chris Owen in particular, over £5 million was found to refurbish the Victorian baths.
Unlike the original opening we did not have the Lord Mayor of London as guest of honour, but echoing events of 1892 we did have synchronised swimming featuring Jo Brand! An unlikely synchronised swimmer I accept, but incredibly entertaining and helping to create a truly wonderful atmosphere.
Well done to everyone on some excellent work - and in particular the Southwark team of officers who have embraced and delivered this brilliant project on time and on budget!
Unlike the original opening we did not have the Lord Mayor of London as guest of honour, but echoing events of 1892 we did have synchronised swimming featuring Jo Brand! An unlikely synchronised swimmer I accept, but incredibly entertaining and helping to create a truly wonderful atmosphere.
Well done to everyone on some excellent work - and in particular the Southwark team of officers who have embraced and delivered this brilliant project on time and on budget!
Monday, March 14, 2011
Mobile Surgery
Veronica and I were out on the Champion Hill Estate at the weekend for our latest mobile surgery. A water main burst on the estate before Christmas and a temporary water pipe system is still operating at the bottom of the estate. I will be pursuing this today as it seems an incredibly long time for any 'temporary' solution to a major problem.
I was struck at the number of properties where the residents complained about real damp problems. From what I saw this is not a question of simply improving ventilation, but some structural issues which need fundamental resolution. It is so dispiriting to see residents having to live with dark mould growing on bedroom and living room walls. Again Veronica and I will be looking to see what can be done - but these kinds of issues should be tackled by our administration's commitment to make every home warm, dry and safe.
Some of these same issues of damp were also found on the East Dulwich Estate yesterday - which was disappointing given the fact that we are coming to the end of major regeneration works there. So the work goes on!
I was struck at the number of properties where the residents complained about real damp problems. From what I saw this is not a question of simply improving ventilation, but some structural issues which need fundamental resolution. It is so dispiriting to see residents having to live with dark mould growing on bedroom and living room walls. Again Veronica and I will be looking to see what can be done - but these kinds of issues should be tackled by our administration's commitment to make every home warm, dry and safe.
Some of these same issues of damp were also found on the East Dulwich Estate yesterday - which was disappointing given the fact that we are coming to the end of major regeneration works there. So the work goes on!
Friday, March 11, 2011
Congratulations Cllr Mark Williams
Mark Williams was elected as the new Councillor for Brunswick Park ward last night. On a turnout of 34.2% - very high for a council by-election, Labour polled 1,981 votes; LibDems 630; Green Party 231; Conservative 129 and Independent 70 votes. So Labour polled over 65% of the vote - up from 53% in the local elections last year. The Libs vote was down on last year to under 21% whilst the Tory vote collapsed to just over 4%.
This means that the vote for the coalition parties collapsed from 31.5% to 25% - a bad result. In 2006, when the Lib Dems last did any work and visited Camberwell, their vote was over 36%, and the coalition parties polled about 41%. I am no expert on political swing, but it's a great result for Mark and Labour! It is particularly gratifying given the nasty and negative campaign which the Lib Dems pursued in this campaign.
Labour fought the campaign on the issues facing Camberwell and Southwark, and we received a great endorsement of the work we are doing and the choices we are making as a new administration.
Thanks to the voters of Brunswick Park - I know that Cllr Mark Williams and the Southwark Labour team will not let you down.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Welcome Bishop Christopher!
Yesterday I was delighted to be at Southwark Cathedral for the enthronement of Christopher Chessun as the tenth Bishop of Southwark. Bishop Christopher has been the Bishop of Woolwich for the past 6 years prior to his appointment to Southwark - so he knows our part of South London very well. I was also reminded that he has previously served as Mayor's Chaplain to Cllr Eliza Mann during her year of office.
It was an uplifting service and the choir sang brilliantly. It was good to see Bishop Tom Butler present to hand over the bishop's crosier to his successor.
There was applause from the congregation for four Bishops who had travelled from Zimbabwe for the service. They are having to deal with a great deal of abuse and repression in their own country from the authorities.
Special mention to my colleague and Southwark Mayor, Cllr Tayo Situ, who read the first lesson.
The photo shows Bishop Christopher blessing his new Diocese and the river!
Friday, March 04, 2011
Electoral Calculus
Electoral Calculus is one of those websites that politicos like to look at. It takes opinion polls and election results and uses that information to predict the outcome of the next general election in parliamentary seats.
