Large parts of the capital are cosmopolitan rather than Socialist, positively bohemian in parts, and increasingly European. Added to that, many of the African, Caribbean and Indian communities are a mixture of the aspirational, entrepreneurial and socially-progressive that is neither hard Labour nor ultra-Conservative.

And while part of the suburbs can be called true-blue, Lib Dems in places like Sutton, Kingston and Richmond have shown that the right strategy can win over these areas too.

Yes, the first-past-the-post mayoral beauty contest encourages a two-party contest that squeezes out other parties, however there is little excuse for the fact that large swathes of the capital are ‘black holes’ where Liberals have scant presence. Plug these gaps and Lib Dems can offer themselves as a serious option to Liberal-minded London, which is potentially the majority of the capitals’ eight million inhabitants.

In the wake of what can only be called an electoral disaster it is crucial and the London Lib Dems, under chairman Jonathan Fryer, set up a full-scale post mortem about what went wrong. A friend tweeted last Sunday that debating the outcome of the elections was “for the birds” but I disagree.

We need to have this debate to move forward. I believe that the prescription requires not merely a tinkering with the campaign, a different mayoral candidate or simply a hope that the electoral winds will once again blow in our direction. It necessitates a radical reorganisation of the way Lib Dems operate, recruit and market themselves. Here is my ten-point plan how to do it:

1. Democratise the party

The word ‘democrat’ is part of the name but in some ways the Lib Dems practice less democracy than Labour. An over-emphasis on helpers to deliver Focus leaflets has led to a neglect for a the desire to actively participate in the business of politics. The odd social event may satisfy some older helpers but Labour have the advantage of maintaining local democratic structures with ward branches and General Committees.

These serve to keep a core membership politically-involved in what their councillors and MPs are doing, allowing a healthy process of monthly questioning between the footsoldiers and those with power. Any branch can propose a motion at any time knowing there is a clear structure that will take it from the GC to standing policy forums to the annual conference. Ordinary members feel more empowered, and know that their ideas, passions and expertise can be ‘fed in’ to the process throughout the year.

Some might argue this detracts from the need to knock on doors and publicise ultra-local action through leaflets, and there is some truth in that. Labour’s model can be off-putting to those who just want to quietly help and don’t wish to spend meetings in draughty halls, especially where cliques isolate newcomers. Yet there is value in party members talking ‘to themselves’ if it fosters a sense that ordinary members have more to offer than their shoe-leather.

The branch / GC model creates greater competition for local councillor vacancies and keeps group leaders and MPs on their toes, sometimes more effectively than their own councillors. And it helps ‘service’ a signed-up membership as opposed to a loose network of non-member helpers.

Lib Dems need to find a balance between preserving their outward-looking Focus helpers, continuing to hold social events, and cherry-picking the most advantageous elements of Labour’s democratic structure. I believe the Lib Dems could benefit enormously by adopting a system that allows members to actively participate in national and local debates, hold representatives to account and vote for and against propositions.

Yes, there will be more internal arguments but rather than encourage ‘division’ it instead operates as a release mechanism for political tensions, invites the flow of new ideas and builds a political culture that embeds ‘roots’ in the local community.

Striking that balance between what the Lib Dems do best and Labour’s internal set-up will go a long way to plugging the gaps where Liberals are absent across London and enthusing a younger membership who are more interested in contributing their ideas than serving an unspoken hierarchy of white-haired, middle class, veterans.

2. Get classy

As Liberals we prefer not to think about class or whether we are reflecting it. The desire for all to be equal and for class not to matter has sometimes blinded activists to the importance of reflecting the reality of different classes. Liberals sometimes have a mental block thinking about these issues because they mistakenly relate it to Labour’s ‘class envy’ or ‘class war’, when in fact it’s more about shedding an image, earned over generations, of middle-class do-gooders.

Professionals with a lovely houses want to do right by people less fortunate than them, but are sometimes less good at finding residents from those estates to represent themselves. And where activists from the estates do get involved and become Lib Dem councillors it is not uncommon to see a class divide in their council group with the privileged holding the power.

The poorer families in ‘inner city’ London know full-well how Labour have often neglected estates and failed to engage them at a local community level. Yet where Liberal Democrats have filled the democratic vacuum left by arrogant and corrupt local Labour parties – in places like Haringey, Islington and Lambeth – all too often Labour have been able to retake lost ground in one or two elections without breaking sweat by refashioning themselves as a listening and caring outfit to reconnect with their ‘traditional’ supporters.

Southwark is one of the few areas where Liberals have been able to maintain a strong inner city presence over a sustained period. But too often Labour have been able to retake territories lost to Liberals because while communities have were momentarily excited by our street politics, Focus’s and fervent door-knocking, too many of our leading activists in the run-down estates were middle classes from those nice streets a mile down the road.

When Labour regroup from a local defeat they say: okay, we accept we’d lost our way but we’re back and we are not just with the community, but we are also of the community.

Liberals can benefit from shedding their aversion to discussing class and the make-up of local parties.

3. Pair successful parties with neighbouring ‘black holes’

Lib Dems excel at pooling resources for council byelections but these occur fairly randomly and without sustained work on the ground there is only so much a four-week blitz can achieve. Too often, successful local parties sit side-by-side with areas that have never seen a Liberal Democrat. Moving the ‘troops’ to areas where we do not enjoy an historical presence only takes place out of absolute necessity, such as the need to hold onto seats subject to boundary changes.

The party should pair-up boroughs to ensure all areas of London see a Lib Dem presence throughout the year. Some might complain that even the ‘successful’ areas struggle to maintain delivery networks and cannot stretch any further, but if we are to progress they must. More can be gained by losing the odd Focus delivery in areas where Liberals are active in order to show activity in areas where there has previously been none. More local helpers will be recruited and with investment in training there is every reason to hope that more organised local parties will emerge.

Just as national government has enabled headteachers from successful schools to ‘take over’ failing ones, so too should Lib Dems consider covering every ward in London by strategically moving activists around with the same passion shown during byelections.

4. Embrace technology

Much of the party remain New Media-phobic to their detriment. Facebook, Twitter and other sites are where the people are. Smartphone Apps are everywhere and short, educative and non-patronising videos are all the rage. In an era of two-way communication, the political class of all parties are lagging behind, especially at a local level. Part afraid of technology, part nervous about dealing with cynical detractors and opponents embarrassing them on these mediums, their King Kanute stance towards the modern age is reinforcing a disconnect between politics and the people.

The dry, sanitised information and one-way conversations available on local party websites are deeply unappealing and has evolved little from the days of the soapbox. Often there is no sense conveyed about the dilemmas, personalities, and reality of life in politics.

Investing in making the party – as opposed to the ‘message’ – accessible through technology is cheap at the price and will more than pay for itself in terms of its’ potential benefits. It allows local campaigns to become more exciting, easier to participate in, and more easily shared between people.

It involves a complete reorientation of how local politicians engage with their communities by subjecting themselves to more scrutiny. And it requires a step-change away from the time-honoured nostrums about parroting the party-line where parties recognise that beyond the basic requirements of loyalty their councillors are essentially individuals who have their own views and ideas. Far from creating disunity, the public will instead gain greater appreciation of the human side of politics which will surely wet the appetite of others to get involved.

