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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Another Month!

I've just realised that it is a month since I blogged! And it has been another incredibly busy month. The Labour Party elected a new Leader in Manchester. I had been backing David Miliband in the contest, but I am absolutely delighted with the impact which Ed Miliband has had since his election. A really good performance at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday has put the seal on an excellent start.

Last Thursday I spoke at a conference held at Tate Modern on 'Investing in Southwark'. It was a hugely successful event organised by the Council and New London Architecture and gave me an opportunity to express my support for regeneration and in particular tall buildings in the borough.

This week I attended the AGM of the Beormund Centre and at the same time spoke with some of those protesting against the proposed Thames Tunnel development at Kings Stairs Garden. As part of the 'super sewer' proposal Thames Water are currently proposing to excavate major shafts at the Alfred Salter playground at Druid Street and the park at Kings Stairs Gardens. I have already made clear that I am utterly opposed to these sites and believe that Thames Water should look at other possible sites either within or outside the borough. Whilst the tunnel is a positive and necessary improvement to our water treatment, this should not be at the expense of a children's playground or a green space which needs preserving and enhancing.

I am hoping that we will be able to organise a public meeting in the near future to discuss how we take our opposition to these sites forward.

Southwark Labour's 4th Annual Conference

Yesterday saw another truly successful Southwark Labour Conference - a mixture of speeches, policy making and discussion, and a chance to catch up with friends old and new.

We had great contributions from Tessa Jowell, Harriet Harman, and two of my former Deputy Leaders Susan Elan Jones and Alison McGovern who are both now Labour MPs.

Two workshops discussed the challenge facing us as a Council with our housing stock and next year's budget led by Ian Wingfield and Richard Livingstone.

The packed day concluded with presentations from each of my Cabinet colleagues on their achievements to date and greatest challenge ahead. There was spontaneous applause for Barrie Hargrove when he spoke about his introduction of food waste recycling this year, 5 years ahead of the LibDem's scheduled start date, and the plans to make Burgess Park a truly outstanding park for Southwark's residents. Ian Wingfield gave a terrific and rousing speech to end this part of the day!

Labour's Leadership Election

Ballot papers have been sent out today for Labour's Leadership election. This is an historic election, the first time since 1994 that Labour members will have voted for a new Leader. So it is important that we make the right choice and elect a leader who has the experience and judgement to lead the Labour Party and the country. After some very careful thought my own choice for Leader is David Miliband. I do think he has the edge over the other candidates in terms of his experience and appeal.

All of the other candidates have real merits and qualities. Ed Miliband was a great speaker at our Southwark Borough Conference last year and has the potential to be a great Party Leader. But my view is that his time has not yet arrived.

It does look like it will be a very close contest between David and Ed. I am not sure that they would personally see their campaigns as 'New' versus 'Old' Labour - it is a shame that some of their supporters have portrayed it in this way. Both Milibands are forward-thinking politicians who have served the Labour Party well, and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so in the future. There is no doubt that whatever their differences on strategy and tactics, they both want to see the return of a Labour Government.

But on balance my view is that David has the edge in terms of who is most likely to appeal not only to Labour supporters, but to the wider electorate, and to secure a Labour election victory - whenever that election comes!

IFS Slam Coalition Budget

The Institute of Fiscal Studies criticism of the Coalition Government's budget is not good news. It comes on the same day as Anatole Kaletsky heavily criticised the Government's 'macho' attitude towards making spending cuts, which he fears will send us into a disastrous recession next year.

Now pundits and 'think tanks' can be wrong, but it really does seem that people are starting to wake up to the real damage that the Coalition's budget has already done and will do in the coming months and years. The reaction of "Deputy PM" Nick Clegg was typically vacuous - will there come a time when he engages his brain before speaking on any subject?

There is a choice for this Government to make - stop the posturing cuts now and take us back into recovery in a sensible and measured way, as proposed by the last Labour Government. The risks of and actual damage which will be done if the Coalition continues as it is currently doing are simply too great. It is time some Lib Dems with a conscience started to recognise this fact.