At the moment it is predicting that Labour have a 100% chance of winning Camberwell and Peckham, a 97.9% chance of winning Dulwich and West Norwood, and......wait for it....a 71% chance of winning Bermondsey and Old Southwark. That last result would be a very significant Labour gain. It gives the Lib Dems just a 22% chance of winning.
Now I accept that no opinion poll or prediction matters really - it is only the election result itself which counts. And there are always local factors which can affect any result.
But I have to say it certainly gives me a lift to see how Labour support is firming up in Southwark. And I dare say it must be sending a cold shiver down the spines of some other politicians and political parties.
You can follow Electoral Calculus here
At the moment it is predicting that Labour have a 100% chance of winning Camberwell and Peckham, a 97.9% chance of winning Dulwich and West Norwood, and......wait for it....a 71% chance of winning Bermondsey and Old Southwark. That last result would be a very significant Labour gain. It gives the Lib Dems just a 22% chance of winning.
Now I accept that no opinion poll or prediction matters really - it is only the election result itself which counts. And there are always local factors which can affect any result.
But I have to say it certainly gives me a lift to see how Labour support is firming up in Southwark. And I dare say it must be sending a cold shiver down the spines of some other politicians and political parties.
You can follow Electoral Calculus here
Brunswick Park By-Election
Next Thursday voters in Brunswick Park ward will be able to cast their votes in a council by-election. Mark Williams, a local resident in Vestry Road in Brunswick Park, is Labour's candidate. He has been doing a great job on the campaign trail and will be an excellent representative for the area if he is elected next week.
Brunswick Park is a ward of contrasts. There are some pockets of affluence in the south of the ward, and in the north of the ward some major estates which are still in need of 'Decent Homes' works. It is a ward which will really benefit from Labour's manifesto commitments to make every council home 'Warm. Dry and Safe' and to provide free healthy school meals to all of our primary school children.
The Lib Dems have run a purely negative campaign which has offended many of the voters I have spoken to. It's a shame that they have nothing positive to say to the people of Camberwell. But with the national picture looking so bad for them they are probably in a state of near meltdown. Some of the other minor parties have run much more positive campaigns.
Well done and good luck to Mark Williams for running a positive and honest campaign, and for being a candidate Labour can be proud of!
Brunswick Park is a ward of contrasts. There are some pockets of affluence in the south of the ward, and in the north of the ward some major estates which are still in need of 'Decent Homes' works. It is a ward which will really benefit from Labour's manifesto commitments to make every council home 'Warm. Dry and Safe' and to provide free healthy school meals to all of our primary school children.
The Lib Dems have run a purely negative campaign which has offended many of the voters I have spoken to. It's a shame that they have nothing positive to say to the people of Camberwell. But with the national picture looking so bad for them they are probably in a state of near meltdown. Some of the other minor parties have run much more positive campaigns.
Well done and good luck to Mark Williams for running a positive and honest campaign, and for being a candidate Labour can be proud of!
Day Centres and Lunch Clubs
On Wednesday I sat down with representatives of most of the Day Centres and Lunch Clubs who will be affected by some of the decisions we took in last week's budget. The meeting was chaired by my colleague Cllr Dora Dixon-Fyle, the Cabinet Member for Adult Health and Social Care.
Although we were discussing some really difficult funding cuts I was pleased with the tone and substance of the meeting. There was a clear understanding from all of the groups about where the blame for these cuts really lies - i.e. with the Government; and a fantastic spirit and commitment to co-operation with the Council and amongst the groups themselves to find a way that they might continue to provide services in the future, but without the method and level of financial support which the Council currently provides.
We agreed to get together in about 6 weeks time to see what progress has been made, but in the meantime Council Assembly's decision to provide an additional £500,000 of funding to the groups means that some of the panic and urgency of those discussions has been eased.
Although we were discussing some really difficult funding cuts I was pleased with the tone and substance of the meeting. There was a clear understanding from all of the groups about where the blame for these cuts really lies - i.e. with the Government; and a fantastic spirit and commitment to co-operation with the Council and amongst the groups themselves to find a way that they might continue to provide services in the future, but without the method and level of financial support which the Council currently provides.
We agreed to get together in about 6 weeks time to see what progress has been made, but in the meantime Council Assembly's decision to provide an additional £500,000 of funding to the groups means that some of the panic and urgency of those discussions has been eased.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Southwark Labour's Budget
On Tuesday Southwark Labour's budget was approved at a meeting of councillors. I was pleased that despite some initial protests and screaming from Lib Dem councillors we were able to hold the meeting in public, so that the residents of our borough could see the arguments made and the democratic process take place. Sadly meetings in Lambeth and Islington have been disrupted by protesters and been forced to take place in private.