5. Crunch the numbers

An over-reliance on senior members who have a ‘feel’ for the community blunts the effectiveness of the whole local party to crunch the demographics of an area and assess if they are engaging all parts of the community.

The ethnic make-up of areas, for example, can change far more rapidly than the composition of the activists and leading members. Without proper analysis of the community, parties can end up talking only to the more ‘traditional’ citizens of a certain age. Focussing on census data can be a very useful tool for everything from reviewing literature to attempting to recruit a more representative membership.

Some activists have an aversion to ‘targeting’, seeing it as pigeon-holing people or playing divisive politics, but it is just good business sense. When Tesco introduced loyalty cards it built up an incredible level of intelligence of their customers and their buying habits which the company used to tailor products on the shelf, offer more goods and services, and constantly think about how they can make give a better experience. Tescos are sometimes hated for their success but we can learn valuable lessons from them.

Every local party should have at least one number-cruncher, feeding extrapolated data and ideas about how to reach and serve the community into the party’s executive and council groups where they exist. The role is at least as important as a membership officer and can not only help gain a greater understanding of the complexity and diversity of the community but also get ahead of the game by looking at trends and changing demographics.

6. Ensure that BAME communities are represented at all levels

For some BAME families, first generation associations with public service do not necessarily make them old skool Labour to the core, not least because the jobs of old are being phased out. Generational Labour ties owe more to the party’s reputation as being ‘not the nasty party’ of Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher rather than positive ties about what Labour have actually done for them.

A key reason why Liberals fail to hold onto gains in the inner cities is because even when they gain enough ground to take the town hall the number of BAME councillors with yellow rosettes remains pitifully low. Not all our BAME representatives have been effective either, raising questions about how the party identify potential local leaders. Are the middle class activists scrambling around for any black or brown face to avoid being an embarrassingly white party in a multicultural area, or are we genuinely looking in the right places?

Yet with a different, fresh approach, the Lib Dems can appeal to and reflect multicultural London every bit as effectively as Labour. More so when you consider the attractiveness of our party’s philosophy; more neighbourhood-minded than Labour’s town hall-centred approach and more about empowerment than reliance on the levers of the State.

If this were married to a real sense that the party understands and reflects both the class and BAME make-up of the area Liberals will go a long way to plugging the gaps in their presence around inner city London. Find local champions from these communities that have real popularity and have the ability to rise to leading positions and the party will establish a positive reputation that will help turn London Liberal.

The party need to develop a new approach to recruitment, going to where the BAME communities are rather than expecting them to come to the party or relying on chance and luck (bumping into an enthusiastic member of the public on our travels). We need to be in the black churches, mosques, and have a visible presence at community events all year round. Not merely a stand-offish presence awkwardly shaking hands of the elders like a visiting local mayor, but real engagement with those around them.

We actually need to be putting on events for those communities as well, targeting all age groups and both genders, not in a condescending fashion but assuming an interest in the political issues we all face. Many potential recruits simply want to know that the party respects and listens to them, that they can explain how to get involved and what they can expect, and that support networks and mentoring will be available should they want it so that they do not have to fear isolation.

7. Engage with BAME-specific issues

As well as seeking to involve under-represented groups on the basis that they are equally interested in housing, jobs, environment and transport etc., Lib Dems should not shy away from engaging with BAME-specific issues as well. From disproportionate discrimination in employment and school exclusions to criminalisation by the justice system (disproportionate use of stop and search and heavier sentences), there are many barriers to an equal society faced by people of colour.

There are also current ‘hot topics’ sparked by laws, proposals and current events like deaths in custody. These are all subjects where Liberals can offer a unique narrative solution after first listening to the experiences and hearing evidence of racism. Black Londoners need to know that Liberals are listening all the time, and not just during a short mayoral election campaign.

Only by consistently and proactively raising these issues both publicly and in targeted meetings, and by forming bonds with community leaders who are campaigning for justice, that the party can hope to establish a genuine reputation as a party for black and Asian communities.

8. Recruit BAME leaders

When Lib Dems are recruiting, retaining and promoting talented BAME people and show they are engaging with the issues they are in a position to win over community leaders. Unlike a colleague on the London regional African and Caribbean taskforce on which we both serve, I do not believe that black leaders are ‘gatekeepers’ of the black vote. Nor do I believe that ensnaring the odd black ‘celebrity’ – be that Floella Benjamin or the ‘Hackney Heroine’ – will pull in the black vote.

However I do consider that BAME leaders will get on board if they see a direction of travel of which they approve and, just as importantly, are treated as leaders when they join. That means priming them for senior positions, not local councillors but MPs and mayoral candidates. The party need to shed its’ mindset of viewing black and Asian recruits as being ‘token’ representatives and instead appreciate the qualities they bring.

Just as the police are seeking to fast track graduates into higher ranks, so too the Lib Dems should abandon the tradition of the time-serving leaflet-deliver slowly making their way up the hierarchy and instead fast-track leaders into leadership positions.

Our ‘public face’ must be both diverse and credible. The experience, leadership qualities and the ‘constituency’ that big-hitter church leaders and high profile entrepreneurs and activists bring is priceless. They may also bring certain ideas that do not equate with the archetypical Lib Dem but such differences are more than compensated by the benefits gained by their insights and involvement.

9. Calling a Tory spade a spade

Conservatives often retain control over their suburban heartlands because they are not challenged effectively enough about the damage they do to the poorest in society. Being in coalition with the Tories at national level has further served to blunt Liberals willingness to expose the callousness with which this generation of neo-Thatcherites, from David Cameron to Boris Johnson, display towards the most vulnerable. We prefer to talk up the positive Liberal policies rather than condemning the harm that Tory polices do.

I remain convinced that the majority of Tory voters are essentially One Nation Tories at heart, wanting low taxes and a State that enables free enterprise, but does not like the poor to suffer. From Housing Benefit cuts that threaten to make many families homeless to the harsh front-loaded austerity drive that is taking the fuel out of any possible recovery, there is a strong narrative to tell Tory voters about while at the same time distancing ourselves from Labour’s over-reliance on big-spending Government driven by a financial sector boom with no economic safety-net.

If we want to win London, Liberals have to not just make in-roads into the inner cities but also play hardball with the Tories in their ‘own’ backyards.

10. Be more women-friendly

Women are almost as under-represented in the party as BAME communities, but the issue goes beyond lack of women MPs. No party is particularly welcoming to women, with its’ macho culture and meetings at inconvenient times. This is not merely off-putting for half the population, these are traits that give politics a bad name to many men too, particularly the young.

Refashioning how we conduct debates, by utilising online video / Skype links to include those who cannot make it, and by constantly listening to women about how politics are conducted could well bring forward a host of ideas that make getting involved less daunting and more open to discussing how meetings and campaigns are perceived by those who are not hard-bitten activists.

Making our political culture truly inclusive could well give Lib Dems an advantage on all our rivals, particularly if the public can gain a glimpse of this in action through the New Media.

Others will no doubt be able to contribute a host of other ideas about how to move the party forward from last weeks’ election defeat, but the key is to have this debate. London is a patchwork quilt of active and non-active areas for the party, and the electoral system makes us particularly vulnerable to voters wishing to punish us. Rather than continue to do business in the same way and hope for a better day, it is time to radically reappraise the structures, culture and assumptions that keep us as also-rans in a city which has all the hallmarks of being Liberal in spirit.