Maydew House

Last night the Cabinet took the decision to permanently rehouse the residents of Maydew House in order that 'Decent Homes' works can be carried out. It was not an easy decision and the length of the meeting demonstrated the consideration which we had to give to the issues raised by residents of the block and other external experts employed by the Council.

At the end of the day two factors weighed heavily on our decision. Firstly, we could not contemplate any resident or visitor to the block coming into contact with asbestos fibres displaced during the duration of the works and secondly we could not risk leaving residents living on a building site for up to two years, including losing basic services for lengthy periods during those works. However much thought and consideration goes into the project management of works such as this there are inevitably things that go wrong, and with the added difficulties which already existed in this project those further problems would make life unbearable for anyone still resident in the block.

We would not have chosen to make this decision at this time, but the previous LibDem / Tory administration had thrown the future of the block into doubt and created a level of uncertainty which was unfair on the majority of residents and needed resolution sooner rather than later.

Absolutely no decision has been made about the longer term future of the block. We want to keep all of our housing stock if possible and last night's decision has no bearing on any wider strategy. So we could see no advantage in further postponing last night's decision, despite being urged by the local MP. The reality is that unlike the local MP, who appears to be in permanent opposition whilst in Government, an Administration has to make decisions on the basis of the facts as they are presented, and not as we would wish them to be.

I know some residents will have been upset and angered by our decision. But I hope that everyone understands that we made the decision for the right reasons of health, safety and the proper living conditions of all Maydew's residents.

Southwark's Democracy Commission

Last week I gave evidence to Southwark's Democracy Commission about how we might improve Council Assembly in future and make it more accessible to the public. Too often our current meetings feel fairly bizarre affairs, with lots of political posturing and not much light thrown on some of the big local issues which affect us in Southwark. With some confidential information being unwisely thrown out during the course of debate by the opposition, our recent discussion of the Elephant and Castle regeneration must have seemed odd, to say the least!

Some of the questions which I posed to the Commission were (a) whether we always had to hold our meetings at Southwark Town Hall on Wednesday evenings? (b) Whether members' questions serve any valuable purpose at the present time? (c) How we make it easier for deputations and members of the public to attend and participate in our meetings? (d) Can meetings be webcast and is there the possibility for interactive questioning and participation?

We also discussed the possibility of returning some decision-making powers to Council Assembly. In opposition we were critical of the last Administration's decision to keep our borough's Housing Strategy as a Cabinet decision. It seems to me that responsibility for our housing policy should better lie with all members of the council. There may be other instances where this could be done.

The Lib Dems have a fairly long shopping-list of areas where they claim we can improve local democracy. Some of their points have a Year Zero feeling to them; it is almost as if they had not been in power for the past 8 years! It is worth remembering that the reason why Labour established the Democracy Commission was because the previous administration did everything they could to make Council Assembly a pointless meeting which they almost treated with disdain. I am confident that everyting that we do as a new administration will reverse that course.

Curlywurly

A word about my cat, Curlywurly, who had to be put to sleep on Friday. He was only 15 months old, but he had been diagnosed with a horrible and rapid illness. He was a real 'Whiskas' cat, had a wonderful personality and brought a lot of joy in his short life. This photo was taken by my colleague Fiona when she was cat-sitting last year!

Southwark's Town Halls

Southwark has three Town Hall buildings - one in Spa Road, Bermondsey; another on the Walworth Road and the third, Southwark Town Hall, on the Peckham Road. All of them require major capital investment in order to make them user-friendly public buildings. And when that capital of approximately £20 million has been found we need to find a real use and purpose for them, and a revenue stream for maintaining them.

Why is this important? Well, in short we are likely to be facing unprecedented cuts in funding from central government - £76 million over the next 4 years - and unless we look long and hard at everything that we are spending our money on we will be limiting our options for finding the savings which we need.