It has been a tough budget process - finding £34 million of cuts forced on us by the Tory / Lib Dem government, but at the same time adhering to our budget principles and trying to deliver on the manifesto which we were elected on just 9 months ago.
Every department was asked to deliver savings of 25% over the next three years, but after listening to public representations during the budget consultation process we invested further sums in adult social care and children's services meaning that those departments have only been required to find savings of about 20%. I have said time and again, but it is worth repeating, that you cannot take £34 million out of our council's budget without having some impact on front-line services. And there are services which will be impacted by the decisions which we took on Tuesday night.
At the moment the Council supports 12 Day Centres and Lunch Clubs in the borough. Our initial proposals took £1 million out of this budget and envisaged 3 of the centres becoming hubs to replace the others. But the speed with which we proposed to make these changes alarmed some of the groups and users so it was sensible that we put back £500,000 into the budget to help these groups develop a different working model in the months ahead.
We took some other tough decisions which will see a reduction in spending in children's services, but on the advice of expert officers I feel reassured that alternatives to the services which we provided can be found and that no child who needs the protection of our council will be affected.
There were some innovative proposals in the budget - a £1 million Voluntary Sector Transition Fund to help voluntary groups continue through this difficult financial climate; a £1 million Youth Fund - particularly aimed at helping those young people aged 16 - 18 who have seen their future prospects blighted by this Coalition Government as tuition fees have risen, educational maintenance allowance has been removed and youth unemployment soared to 22% in Southwark; and a £200,000 Social Care Innovation Fund - helping groups who want to change but need funding to achieve that change.
And we were able to deliver on our manifesto pledges to halve the price of Meals on Wheels and further roll out our plan to give every primary school child in the borough a free healthy school meal. This policy has been criticised by our increasingly desperate political opponents as being a plan to feed "rich kids"! Perhaps they are confusing Southwark with somewhere else - but in this borough anything which tackles childhood obesity and helps that vast majority of families who are truly struggling to get by has to be a good thing. So I make no apologies for delivering on this pledge.
We will continue to deliver sports to young people - and I am hopeful that we will soon be able to announce what we will be doing with Southwark Community Games in the near future. Our twelve libraries will stay open - although they will have to deliver savings which I hope we can find when we undertake a review through until the Autumn. The streets of our borough should remain clean and we will deliver the £250 increase for all of our employees earning under £21,000 - a commitment which many local authorities have walked away from.
So, whilst we have found the savings Government required it has not been easy. The cuts are too far and too fast and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding by the Lib Dems and Tories in central government of the important role which local government undertakes.
We will continue to help those groups who want to engage with us as we deliver change across Southwark. But we will be doing so in a very different financial climate after Tuesday.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
What's the basis for your claims Simon?
The Lib Dems sometimes appear to have only a nodding acquaintance with facts. Never let a good story get in the way of the truth must be the motto in Lib Dem HQ! In Southwark, as well as putting out horrendous literature in the Brunswick Park by-election and peddling a malicious lie about a Labour Councillor's council tax status, they twist reality in weird ways. Labour plans for a new library in Camberwell are presented by the Lib Dems as plans to build a new benefit office on Camberwell Green. I don't understand who benefits from this kind of distortion. Perhaps it's just a case of desperate times requiring desperate measures?
But I was horrified to hear Simon Hughes on The Politics Show at the weekend claiming that we as a Labour Council in Southwark were deliberately making political choices in our budget which were "blatantly unfair" and that we were deliberately making more council employees redundant than was necessary in order to make a point against the government.
This is utter nonsense. We have made choices in our budget which are informed by our values and budget principles - believe it or not Simon some of us still have those. We anticipate that we will have to make 150 people redundant this year on the basis of this year's budget. Although any job loss is a job loss too many, I think that's not as bad as it might have been when you consider that we are losing the equivalent of one sixth of our budget - and compares very favourably with Lib Dem run Newcastle which is laying off 2000 of its' staff.
Like his Lib Dem colleagues on the Council, Mr Hughes has made no contact with me about our budget choices or made any suggestions of his own. Throwing about loose allegations and accusations for the sake of a soundbite is irresponsible and bad politics. So, what is the basis for your claims Simon?
But I was horrified to hear Simon Hughes on The Politics Show at the weekend claiming that we as a Labour Council in Southwark were deliberately making political choices in our budget which were "blatantly unfair" and that we were deliberately making more council employees redundant than was necessary in order to make a point against the government.