@suttongoingon

It is fair to say that the Conservative party has long cherished its reputation as the party for “law and order”.

So for a Conservative-led government, in less than two years, to get tens of thousands of police officers from across the country out on a march, campaigning against the way their forces are being undermined, illustrates just how badly David Cameron is mismanaging the country.

Early estimates suggested at least 20,000 serving police officers took part in the march today. So large a number turned out that it took almost an hour and a half for them to march past the Home Office this afternoon. It’s not known whether Theresa May, the Home Secretary, was in her office to witness the protesters’ march-past: apparently, she had made a note in her diary that the demonstration was next week.

Unlike the public service workers who took industrial action today to highlight their dispute with the government – which wants them to work for longer, and pay more into their pension funds, but to receive reduced retirement benefits – these protesting police officers were not on strike. They are not allowed to strike by law. All were “off duty”.

According to police officers who contacted Inside Croydon, many more wanted to join the march today, but were denied leave to do so. They were needed to maintain police cover on normal duties, and in some cases to police the marchers. It is clear that today’s march was not the action of a militant minority, but represented deep-seated disquiet among the police.

All police staff who contacted Inside Croydon were adamant that their protest is less about their own terms of service, more about the manner in which the government’s cuts are crippling the police service.

“Government policy is going to rip the heart and soul out of British policing,” Pete Smyth, a senior official of the Police Federation in London, told Inside Croydon.

“Savage budget cuts will affect frontline policing. Officers pay and conditions are under attack with a 20 per cent pay cut, officer numbers will fall significantly. Communities such as Croydon will be affected.”

Police protestors get their message across at the Home Office

In the past couple of years, hundreds of senior officers in the Met have taken early retirement, demoralised about their working terms and conditions.

The disaffection in the thin blue line is palpable. One senior officer, who works out of Croydon police station, can now hardly wait to retire from the force.

He told us: “I have 28 yrs service with the Met. I have been proud of the job all my career but now I can’t wait to leave. It’s sad. I wish I could leave in two years looking at a modernised police force and feel proud, but I know that won’t happen. I’ll just be glad to get away.

“Although I am being affected financially, I only have a couple of years left before I retire. I’m marching because we do a special job. We make a huge sacrifice to make sure the public are protected. Our families make a sacrifice to allow us to protect the public.

“We are being treated very badly by this government. They don’t seem to understand our job at all. The changes they want to make will not improve conditions for officers or the public.

“I think it will make a hard job even harder and it will put the public at unnecessary risk.”

The stark facts are that the government has slashed the police budget by almost 30 per cent. “The government mantra is that we can get more for less, but with cuts of this magnitude the only thing you will get more of is more crime, more disorder and more anti-social behaviour,” Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation, told the marchers today.

In England and Wales, the police service will lose more than 16,000 warranted officers over the next four years; this year alone, £163 million is being taken from police pay; as with other public servants, the police’s pension contributions have been increased, while a two-year public sector pay freeze has been imposed on police officers.

“The reality of the cuts to policing is really beginning to bite,” McKeever said. “Numbers are beginning to fall rapidly. In the past year alone, we have lost more than 5,200 police officers from the frontline and we are witnessing the privatisation of core policing roles as chief officers struggle to cope with budget restraints.

“The government need to be realistic about the outcome of severe cuts to policing; we cannot afford to compromise on public safety.”

• Inside Croydon: Living life on the fringes of Croydon. Post your comments on this article below. If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, email us at inside.croydon@btinternet.com

Related articles

• 4 Days in August: Steve O’Connell’s lasting shame? (insidecroydon.com)
• Chief constable Tony Melville to join rank-and-file police on cuts march (telegraph.co.uk)
• 400,000 workers predicted to strike (thisislondon.co.uk)
• Jon Rouse, Croydon riots, and the crucial missing hours (insidecroydon.com)

And what an omen indeed.  I think from this we can gather that Boris is neither fan of the birds, nor privy to their omenous attempts to communicate.  But what are they trying to say?

Glad you asked.  It’s pretty fair to assume the bird so expertly wedged into Boris’ twit-flap approached from the left - a sure sign of bad things to come – in short, the certainty of an omen of DOOM.  If the birds could talk (as they suggest in this example that they can indeed do – remember, they know things.  Lots of things.) they would be telling Boris-of-the-bountiful-bonce that this omen of certain doom was brought about to warn him of the dangers, and let’s face it, pure folly, in bringing about environmental catastrophe by means of a new airport in the Thames Estuary.  Because we all know London needs another airport.  Why not?!  Just shove one in the river where the people of less silver-spoonage live (and I include myself in that description before you all get gippified) and let the next poor elected fool deal with the breakdown in civilisation as we know it; when the river turns black and the only sound to be heard at dawn is the roar of the turbo engine.  Ahem.

So Boris, it’s your choice.  Listen to the birds, or risk a fate worse than having to pull your foot (or a portly bird) from your beak.  You have been warned….

For the full momentousness of this omenous warning from the birds (and even some well-placed apocalyptic horses): The Birds Strike Back

This bored dog represents The Queen’s annual speech.

So The Queen did a speech of sorts today and this time there were only seventeen fatalities. Their mortal wound? Sheer mind crushing boredom. So it got us thinking. We’ve seen The King’s Speech and we really enjoyed that. If you’ve not seen the film it’s all based around King George’s VI’s attempts to overcome his stutter, and how he seeks the help of speech therapist Lionel Logue to aid him through public broadcasts. So, why not do a sequel of sorts about The Queen’s inability to create a public speech of any interest whatsoever. She addresses her subjects once a year, usually, at Christmas. We gaze onwards as her eyes twitch back and forth over the autocue, wondering just why the hell she bothers. So in this film we’d have The Queen head over to see some therapist who excels in putting THE ZEST back into people’s lives. What ho, jeeves, a splendid idea, I say!

———

Cast

The Queen – Brad Pitt

Zest Therapist – Arnold Schwarzenegger

Prince Charles – Vinnie Jones

Duke of Edinburgh – Robert Carlyle

Prime Minister David Cameron – Helen Mirren

Boris Johnson – Brian Blessed

Plot

The Queen’s dreary speeches need livening up a notch or ten! Seeking help from eccentric lunatic Zest Therapist she begins to turn her speeches around, but as Christmas approaches will she be able to reel off her dialogue without anyone falling into catatonic states? The pressure is on!

The Purpose Of The Film

Big Arnie could liven up any old speech!

The whole point of the film will be to highlight just how tedious the very notion of the annual Christmas speech is. The Queen, being somewhat out of step with normal life, can’t really offer any major insight into how we can conduct ourselves through our difficult lives. Someone who has been in a position of utmost privilege their entire life can’t really look down on us and say; “You should exercise a bit more, fatty!” So how can she spice things up a bit? Well, you will be surprised to hear, we have come up with some revolutionary, evolutionary ideas that Charles Darwin, Vladmir Lenin, Karl Marx, Ernest Hemingway, Keith Chegwin, and our office pet Beans would be really, really proud of! Hurray!