None of the buildings provide good modern office facilities for our council staff, and so the major capital investment cannot be avoided if we are to continue using them into the future. Nor can we just hand them over for public or community use without investment which is needed to make the buildings DDA compliant.

The argument for maintaining Spa Road has historically been to maintain a council 'presence' in the north of the borough. But with over 2000 council employees now working out of the council's offices at 160 Tooley Street I am not sure that this argument remains. There is certainly a "Council presence" in Bermondsey!

Walworth is a difficult building. The council chamber there is too small for Southwark's 63 member council, and it is not obvious what use we can give to it.

Southwark Town Hall houses our current Council Chamber, but I was interested (and alarmed) to hear that some of the feedback received by our Democracy Commission has already criticised the public gallery as being poor - preventing sight of many of the councillors participating in debate. If we are to meet the aspirations of opening up our local democracy to the public we need to make sure that at least they can witness our meetings! But the Town Hall represents an important presence in Camberwell, and would be sorely missed by the local community.

What is the answer to this financial and democratic conundrum? I'm not sure. But I think we are fast moving to a point where we can no longer ignore these issues or simply indulge a wish to maintain the three Town Halls just because they exist.

This is one of those issues and debates which we are bound to see more of in the next couple of years, as we are faced with increasingly difficult financial options. Let me know if you have any thoughts.

A Progress Report

So we are now 75 days into Southwark's Labour Administration and it is worth taking stock of what we have achieved and what programmes we have started.

We have signed two major regeneration deals which had been progressing at a snails-pace under the last administration. At the Elephant and Castle we will see the major redevelopment of an area of Central London, and at Potters Field next to Tower Bridge we will see the completion of the regeneration of this part of our riverside.

We have cut Councillors allowances by over £70,000 - reversing the increases which the previous administration introduced over the past 4 years.

We have saved the green spaces at Nursery Row Park and Brayard's Green, which had been under threat from developers and the last administration.

And we have made it harder for the Council to employ external consultants - just last year Southwark spent over £12 million on consultants. We simply cannot afford to do that at a time when we are facing huge budget cuts from central government.

We are already looking at options to introduce our Free Healthy School Meals policy and in order to meet our pledge to make every council home warm, dry and safe. There is still a long way to go, but we are pushing ahead with our Labour programme to bring a fairer future for all in Southwark.

Southwark Trades Union Council

This evening I spoke at a meeting of the Southwark Trades Union Council. It is safe to say that I had a frank exchange of views with some of those present at the meeting who appeared to have mistaken me for George Osborne! But I suppose that some may argue that being harangued and heckled by Ted Knight is a sign of political arrival.

With absolute justification many of those present at the meeting are worried about the budget cuts which are coming - and the impact they will have on their jobs, homes, health and aspirations. We have already seen the loss of the Building Schools for the Future budget in most local authorities, and there is worse to come.

Although there are strong arguments to be made against these budget cuts I have to be realistic about the decisions which I make as Council Leader. I don't have the luxury of dealing with imaginary and non- existent budgets and will have to deal with the reality of the sums passed to us by the Coalition Government. So I say to those who oppose any cuts and choose not to accept any reality whatever it may be - I will oppose and argue against any cuts unless and until they come, but I will do nothing which jeopardises the council's ability to provide the best services which it can to those who are most reliant upon those services.

A Deal on the Elephant and Castle

Last Wednesday Southwark's Cabinet took the decision to enter into a Regeneration Agreement with Lend Lease to redevelop the Elephant and Castle - a £1.5 billion 15 year project which will transform this part of South London.

In November the previous administration had entered into a Heads of Terms with Lend Lease, but those failed to include any mention of affordable housing, the shopping centre or any leisure facilities. In the 8 weeks since we took office all of these issues have been addressed. We now have a minimum guarantee of at least 25% affordable housing on the site; the shopping centre will be the subject of a compulsory purchase order if no deal can be reached between Lend Lease and St Modwens (the shopping centre owner) and there will be a new leisure centre on the site of the current leisure centre.