This is utter nonsense. We have made choices in our budget which are informed by our values and budget principles - believe it or not Simon some of us still have those. We anticipate that we will have to make 150 people redundant this year on the basis of this year's budget. Although any job loss is a job loss too many, I think that's not as bad as it might have been when you consider that we are losing the equivalent of one sixth of our budget - and compares very favourably with Lib Dem run Newcastle which is laying off 2000 of its' staff.
Like his Lib Dem colleagues on the Council, Mr Hughes has made no contact with me about our budget choices or made any suggestions of his own. Throwing about loose allegations and accusations for the sake of a soundbite is irresponsible and bad politics. So, what is the basis for your claims Simon?
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Southwark Budget Consultation
In my post below I have mentioned the 13 Deputations which we received at Cabinet last week. Some may argue differently, but I think that the budget process we have undertaken this year has made a difference to the choices which we will make, and to the groups affected by those choices. I have just received a note from one of the groups who came to speak to us which seems to support this. Here is an extract from that note:
"I do not envy your position as a council; the timescale given to implement cuts of this magnitude defies belief and flies in the face of good practice. It is clear that you are trying to give us all as much opportunity as possible to share our concerns / put a case for our own work; this is appreciated."
I am not sure that I need to add any more.
"I do not envy your position as a council; the timescale given to implement cuts of this magnitude defies belief and flies in the face of good practice. It is clear that you are trying to give us all as much opportunity as possible to share our concerns / put a case for our own work; this is appreciated."
I am not sure that I need to add any more.
Southwark Lib Dems Dilemma II
Last week 91 Lib Dem Council and Group Leaders wrote to The Times with a tough message about the Government cuts being forced on local government by their own national leaders. This extract from the letter echoes much of what I have been saying in Southwark for some time:
"These [government] cuts will have an undoubted impact on all frontline council services, including care services to the vulnerable.
Rather than assist the country’s recovery by making public-sector savings in a way that can protect local economies and the frontline, the cuts are so structured that they will do the opposite. The local government settlement will take a major hit in this coming financial year and further, smaller, cuts in subsequent years. This front-loading means councils do not have the lead-in time necessary to re-engineer services on a lower-cost base and ease staff cuts without forced, expensive redundancies. Inexplicably, local government is also being denied the opportunity to spread the cost of reorganisation and downsizing over several years — at no cost to central government — which just makes even bigger in-year cuts inevitable The Secretary of State’s role should be to facilitate necessary savings while promoting the advance of localism and the Big Society. Unfortunately, Eric Pickles has felt it better to shake a stick at councillors than work with us."
Now, remember, this is a letter from Lib Dems. I carefully scanned the signatories to the letter to see whether it was supported by Southwark's Lib Dems - who have said that they will speak out in support of our residents and protect them from the worst of the Government's proposals. But they had not signed the letter. So I wrote to the local Leader of the Lib Dems and asked her why not.
This is her reply:
"Dear Peter,
Thanks very much for your letter dated 10th February. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you the cuts in our borough and the poor choices which you and your cabinet are making at the moment.
I did not sign the letter about Eric Pickles as this is not the approach which I wished to take. I prefer not to be confrontational, but to try to make progress in a consensual way. As you know, Liberal Democrats from Southwark have been happy to join you in discussions with Government Ministers about how to get the best deal for Southwark.
I also strongly believe that the poor decisions which are being made in Southwark at the moment are not simply the fault of the Government. We all know that cuts have to be made in public spending as a result of the huge deficit left by the Labour Government. I am sure I don't need to remind you that 'there was no money left' as Liam Byrne described the legacy left by your party in Government.
So while we accept that savings need to be made, the Liberal Democrat group in Southwark believes that your supposedly open and transparent budget process has been a complete farce. I have listened to a large number of local groups in recent weeks who have described conflicting information, a lack of response from cabinet members, uncertainty, sudden decisions with no discussion and complete chaos and last minute announcements with no proper notice.
You appear to be intent on making cuts in the front line services which our hard working voluntary sector provides. You are choosing to cut services for early years and older people with little thought to how much more this will cost the council in the long run. You don't have the honesty to let communities know which of our libraries you are closing. You are choosing to put £4 million into contingency funds this year while withdrawing the far smaller tens of thousands upon which local groups depend for their very survival.
I suggest, therefore, that you worry less about producing press releases about whether I am signing letters to The Times. You need to concentrate on the very real choices which the council must make and actually listen to the people of this borough who are desperately asking to be heard.