1 – Draft in Big Arnie – Arnold, that is, of the Sshwarzenegger clan. Big Arnie’s been around the block a few times when it comes to giving speeches and pumping really heavy stuff with his super man muscles. We’d bet a good session in the gym would do the Queen some real good. As would adopting an Austrian accent and quipping some of Arnie’s catchphrases. At the end of her Christmas Speech she could drawl, “I’ll be back!”

2 – Get Very Drunk – We’d bet we would get an exciting speech if the Queen knocked back four or five double Vodkas before she went live. The Queen Mother would have. The Queen doesn’t, however. Can you imagine it if she did, and then adopted an Austrian accent and drawled out Arnie’s phrases? It would be utterly amazing!

3 – Get Brian Blessed to do it – This would be a big hit! Blessed’s booming voice would liven up any speech. For sure!

4 – Get Boris Johnson to do it – Bumbling Boris can make even a simple speech seem like an amusing aversion of some calamity somewhere. What ho, jeeves!

5 – Don’t bother with a speech - Just axe the whole Queen’s speech altogether as it’s only morons who pay attention to it.

This means is less than seven days his income from the taxpayer will be slashed from over £120,000 – to just £12-14,000 a year. For the very first time his income level may justify his subsidised fixed rent two bedroom flat he rents from Finchley Methodist church charity.

He still keeps the chairmanship of an important Barnet Council committee on the budget and spending – but he will no longer get his £38,000 Cabinet salary.

Boris Johnson seems to have taken the sensible decision to keep him away from the London fire authority after his big defeat at the hands of the electorate which saw Andrew Dismore defeat him by 21,000 votes.

How  the mighty are fallen – Thank God for democracy and transparency.

St Helier Hospital: subject of a local campaign, subjected to national policy

CROYDON COMMENTARY: An MP for neighbouring Sutton got a most unwelcome birthday present yesterday, with the announcement of proposed closure to the Accident and Emergency and the maternity departments of St Helier Hospital. Here, ANDREW PELLING says that ConDem cuts are undermining the government’s junior partners locally

Tom Brake, the Carshalton and Wallington Liberal Democrat MP, was receiving a visit from an Elvis impersonator yesterday in celebration for his 50th birthday. He looks very healthy for his age. Tom Brake that is.

Sadly, if Tom does suffer any emergency illness in the future, he’ll likely not be visiting his local St Helier Hospital.

Across town an unelected and unaccountable “’scoring’ panel of 60 people, made up of councillors, GPs, patient groups and NHS representatives from the five boroughs of south-west London, recommended that St Helier Hospital could – potentially – lose its A&E and maternity units”. That’s the original quote from Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust.

Who knows how the other hospitals considered by this panel – Croydon’s own Mayday, Kingston and St George’s in Tooting – are going to cope with the displaced 81,739 patients treated in the Sutton hospital’s Accident and Emergency department annually.

With London’s birth rate booming, it’s hard to pinpoint where space will be found without great expense for the mothers and babies moved out of St Helier. Last year, 3,317 babies were born in the St Helier maternity unit.

You can’t see the privately funded Portland, with its royal patronage, or the St John’s Wood Wellington being able to expand their maternity services so much as to meet the Coalition government’s desires to privatise child birth.

The cuts in public spending and reduced cap on NHS spending that Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs voted for is now having an impact back at home in the constituencies. This will make for a particularly uncomfortable coming months for Paul Burstow, the LibDem MP for Sutton and Cheam and a junior minister in the ConDem government … in the health department.

The caring side of Sutton MP Paul Burstow, on a visit to the wards at St Helier. Yet as a ConDem government health minister, Burstow is presiding over the closure of the same hospital’s A&E and maternity departments

The opposition to the plans to close much-needed A&E and maternity departments quickly gathered pace last night, with Kevin O’Brien, the secretary of the Sutton and Merton TUC, stating emphatically, “This has got nothing to do with ‘Better Services Better Value’. This is about massive cuts, cuts and more cuts. The Liberal Democrats have sold their souls to the Tory Devil.”

Frustrated by the previous successful campaign by south London MPs – including LibDems Brake and Burstow – in the last parliament against an earlier plan to “rationalise” south-west London’s NHS, this time around, government ministers and NHS administrators conspired to keep the issue away from the politicians by setting up this panel to recommend one A&E and one maternity unit closure. No blood would stick to politicians’ hands they hoped, and this time closures might be achieved.

It was St Helier that got the black spot.

Good news for Mayday? Not really. Mayday A&E, already struggling to cope, will have to take up much of the slack if St Helier closes. Mainly, this is about concentrating south-west London health services in traffic gridlocked Tooting at St George’s, to the disadvantage of both Croydon’s and Sutton’s hospitals.

Epsom & St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust says it is going to fight the closures.

The Nursing Times was last night reporting a prospective legal challenge through a judicial review. This will add to the public money already squandered by Croydon Council on a legal challenge to the scoring process.

The LibDem candidate for London Mayor, Brian Paddick, campaigning at St Helier last month with Abigail Lock and Tom Brake (right), with junior health minister Paul Burstow (left)

It was also notable that this decision came out less than a week after the London elections were done and dusted, with Boris Johnson safely re-elected as Mayor.

Not much attention was given in the recent election campaign to London Assembly Member Steve O’Connell’s Conservative-run Croydon Council going to court to try to force St Helier’s closure, rather than Mayday’s.

There has been a lot of duplicity from politicians on this issue.

They are pleased that this is being dealt with at arm’s length.

Croydon Central’s MP, Gavin Barwell, had Andrew Lansley, now the senior government health minister, down to Mayday before the General Election in 2010. Lansley promised that the south-west London review to rationalise local NHS services would be dropped. After the election, Barwell boasted that the new government had dropped the review plans at Lansley’s instruction.

How does that promise and boast look this morning?

Burstow, though, looks to be in an even more untenable position as far as his Sutton and  Cheam constituents are concerned. He is actually working in the Whitehall department that is pursuing these plans to concentrate services more remotely from patients.

Burstow has the bedside manner to be a good health minister. He continues to pretend that he is campaigning against his own department’s rationalisation of south-west London’s NHS. When not being a government minister for health, he has behaved in a way that psychiatrists would identify as being schizophrenic, writing as a local MP to NHS bosses asking them to protect St Helier.

Tom Brake (left), Sean Brennan, the Sutton council leader, and Paul Burstow, earnestly campaigning to save St Helier

He even braved the chilly St Helier hilltop winter winds this year with Brake and the retiring leader of Liberal Democrat-controlled Sutton Council, Sean Brennan, to hold the letters SOS outside the doomed hospital. As on so many occasions in the past couple of years, ConDem government MPs boasted that the money to rebuild St Helier promised under the previous Labour administration was still safe.

The Liberal Democrats had even had the hubris to declare victory for their campaign for the hospital in the June after the Coalition was set up in May 2010.

This was just months after Labour’s Siobhain McDonagh MP had also posed outside the hospital with her banners. At least she got the initial promise £219 million from Gordon Brown to rebuild the place.

The recent collapse of the proposed merger between the managing trusts for St George’s and St Helier left the Sutton hospital exposed, and the Labour MP railed at doctors who decided not to go ahead with the merger. This spat underlined how the Coalition, through the Conservative belief in “market-driven solutions” to the NHS – in plain language, handing over NHS services to private, profit-making companies – were allowing politicians to be removed from the process of deciding local health provision.