In obtaining a guarantee on affordable housing we have had to lose some guaranteed profit which would have come to the Council in 15 years time. We thought this was the right choice to make, as it reflects our political priorities for the Elephant and Castle to be a truly mixed community.

Amazingly the Liberal Democrats have opposed the deal! Despite the fact that they failed to progress the deal during their 8 years in office - 8 years of dither and delay - they now appear to think that it would have been preferable to have no guarantee of affordable housing.

Labour pledged to move forward with the regeneration of the borough, and the Elephant and Castle is crucial to that objective. It is a deal I am proud of and I am confident it will be one of many regeneration projects which we see in Southwark over the next four years.

Busy Times!

So the first month as Leader of the Council has been incredibly busy - nearly every day has meetings starting at 8 and running through to at least 8 in the evening!

But there is a lot to learn about projects which the Council is involved with; and innumerable people who want to speak to myself and the new Cabinet about the role which they might play in taking those projects forward.

Tomorrow we will have our first Cabinet meeting, and one of the first decisions which we will be taking is to agree our 'Vision for Southwark' over the next four years. This is more than just signing off our manifesto commitments, but will also provide us with a narrative about how we want to change Southwark and make the Council a more efficient body.

As well as fostering innovation and imagination, I want us to get to a point where everyone within the the council deals with council money as if it were their own; and with every member of the public as if they were a valued member of the family. If we all operate with these two thoughts in mind I have no doubt that we can deliver more efficient services for our residents.

And in South Camberwell the work goes on! We re-start our mobile surgery programme in a couple of weeks time, and just yesterday Veronica, Stephen and myself welcomed the new floral/plant dog to the top of Dog Kennel Hill! We're hoping that local people might be able to name the dog over the next few weeks. It is a very imaginative creation, and brightens up the planting at the top of the hill as people wait at the traffic lights.

Leader of the Council

On Wednesday night I was privileged to have been elected as Leader of the Council. On the same night I appointed my Cabinet for the forthcoming year. We have many challenges ahead as we try to implement a positive programme of change for our borough against a background of threatened "savage cuts" to public services from the coalition government.

Some of the immediate challenges which we face include the terms on which we enter into any deal for the regeneration of the Elephant and Castle; making every council home warm, dry and safe, and finding funding so that we can implement our pledge to introduce free healthy school meals for all primary school children in the borough.

You can read more on the Southwark council website at southwark.gov.uk

Labour Win Southwark!

Labour won the council elections which took place last Thursday! After 8 years of Lib Dem / Tory rule we picked up 7 seats to end the elections with 35 councillors; the Lib Dems went down to 25 and the Tories were left with just 3.
If you've been reading my blog over the past few months you will know how frustrated I have been with some of the Lib Dem's campaigning - and in particular their deliberate distortions of what we have been saying.
Well it looks as if Labour's very positive message won the day - and the negative campaign of the Lib Dems was rejected.
Why did we win so well? In the north and middle of the borough I believe that voters were passing a judgment on the council and choosing between the competing policies and pledges. Whilst Simon Hughes' vote went up in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, voters chose to vote Labour in the local elections in the same constituency.
In College Ward in the south of the borough it does seem as if the Tories were squeezed by the fact that the local elections were taking place on the same day as the general election.
In South Camberwell our 4 years of work and campaigning paid off and we won all 3 seats. I am delighted that Cllr Stephen Govier will now be joining Veronica and I on the Labour benches in the Town Hall!
And the victory means that I am now the Leader-elect of the Council! A slightly daunting and humbling prospect, but one which I am really looking forward to, and a role in which I intend to deliver on Labour's manifesto pledges and priorities.
A big thank you to all the residents of South Camberwell who voted Labour on May 6th. We will not let you down!