Best wishes,
Anood
Councillor Anood Al-Samerai
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Riverside Ward
Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group"
For the sake of completeness this is my response to Cllr Al-Samerai's reply:
"Dear Anood,
Thank you for your reply. I am not sure that it evidences your stated desire of working in a consensual rather than confrontational manner, but consistency is not an obvious LibDem trait at present.
Furthermore, whilst you are critical of Labour's budget choices in Southwark you do not state what choices Southwark LibDems would make in the face of these unprecedented budget cuts. If you were even remotely serious about working in a consensual fashion you and your Group would have been making alternative proposals during the consultation period, rather than simply criticising our proposals developed in consultation with our residents.
It seems clear to me that Southwark LibDems are even more isolated than ever - both from the politics of your national colleagues and from the reality of the budget cuts we are facing. It is amazing that so many other LibDem councillors around the country recognise the damage which your Government's cuts will cause to front-line services and are prepared to say so, but you and your colleagues believe that there will be no impact in Southwark - despite the fact that we face the largest cash budget cut of any London borough. Your silence is a betrayal of those you claim to represent.
You and your group have a choice to make - participate constructively in the budget process and make the case for Southwark at all levels, or continue to indulge in juvenile politics which serves no one - least of all the most vulnerable residents of our borough.
Yours sincerely,
Peter
Cllr Peter John,
Leader of Southwark Council,
Labour Councillor for South Camberwell."
There are some really serious issues here. How can we take Southwark's Lib Dems criticisms of us seriously when (a) they have put forward no alternative budget proposals themselves during the consultation process and (b) even their own colleagues around the country argue that front-line services will be hit by these cuts.
It may be that Southwark's Lib Dems come along to our budget meeting on the 22nd of February, try to amend the budget and argue that we don't need to make the savings which we are proposing. But that will be too late to be serious. All alternative proposals have to be considered and their impact thought through. So turning up at the budget meeting with a shopping list of changes will not give us that opportunity.
Like all other residents and groups in Southwark the Lib Dems have had the opportunity of making proposals and suggesting alternatives during our lengthy consultation process. Last week we received 13 different deputations at our Cabinet meeting - all of whose proposals and arguments we will consider again tomorrow. There were none from the Lib Dem group.
So you have to ask yourself, if Southwark's Lib Dems cannot even be bothered to put forward even one single proposal for an alternative approach to the budget in our budget consultation, whose interests are they representing, and who are they standing up for?
"These [government] cuts will have an undoubted impact on all frontline council services, including care services to the vulnerable.
Rather than assist the country’s recovery by making public-sector savings in a way that can protect local economies and the frontline, the cuts are so structured that they will do the opposite. The local government settlement will take a major hit in this coming financial year and further, smaller, cuts in subsequent years. This front-loading means councils do not have the lead-in time necessary to re-engineer services on a lower-cost base and ease staff cuts without forced, expensive redundancies. Inexplicably, local government is also being denied the opportunity to spread the cost of reorganisation and downsizing over several years — at no cost to central government — which just makes even bigger in-year cuts inevitable The Secretary of State’s role should be to facilitate necessary savings while promoting the advance of localism and the Big Society. Unfortunately, Eric Pickles has felt it better to shake a stick at councillors than work with us."
Now, remember, this is a letter from Lib Dems. I carefully scanned the signatories to the letter to see whether it was supported by Southwark's Lib Dems - who have said that they will speak out in support of our residents and protect them from the worst of the Government's proposals. But they had not signed the letter. So I wrote to the local Leader of the Lib Dems and asked her why not.
This is her reply:
"Dear Peter,
Thanks very much for your letter dated 10th February. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you the cuts in our borough and the poor choices which you and your cabinet are making at the moment.
I did not sign the letter about Eric Pickles as this is not the approach which I wished to take. I prefer not to be confrontational, but to try to make progress in a consensual way. As you know, Liberal Democrats from Southwark have been happy to join you in discussions with Government Ministers about how to get the best deal for Southwark.
I also strongly believe that the poor decisions which are being made in Southwark at the moment are not simply the fault of the Government. We all know that cuts have to be made in public spending as a result of the huge deficit left by the Labour Government. I am sure I don't need to remind you that 'there was no money left' as Liam Byrne described the legacy left by your party in Government.
So while we accept that savings need to be made, the Liberal Democrat group in Southwark believes that your supposedly open and transparent budget process has been a complete farce. I have listened to a large number of local groups in recent weeks who have described conflicting information, a lack of response from cabinet members, uncertainty, sudden decisions with no discussion and complete chaos and last minute announcements with no proper notice.