Before the General Election, Brake spoke about how the “priority must be St Helier Hospital”. His website described the MP as “Tom Brake, who has campaigned passionately for the future of St Helier Hospital”. Residents were asked to add their name to the LibDem petition to “Save Our St Helier”.

For the LibDems in Sutton, “victory” over closures at St Helier appears to be as much an illusion as having any power in the Conservative-led government at Westminster

Now, it appears that Brake is less effective in representing his constituents’ interests when part of a Conservative-led government, than he was when sitting on opposition benches during a Labour-run administration.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Brake asked David Cameron for a re-assurance about the £219 million for St. Helier. Assurance there was none.

Brake did, though, get a letter from his Liberal Democrat friend Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, saying that the money was still available.

Don’t hold your breath though. It looks like curtains for St Helier’s A&E and maternity units, so the Treasury will undoubtedly rake back much of the promised money.

What you can count on though is campaigns by the Health Minister Burstow, along with Tom Brake, against Burstow’s health department’s very own cuts.

Will these campaigns really have any credibility?

• Inside Croydon: Living life on the fringes of Croydon. Post your comments on this article below. If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, email us at inside.croydon@btinternet.com

Related articles

• Panel picks St Helier A&E closure (bbc.co.uk)
• Croydon questions: Abigail Lock, Liberal Democrats (insidecroydon.com)

The Queen said: “My Government will propose reform of the electricity market to deliver secure, clean and affordable electricity and ensure prices are fair”.

The Electricity Market Reform will put more restrictions on the emissions of new coal plants and create a new independent regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which will be funded by the industry, the BBC reported.

The Renewable Energy Association welcomed proposals for new energy bill. It said said that the industry will need to know its details as soon as possible in order to adjust and protect developers in the renewable sector.

Chief Executive of the REA, Gaynor Hartnell, said: “The new arrangements aim to deliver a stable price for renewable electricity generators, irrespective of what happens to electricity prices. If all works as intended, it should make project development less risky and means that the public pays no more than it needs to for green power.”

What is your reaction to the Queen’s speech? How do you think the proposed reform will help you or your business? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment below: 

Val Shawcross: the former Croydon Council leader now holds considerable influence across London

Of all the election results for the London Assembly announced last Friday, few could have been as emphatic as that enjoyed by Valerie Shawcross.

The former Labour leader of Croydon Council has been AM for Lambeth and Southwark since the very first City Hall elections in 2000, and last week she won her seat with a smashing majority of 57,702 – just the majority was close to the total vote secured by the Conservatives in winning Croydon and Sutton.

Since moving on from Croydon Town Hall to City Hall, Shawcross has retained strong links with the borough, where she still lives. Over the past four months or so of the London Mayoral election campaign, as Ken Livingstone’s nominated deputy, there were few figures as prominent or as hard-working as Shawcross.

Now, with another four years of Boris Johnson as London Mayor, but with Labour the biggest group in the Assembly, Shawcross – as she showed on Day 1 of the new administration, highlighting the “shambles” of Boris’s mishandled appointment of seven deputy mayors – the Croydon resident seems certain to be equally busy, calling the Mayor to account.

Shawcross’s seemingly boundless energy and political nous, with her strong reliance on her inner London powerbase, was highlighted on Friday night when she found time, as the City Hall Mayoral count dragged on, to dash off to her local party’s celebration of her convincing win.

Shawcross’ experience in City Hall administration and her voting strength in Lambeth and Southwark made her well qualified to be Livingstone’s running mate.

It is nearly 20 years since Val Shawcross burst on to the Croydon political scene, appearing in 1994 with a huge smiling picture of the councillor for New Addington on page 3 of the Evening Standard. She was among those celebrating Labour’s first ever win in Croydon, beating the long-established and successful Conservative administration of Peter Bowness. A new red star was launched into the capital’s political firmament, as Shawcross quickly rose up the ranks.

Within a year she was the chair of Croydon Council’s education committee. As noted in the retirement speech of the outgoing council chief executive, David Wechsler, Shawcross’s appointment saw the beginning of one of the most acrimonious political relationships the council had ever seen, between her and her opposite number, the previous chairman of education, Andrew Pelling.

Shawcross has been a Croydon borough resident for 26 years, now living in Upper Norwood close to her Lambeth and Southwark London Assembly constituency.

Her seat on the London Assembly has not always been so safe. In 2004, the Liberal Democrats – who have deputy party leader Simon Hughes as their long-time established MP in Bermondsey -  came very close to unseating Shawcross, bringing the majority down to just 5,475. Caroline Pidgeon was her challenger.

LibDem AM Caroline Pidgeon, once an election rival of Shawcross, now often an ally across the floor of City Hall

Both women now sit on the London Assembly (Pidgeon being elected on the LibDems’ list), but that 2004 election contest rivalled the bitterness of any conflict at Croydon Council. The two now though work closely together at City Hall, across party lines.

In some ways the women are similar campaigning inner London politicians. They also continue to share the same short-cropped haircut that led another former Croydon councillor, Gavin Barwell, to nickname Shawcross as “Servalan”, the ruthless, man-controlling villain from the cult 1970s sci-fi TV drama Blake’s 7. Barwell’s choice of nickname possibly says much about him, and his taste for kitsch television.

Shawcross’s background could not be further removed from the private school- and Oxbridge-educated, born-to-rule types who were so used to running Croydon politics. Shawcross was brought up on a council estate in Rochdale, where her father was an active trade unionist and Labour Party member. She studied at Liverpool University but was not impressed by the Militant Tendency activities of the Derek Hatton era on Merseyside.

After graduation, she worked at the old Inner London Education Authority. Further study led Shawcross to lobby government and aid agencies on the role of women in aid projects, which led to a job for the Commonwealth Secretariat. There, she worked across the Commonwealth, promoting women’s equality.

Val Shawcross in 1994, then the newly elected Croydon councillor for New Addington

Her feminist calling then led her to work as the National Women’s Officer for the Labour Party.

Following her election in Croydon, Shawcross made quick progress, becoming deputy leader within two years. In 1997, when Geraint Davies, the then Labour leader of Croydon Council, unexpectedly found himself as MP for Croydon Central as part of Tony Blair’s Commons landslide election victory, Shawcross was promoted to take charge at the Town Hall.

As Shawcross admits herself, upon becoming leader, “My first job was to get the budget sorted.”

The first three years of Labour control in Croydon, from 1994 to 1997, included time when Davies had concentrated too much on using the council as his springboard for Westminster. This left things in some disrepair. Yet deftly, Shawcross steered Labour to another local Labour victory at the 1998 Town Hall elections.

In 2000, she departed for the newly formed London Assembly, leaving Croydon in the hands of the inexperienced Hugh Malyan, who eventually increased the Council Tax by 27 per cent after some adventurous games with Council Tax referendums. It all had a disastrous long-term impact on Labour’s prospects in Croydon.

Up at City Hall, Shawcross was meanwhile proving her worth under London’s first Mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had been elected despite standing as an independent against the official Labour candidate, Frank Dobson.

Shawcross was appointed as chair of the London Fire Authority, where she fended off an acrimonious firefighters’ strike and found significant savings to plough back into Livingstone’s City Hall Budget. She is proud in how her administration managed “to halve the numbers of fire deaths in London and massively reduce arson and attendance to hoax calls”.

Shawcross received the CBE for her services in local government in 2002.

With Mayor Johnson’s election in 2008, Shawcross found herself pinning down the detail of Transport for London’s massive budget as the Assembly’s Transport scrutiny chair, in partnership with her previous adversary, Pidgeon.

That’s a transport portfolio role for Shawcross that will continue in a 12-strong Labour group on the Assembly that includes five women. This gender balance differs radically from the Conservatives, who have just a single woman among their number.

She is Victoria Borwick, just appointed as the Mayor’s newly appointed statutory deputy mayor. That’s the role Shawcross would have expected under Livingstone, though you can imagine Shawcross being a somewhat more challenging and questioning deputy.

Shawcross seems to have a softer spot for Borwick than other London Assembly Tories. Borwick was shunted down to third on the Tories’ top-up list, and she expected not to get back to City Hall, but she benefited from the defeat of senior AMs Brian Coleman and Richard Barnes in constituency seats, thus leaving more room for Conservative list members to get elected.

Standing alongside Livingstone before the election, Shawcross supported the promise to finally build the extension of the Tramlink system to Crystal Palace, which Mayor Johnson cancelled after he was elected in 2008. Since Boris adopted the tram extension among his own policies in his campaign, it seems likely that it will be an important election promise which at least one Croydon woman will try to ensure that he keeps.

• Inside Croydon: Living life on the outer edge. If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, email us at inside.croydon@btinternet.com

Related articles

• Croydon questions: Louisa Woodley, Labour (insidecroydon.com)
• Election votes all add up to more change across Croydon (insidecroydon.com)
• Democracy fails as Ken and Boris both lack the X Factor (insidecroydon.com)
• Candidate has second worst attendance record at Town Hall (insidecroydon.com)

There were some excellent contributions from callers, in particular Del and Neville Williams, who I wrote about previously here. You can listen to the show on this link.

The debate focussed on what the re-election of Boris Johnson as mayor of London means for black Londoners. I made some points which I’d previously written about here, arguing that it was regrettable that BAME communities did not appear to vote for the candidate who would tackle racism and racial disadvantage. There was so much at stake that it was regrettable there was no effort to rally black Londoners behind a progressive candidate.

One caller suggested that had Lee Jasper been involved in the campaign it would have made a difference. I certainly think it would have crystalised the issues facing BAME communities and focussed the election debate at a time of disproportionate black unemployment, oppressive use of stop and search and rising deaths in custody.

Richard and Sylbourne both made excellent contributions. All in all, it was an enjoyable experience for me and I hope listeners took something from the show! Do let me know what you think!

@sutttongoingon

-

The truth about voting. From Freedomain Radio

http://www.freedomainradio.com

See also: Practical Politics

I have a confession to make, it’s a deep dark and dirty one but I can’t keep it in any more so here it goes….

I didn’t vote. I know it’s terrible. Stone me now, lock me up and throw away the key I am very ashamed.

Why you ask? I guess it’s the same reason why thousands of others didn’t or maybe not. I guess I just  wasn’t feeling very optimistic about any positive change any of the running candidates could possibly make at this point.

Like everyone else the cuts that have been made have absolutely annoyed and  frustrated me, the price of transport offends me and the fact that Boris Johnson seems to have done nothing but change the style of the buses every 5 minutes for some unknown reason, while he just rides around on his bike all day is a subject I often rant about on social occasions. However Ken Livingstone’s very unconvincing campaign, if there was one reminded me of a  school child running for some sort of class presidential role ‘vote for me!’

I guess I just felt there was no party who I actually felt obliged to vote for although I haven’t been very keen on the not so compromising coalition, who have now  ’renewed their vows’ in a bid to save themselves in the next general election which by the way I will be participating in.

If there is anyone else out there who has the same dirty confession to make that I have join me, get it off your chest and confess.

At the office all the morning doing business alone, and then to the Wardrobe, where my Lady going out with the children to dinner I staid not, but returnedhome, and was overtaken in St. Paul’s Churchyard by Sir G. Carteret in his coach, and so he carried me to the Exchange, where I staid awhile. He told me that the Queen and the fleet were in Mount’s Bay on Monday last, and that the Queen endures her sickness pretty well. He also told me how Sir John Lawson hath done some execution upon the Turks in the Straight, of which I am glad, and told the news the first on the Exchange, and was much followed by merchants to tell it. So home and to dinner, and by and by to the office, and after the rest gone (my Lady Albemarle being this day at dinner at Sir W. Batten’s) Sir G. Carteret comes, and he and I walked in the garden, and, among other discourse, tells me that it is Mr. Coventry that is to come to us as a Commissioner of the Navy; at which he is much vexed, and cries out upon Sir W. Pen, and threatens him highly. And looking upon his lodgings, which are now enlarging, he in passion cried, “Guarda mi spada; for, by God, I may chance to keep him in Ireland, when he is there:” for Sir W. Pen is going thither with my Lord Lieutenant. But it is my design to keep much in with Sir George; and I think I have begun very well towards it. So to the office, and was there late doing business, and so with my head full of business I to bed.

All of which is annotated above.

Not quite ExCeLling

Malcolm’s day, yesterday, involved a jaunt to the ExCeL Centre (which must qualify as one of the more obtuse uses of cApItaLs going) for the Grand Designs Expo.

Malcolm freely confesses he is an addict of the Channel 4 programme — described on wikipedia as “a programme covering unusual and elaborate architectural homebuilding projects” — and Kevin McCloud. It all seems to come down to “how, given only a pile of straw bales and some imported Italian fenestration, we created a Palladian villa for the twenty-first century”. Definitely property-porn, and highly addictive.

The expo is Ideal Home for the epicene bourgeoisie. Much of it involves what Malcolm’s mother characterised as “more money than sense”. Over the years it has provided Redfellow Hovel with roof insulation and a nifty loft ladder. What is clear, however, is that the Great British Recession is hitting even this market demographic: this year a considerable space is devoted to electric cars.

Not by Boris

Getting to ExCeL , by public transport, from Norf Lunnun used to involve a convoluted passage via several underground lines and the Docklands Light Railway. We now have the revived, renewed East London Line, from Highbury & Islington, all the way to West Croydon and Crystal Palace. So it’s change at Shoreditch; and it works a treat. Those Class 378 electric multiple-units are nifty, too — though looking the length of a train, with no “proper” carriage divisions is a small eye-opener.

Thank you, Mayor Ken Livingstone, and those dear, dead enlightened days when Transport for London was more interested in shifting people than in vanity buses and perpetual fares increases.

Disappointment

The convenience of this new magic-carpet ride meant Malcolm missed out on his promised afternoon of indulgence involving Broadsides at the Bridge House, returning instead to Abbot and a pub steak at Highgate’s Gatehouse. Tough, really — or perhaps not (and the steak wasn’t). A pleasure deferred …

Anyway, Malcolm had an evening commitment.

Mr President

Brendan Barber may be “stepping down” as TUC General Secretary, but there’s a promotion in the pipe-line — to become President of Muswell Hill Golf Club.