You appear to be intent on making cuts in the front line services which our hard working voluntary sector provides. You are choosing to cut services for early years and older people with little thought to how much more this will cost the council in the long run. You don't have the honesty to let communities know which of our libraries you are closing. You are choosing to put £4 million into contingency funds this year while withdrawing the far smaller tens of thousands upon which local groups depend for their very survival.
I suggest, therefore, that you worry less about producing press releases about whether I am signing letters to The Times. You need to concentrate on the very real choices which the council must make and actually listen to the people of this borough who are desperately asking to be heard.
Best wishes,
Anood
Councillor Anood Al-Samerai
Liberal Democrat Councillor for Riverside Ward
Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group"
For the sake of completeness this is my response to Cllr Al-Samerai's reply:
"Dear Anood,
Thank you for your reply. I am not sure that it evidences your stated desire of working in a consensual rather than confrontational manner, but consistency is not an obvious LibDem trait at present.
Furthermore, whilst you are critical of Labour's budget choices in Southwark you do not state what choices Southwark LibDems would make in the face of these unprecedented budget cuts. If you were even remotely serious about working in a consensual fashion you and your Group would have been making alternative proposals during the consultation period, rather than simply criticising our proposals developed in consultation with our residents.
It seems clear to me that Southwark LibDems are even more isolated than ever - both from the politics of your national colleagues and from the reality of the budget cuts we are facing. It is amazing that so many other LibDem councillors around the country recognise the damage which your Government's cuts will cause to front-line services and are prepared to say so, but you and your colleagues believe that there will be no impact in Southwark - despite the fact that we face the largest cash budget cut of any London borough. Your silence is a betrayal of those you claim to represent.
You and your group have a choice to make - participate constructively in the budget process and make the case for Southwark at all levels, or continue to indulge in juvenile politics which serves no one - least of all the most vulnerable residents of our borough.
Yours sincerely,
Peter
Cllr Peter John,
Leader of Southwark Council,
Labour Councillor for South Camberwell."
There are some really serious issues here. How can we take Southwark's Lib Dems criticisms of us seriously when (a) they have put forward no alternative budget proposals themselves during the consultation process and (b) even their own colleagues around the country argue that front-line services will be hit by these cuts.
It may be that Southwark's Lib Dems come along to our budget meeting on the 22nd of February, try to amend the budget and argue that we don't need to make the savings which we are proposing. But that will be too late to be serious. All alternative proposals have to be considered and their impact thought through. So turning up at the budget meeting with a shopping list of changes will not give us that opportunity.
Like all other residents and groups in Southwark the Lib Dems have had the opportunity of making proposals and suggesting alternatives during our lengthy consultation process. Last week we received 13 different deputations at our Cabinet meeting - all of whose proposals and arguments we will consider again tomorrow. There were none from the Lib Dem group.
So you have to ask yourself, if Southwark's Lib Dems cannot even be bothered to put forward even one single proposal for an alternative approach to the budget in our budget consultation, whose interests are they representing, and who are they standing up for?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Southwark Lib Dems' Dilemma
I have been pondering what the result in the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election means for Southwark, and in particular for Southwark's LibDems. It seems clear that many of those who voted LibDem in Oldham in May 2010 switched their votes to Labour's candidate Debbie Abrahams in this by-election. And it seems equally cleat that many of those who voted Conservative in May 2010 moved their votes to the LibDems. There is no other logical explanation for the collapse of the Tory vote and the maintenance of the LibDems share of the vote.
So what does this mean in Southwark? At the moment I get the feeling that Simon Hughes and the Southwark LibDems are trying to carry on as if nothing has changed since last May. They are trying to oppose Government policy when it doesn't suit them, and then try to blame Labour's administration in Southwark for any difficult choices which we are obliged to make as a result of the Government's cuts.
But the difficulty for them is that things did change last May, and changed very significantly. Whether they like it or not the national LibDem Party chose to enter into a coalition with the Conservatives, and thereby indicated that the LibDem Party nationally preferred a right-wing solution to the dilemma posed by the election results to a left-wing or progressive solution. A formal coalition with the Conservatives was not an inevitable choice for the LibDems - they chose 5 years of what they hope to be guaranteed power with a right-wing party, rather than any more pragmatic solution. And no decision since May 2010 would seem to demonstrate that Nick Clegg's LibDems are not prepared to sign up whole-heartedly to the Conservative's approach.