Last night Brendan was doing his party-piece at Hornsey Labour Party, and wowing the troops.

The troops, of course, were already on a high: Joanne McCartney barely scraped home in the GLA 2008 vote — this time she is sitting on an absolute plurality, a majority of 25% with some 18% more of the vote. And the icing on the celebratory cake is the total collapse of the LibDem vote, now below 9½%: just 13,601 votes across the five parliamentary constituencies where there were 48,511 in the 2010 General Election.

Back to Brendan Barber

He hammered home one essential point: the massive bulk of the austerity cuts are still to come. That is generally well-appreciated, but his cruncher was, for every £ already cut, there are £16 more still to come.

That leads into:

Paul Waugh did a good bit of butchery on yesterday with Cameron and Clegg’s rose garden in a tractor factory:

The ‘We-Never-Promised-You-a-Rose-Garden’ summit was all set — and perfect for the early evening news.

That was the plan. Unfortunately, it suffered from a couple of flaws.

First, you just can’t get away from the fact that the PM and DPM just look awful together. These days, each is devalued by rather than reinforced by their lookalike.

Both wearing identikit suits, and only differentiated by the blue and yellow of their ties, it wasn’t a good look. (It’s no wonder the PM took his jacket off halfway through to distinguish himself from his partner). As one factory worker said “You two need to get your act together…” Cameron on his own looks much more at home on his PM Direct events.

Second, words are just as important as pictures. And the PM had some rather unfortunate words as he dropped his guard on the deficit. In answer to one question, he said:

“What you call austerity, I might call efficiency…”

Were one to take fair-mindedness to ridiculous extremes, it might just be possible to defend the present sado-masochistic monetarism on grounds of “efficiency”. But that only applies where we might be able to find “efficiency”. But the public expenditure, and the public debt continues to balloon — which is why the Cameroons argue those further 94% of “cuts” are necessary.

Brendan Barber takes that another way. When Osborne went with his first “emergency” budget, his pet-poodle, the Office of Budget Responsibility, calculated it involved around 300,000 more unemployed. The latest OBR forecast updates that from 300,000 to 700,000.

At which we should all have a sharp intake of breath. Since we have no fewer than seven Treasury ministers (Osborne, Alexander, Hoban, Gauke, Smith, Lord Sassoon and Maude — though the last is PMG and works out of the Cabinet Office), ably assisted by an army, four figures strong, of the brightest-and-best of the Civil Service, why do we need a further level of “responsibility” for the budget? Particularly when that “office” is 233% out in an essential prediction?

There seems to be a bit of doubt on the quality of Pepys’ Spanish. The sense of Sir William Coventry’s irritation at Penn is patently clear, though. Similarly, one decent cut might be the useless OBR, so:

Guarda mi spada!

]]> http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/love-london-go-dutch-safety-in-numbers/ Wed, 09 May 2012 08:21:43 +0000 aseasyasriding http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/love-london-go-dutch-safety-in-numbers/ Yesterday I wrote about a potential area of weakness in London Cycling Campaign’s Go Dutch strategy; the principal objection was that in maintaining that cyclists should still be able to choose whether or not they use the road, or cycle tracks, compromise on the quality of those cycle tracks becomes harder to resist, especially as the Mayor seems to view off-carriageway provision as some kind of ‘training’ facility for nervous cyclists, before they venture onto the road.

Unfortunately this isn’t the only area in which LCC’s admirable Go Dutch principles could be co-opted and watered down by a Boris Johnson administration. In his presentation of the design principles of Love London Go Dutch at last month’s Street Talks, Richard Lewis said

I’d like to put a question to you – is this street out here [Theobald's Road] an appropriate location for that type of [segregated] infrastructure presumably segregation?. Or is it kind of a bit ‘I’m not sure?’ Is the volume of cyclists using this street enough to calm the motor traffic down, so that actually it becomes safe and inviting for cycling? Or do you think there should be dedicated infrastructure?’

(Picture by Joe Dunckley)

In other words, some streets could become ‘safe’ in virtue of the number of cyclists using them, rendering infrastructure unnecessary.

Now, there may be some truth in the ‘safety in numbers’ effect; it certainly seems to apply in nature, where the members of flocks or shoals tend to be statistically less likely to fall victim to a predator than if they were travelling alone. This ‘shoaling’ effect, however, may not be quite so helpful in discussing cycling, because cyclists only travel intermittently, and by chance, in shoals. Quite often they will be travelling alone.

The other interpretation of safety in numbers is that drivers are more likely to spot cyclists if they are more used to their presence; they are more likely to expect and react to them. This assertion is a little shakier; indeed a case could be made that it is what is unusual that would prompt more care from drivers.

The standard graphical demonstration of a correlation between numbers and safety (originating with Jacobsen) is not as helpful or instructive as it is often made out to be, because, as we all know, correlation is not causation. The greater rate of cycling in some European countries could be a result of more safety, rather than their greater safety arising from their greater numbers. In addition, and even more problematically, the graph simply fails to take account of a wide range of variables that might also have an effect on cyclists’ safety, of which, perhaps in order of importance, we could name physical infrastructure, policing, speed limits, even (if we are looking at a rate of cycling fatalities) quality of emergency medical treatment.

Even if we do accept the potentially flawed logic that safety can simply arise from numbers, it is problematic to adopt it as a guiding principle in determining whether or not a street needs infrastructure, for several reasons.

Firstly, it ignores the fact, apparently appreciated by LCC, that infrastructure is needed primarily for reasons of subjective safety - to make the experience of cycling seem safer and more pleasant. ‘Safety in numbers’ does little or nothing to achieve that effect, although it may, arguably, have some effect on objective safety.

There was a clear demonstration of this when I left the Yorkshire Grey, after this very talk. Heading towards Farringdon, I was in the company of several cyclists, but that did not prevent me from being subjected to some honking and a close pass from a lady in a Mercedes as I passed another cyclist down the hill. It wasn’t very nice. The road was no more pleasant for a novice to cycle on than if he or she had been completely on their own, and for that reason alone ‘safety in numbers’ shouldn’t be a reason for deciding not to change the environment. A requirement of infrastructure is to make the cycling environment more pleasant; this cannot be guaranteed by ‘safety in numbers’.

Indeed, if you listen to the audio of the talk, it is punctuated by the roaring of engines, and honking – despite there being plenty of cyclists passing through at that time of the evening. The environment remained deeply uncivilised for cycling, and hostile to any nervous person; cycling on a road busy with motor traffic is usually just as unnerving whether you are on your own, or with a handful of other cyclists. ‘Safety in numbers’ is not a way of making an environment subjectively safe in a way that cycle paths can, and it should not be proposed as a substitute for them.

The other problem, as alluded to earlier, is that the ‘numbers’ that are proposed to guarantee the safety of cyclists, by the ‘shoaling’ effect, are never uniform, peaking only for a few hours at the start and end of the working day. There will be no ‘safety in numbers’ later in the evening, or during the day, when cyclists will quite often be travelling completely by themselves.

The Dutch would never use ‘safety in numbers’ as a substitute for civilising an environment for cycling. Indeed Fred Wegman, the managing director of SWOV (the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research) is dismissive about its effects [pdf] -

I do not expect that just a greater number of cyclists will on its own result in a risk reduction for the cyclist. On the other hand, I do expect that more cycling facilities will lead to lower risks. Policy that only focuses on an increase in cycling and at the same time ignores the construction of more cycling facilities, will not have a positive effect on road safety.