At the end of the day national political parties are just that - national. They are led by a single Leader who sets the policy tone and framework and becomes the living embodiment of what the Party represents and offers to the electorate. Even the Green Party has recognised the need for a single identifiable Leader. And in national political parties other senior elected representatives "toe the party line" and demonstrate their support for what the Leader and senior figures say and do. Both the Conservatives and Labour know what happens when that does not occur! What the leadership of the Party does is important. Sometimes you can disagree with a particular policy approach, but it becomes impossible really to retain credibility as a Party member or supporter if you disagree with the national leadership's fundamental direction of travel.
So the point I'm making is that Southwark Lib Dems do have to recognise that their party's direction of travel is to the right. And that direction looks set firm. They also have to recognise that the Southwark Lib Dem party does not exist in isolation from their national party - after all Simon Hughes is the national Party Deputy Leader.
I have no doubt that many Lib Dem councillors, members and supporters in Southwark are extremely uncomfortable with this lurch to the right by their Party. And there will be many who recognise that if the electorate in Southwark behave as the electorate in Oldham have, Southwark's Lib Dems face real electoral difficulties.
Labour remains the only party of the left and centre-left, and all that we do in Southwark will be true to our core political beliefs and principles, representing the best in progressive politics. So I say to all Lib Dem councillors, members and supporters in Southwark - if you still wish to be part of the progressive politics of our country and our borough there will always be a place for you with Labour. It is your national party which has moved - not you or your beliefs. If you want to be a relevant part of the debate going forward don't think you have to put yourselves through the agony of pretending to defend Conservative policies - but join with Labour in fashioning a real alternative.
So what does this mean in Southwark? At the moment I get the feeling that Simon Hughes and the Southwark LibDems are trying to carry on as if nothing has changed since last May. They are trying to oppose Government policy when it doesn't suit them, and then try to blame Labour's administration in Southwark for any difficult choices which we are obliged to make as a result of the Government's cuts.
But the difficulty for them is that things did change last May, and changed very significantly. Whether they like it or not the national LibDem Party chose to enter into a coalition with the Conservatives, and thereby indicated that the LibDem Party nationally preferred a right-wing solution to the dilemma posed by the election results to a left-wing or progressive solution. A formal coalition with the Conservatives was not an inevitable choice for the LibDems - they chose 5 years of what they hope to be guaranteed power with a right-wing party, rather than any more pragmatic solution. And no decision since May 2010 would seem to demonstrate that Nick Clegg's LibDems are not prepared to sign up whole-heartedly to the Conservative's approach.
At the end of the day national political parties are just that - national. They are led by a single Leader who sets the policy tone and framework and becomes the living embodiment of what the Party represents and offers to the electorate. Even the Green Party has recognised the need for a single identifiable Leader. And in national political parties other senior elected representatives "toe the party line" and demonstrate their support for what the Leader and senior figures say and do. Both the Conservatives and Labour know what happens when that does not occur! What the leadership of the Party does is important. Sometimes you can disagree with a particular policy approach, but it becomes impossible really to retain credibility as a Party member or supporter if you disagree with the national leadership's fundamental direction of travel.
So the point I'm making is that Southwark Lib Dems do have to recognise that their party's direction of travel is to the right. And that direction looks set firm. They also have to recognise that the Southwark Lib Dem party does not exist in isolation from their national party - after all Simon Hughes is the national Party Deputy Leader.
I have no doubt that many Lib Dem councillors, members and supporters in Southwark are extremely uncomfortable with this lurch to the right by their Party. And there will be many who recognise that if the electorate in Southwark behave as the electorate in Oldham have, Southwark's Lib Dems face real electoral difficulties.
Labour remains the only party of the left and centre-left, and all that we do in Southwark will be true to our core political beliefs and principles, representing the best in progressive politics. So I say to all Lib Dem councillors, members and supporters in Southwark - if you still wish to be part of the progressive politics of our country and our borough there will always be a place for you with Labour. It is your national party which has moved - not you or your beliefs. If you want to be a relevant part of the debate going forward don't think you have to put yourselves through the agony of pretending to defend Conservative policies - but join with Labour in fashioning a real alternative.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Southwark's Budget 2011
Later today I will be meeting with Grant Shapps MP, the Local Government Minister, to make the case for additional funding for Southwark in the next financial year. Southwark is the hardest hit of all London local authorities in the amount of money it will lose from Government grant next year - £29.7 million; with a further £17.2 million being taken next year.
This level of cuts is unprecedented and will mean that we will have to make some very difficult choices here in Southwark. No department or service will be unscathed - it is simply impossible for us to make 11% less money pay for all the same services. After you add in inflation costs and other unavoidable cost pressures the cut is equivalent to nearly £60 million.
Our meeting with Mr Shapps will also be attended by all three Southwark MPs, Harriet Harman, Simon Hughes and Tessa Jowell, as well as Cllr Tim McNally from Southwark's opposition LibDem group. Our message will be the same - Southwark will not be able to preserve all of its front-line services over the next year without some further financial support from Government.
I have no great hope that Mr Shapps will offer us any further funding - but he must at least recognise that the problems facing a borough such as ours are many - and expensive to solve. With consistently increased funding during the lifetime of the last Labour Government we did make real progress in tackling some of the real problems which flow from having an inner-city borough with high levels of deprivation. I fear that some of this progress will be lost if Mr Shapps cannot provide some real cash this afternoon.
This level of cuts is unprecedented and will mean that we will have to make some very difficult choices here in Southwark. No department or service will be unscathed - it is simply impossible for us to make 11% less money pay for all the same services. After you add in inflation costs and other unavoidable cost pressures the cut is equivalent to nearly £60 million.
Our meeting with Mr Shapps will also be attended by all three Southwark MPs, Harriet Harman, Simon Hughes and Tessa Jowell, as well as Cllr Tim McNally from Southwark's opposition LibDem group. Our message will be the same - Southwark will not be able to preserve all of its front-line services over the next year without some further financial support from Government.
I have no great hope that Mr Shapps will offer us any further funding - but he must at least recognise that the problems facing a borough such as ours are many - and expensive to solve. With consistently increased funding during the lifetime of the last Labour Government we did make real progress in tackling some of the real problems which flow from having an inner-city borough with high levels of deprivation. I fear that some of this progress will be lost if Mr Shapps cannot provide some real cash this afternoon.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Tuition Fees and Educational Maintenance Allowance
Last night's vote on tuition fees will be a blow to many families living in South Camberwell and Southwark. The prospect of incurring £30,000 or more of debt is not a good one, particularly when you take into account the fact that the average income in our borough is just £16,000.
I take the view that if we value education as a society we should be prepared to pay for it. Is it better for our country that we raise our educational attainment? Yes, of course it is. In an increasingly competitive world it is vital that the UK does not fall behind other economies in terms of having a highly skilled and educated workforce. I believe that the decision to triple tuition fees is a short-term fix which has no medium or long term merit. If just one young person is deterred from higher education as a result of this change, then I believe it is a retrograde step.
At the same time the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance ('EMA') which has funded poorer 16-18 year olds in further education will also have a dire impact. At an event at Southwark college with Ed Miliband on Wednesday many students spoke about the fact that their decision to stay in further education had only been made possible because of the EMA. Without it they would have had to leave school as their parents would not have been able to support them.
So two changes of policy which will harm our education system, and will trample on the ambition of so many young people from our borough.
I find Simon Hughes position on these measures appalling. He pledged to protect his constituents by voting against any rise in tuition fees, but his abstention meant that the vote was won by the government. There are circumstances in which an abstention can be a matter of principle. There can be circumstances in which an abstention can be politically expedient. But in the case of Simon Hughes, an abstention was a betrayal of his constituents and a simple broken promise. Can we ever believe anything he ever says in the future?
I take the view that if we value education as a society we should be prepared to pay for it. Is it better for our country that we raise our educational attainment? Yes, of course it is. In an increasingly competitive world it is vital that the UK does not fall behind other economies in terms of having a highly skilled and educated workforce. I believe that the decision to triple tuition fees is a short-term fix which has no medium or long term merit. If just one young person is deterred from higher education as a result of this change, then I believe it is a retrograde step.
At the same time the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance ('EMA') which has funded poorer 16-18 year olds in further education will also have a dire impact. At an event at Southwark college with Ed Miliband on Wednesday many students spoke about the fact that their decision to stay in further education had only been made possible because of the EMA. Without it they would have had to leave school as their parents would not have been able to support them.
So two changes of policy which will harm our education system, and will trample on the ambition of so many young people from our borough.
I find Simon Hughes position on these measures appalling. He pledged to protect his constituents by voting against any rise in tuition fees, but his abstention meant that the vote was won by the government. There are circumstances in which an abstention can be a matter of principle. There can be circumstances in which an abstention can be politically expedient. But in the case of Simon Hughes, an abstention was a betrayal of his constituents and a simple broken promise. Can we ever believe anything he ever says in the future?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