So it was a little worrying to see an LCC presentation discussing, even casually, whether it was viable as an alternative safety measure to cycling facilities, not just because of the reluctance of the Dutch themselves to rely on it, but especially because it seems to be a particular favourite ‘safety’ strategy of both our current Mayor and TfL. The latter have claimed that the ‘Boris Bike’ scheme will [pdf]

 Improve safety by increasing the number of cyclists on London’s roads

Likewise, in response to this question from Assembly Member James Cleverley -

Mr Mayor…. would you concede that a significant but often undervalued element of cycle safety is the herd immunity: the idea that, as increasing numbers of people cycle, the other road users become more used to cyclists, become aware of cyclists in their day-to-day driving habits and adapt their driving styles to accommodate cyclists?

Boris had this to say -

we need to hear some voices also making the key point that… that cycling is a good thing to do and it is becoming safer. The idea that there is safety in numbers and that you can create a culture of cycling is certainly right.

Relying on ‘safety in numbers’ is a particularly appealing strategy if you don’t really plan to do much for cycling, and cycling safety, beyond ‘encouraging’ people to take up riding a bike. It’s also a good way of being able to dismiss the claims of those who say that cycling is subjectively dangerous; the idea being that if you talk about how unsafe cycling feels, you discourage people from cycling, and hence make it ‘more dangerous’ by suppressing the numbers (this is the logic of this piece by Andrew Gilligan, and many others that have appeared in a similar vein).

It’s consequently a bit disappointing to see LCC potentially presenting it as a viable alternative to actually making streets subjectively safe for cycling. They have a great campaign, and some form of commitment from London’s politicians to start implementing it. For that reason I think they should be very wary of talking about ‘safety in numbers’ and its potential positive effects, because Boris is more than willing to ‘rely’ on it, instead of making changes where they are necessary.

]]> http://raincoaster.com/2012/05/09/twitpic-of-the-day-enter-the-dragon/ Wed, 09 May 2012 08:15:05 +0000 raincoaster http://raincoaster.com/2012/05/09/twitpic-of-the-day-enter-the-dragon/ Er, so to speak, you understand. So to speak.

BoJo: Enter the Dragon

via Azahar

Now that’s a physical specimen to put the fear of god into Ryan Reynolds, eh? How majestic, how magnificent. How much energy went into getting this body in motion? The mind: it boggleth.

Never change, Boris. Never change.

]]> http://typofails.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/quiet-few-days/ Tue, 08 May 2012 23:35:00 +0000 typofails http://typofails.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/quiet-few-days/ http://anandmaniar.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/pr-week-opinion-piece-8th-may-2012-3/ Tue, 08 May 2012 17:09:31 +0000 anandmaniar http://anandmaniar.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/pr-week-opinion-piece-8th-may-2012-3/ Boris Johnson’s media strategist Guto Harri leaves City Hall today

The media strategist – in a surprising turn of events – has left his role within the Mayor of London’s office, ahead of schedule. Harri was set to leave his position after the Olympics. This early resignation, therefore, suggests that the communications guru has been offered a position elsewhere. Harri said that it had been “a real joy and privilege” working for the Mayor and that he was looking forward to his “next challenge”.

It is rumoured that he received employment offers from both News International and Downing Street. However, as of yet, he has not announced details of his next career move.

Harri, who has previously worked at the BBC and Fleishman-Hillard, is definitely a ‘hot-pick’ for various companies. I will be extremely interested to see which organisation ends up benefitting from his expertise.

]]> http://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/greenhalgh-becomes-deputy-mayor/ Tue, 08 May 2012 13:20:51 +0000 buddyhell http://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/greenhalgh-becomes-deputy-mayor/ http://insidecroydon.com/2012/05/08/boris-in-record-breaking-form-when-it-comes-to-broken-pledges/ Tue, 08 May 2012 13:07:43 +0000 insidecroydon http://insidecroydon.com/2012/05/08/boris-in-record-breaking-form-when-it-comes-to-broken-pledges/ Suitably in an Olympic year, Boris Johnson has set a world record for breaking an election pledge.

Broken pledge No1: Boris Johnson promised to cut waste, but then announced he will appoint SEVEN deputy mayors to do his work. And there in the picture with Boris is the elusive Croydon and Sutton AM, Steve O’Connell

Boris has shown more speed than Usain Bolt.

On the very first morning of his first working day back in office at City Hall, Mayor Johnson has immediately broken the first point of his nine-point plan for London: to cut waste at City Hall.

For Boris has gone out and created more “jobs for the boys” and old Tory party hacks.

Boris has announced today that he is to have no fewer that SEVEN deputy mayors. At least five of them are unelected, but they will all receive generous, publicly funded allowances and expenses.

Boris Johnson, typically hard at work as Mayor of London

And all to do the work that Boris Johnson undertook to do when he stood for election.

Over the past four years, Johnson developed a well-earned reputation for avoiding questions from the national and London media. Already, senior journalists at BBC London are questioning whether they will spend the next four years having to interview the oily rags, rather than the organ grinder.

With so many willing deputies to take on the burden of Boris’s work for him, it will give the Mayor plenty of time to take holidays, do silly photo ops, to write books and pen his £250,000-a-year Telegraph column.

Oh, and prepare for the job he really wants, that of Tory party leader and Prime Minister.

It’s arguable that Johnson’s pledge on driving down crime levels might have been broken, too, because it looks like the whole of London got mugged last Thursday.

• Inside Croydon: brought to you from the heart of the borough, free of charge, an independent voice standing for freedom of speech for the people of Croydon

Related articles

• Democracy fails as Ken and Boris both lack the X Factor (insidecroydon.com)
• Boris Johnson sets out agenda for second term as mayor of London (guardian.co.uk)

]]> http://limpingchicken.com/2012/05/08/roy-staines-how-live-subtitles-ruined-boris-johnsons-election-speech/ Tue, 08 May 2012 10:56:12 +0000 Editor http://limpingchicken.com/2012/05/08/roy-staines-how-live-subtitles-ruined-boris-johnsons-election-speech/ http://blueplaquehacks.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/chelsea-fc-bid-to-bid-battersea-power-station/ Tue, 08 May 2012 10:10:47 +0000 blueplaquehacks http://blueplaquehacks.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/chelsea-fc-bid-to-bid-battersea-power-station/

Battersea Power Station. Photo: Graeme Maclean

Battersea Power Station is one of London’s iconic sites. Sitting on the south bank of the Thames, this cathedral-like landmark and Grade II* listed building is the largest brick building in Europe, and was once famed for its art deco interior.

The power station closed its doors in March 1975, and since then, there have been a variety of proposals to transform the site; including a theme park, a shopping mall and a London underground extension. In 2006, Real Estate Opportunities bought the site for approximately £400 million, however, after failing to find an investor to transform the site, the station collapsed into administration at the close of 2011. The site then went back on the market early this year.

Now, the once coal-fired electricity generator could be home to electricity of an entirely different kind, as Chelsea Football Club  have placed a bid to buy the site. The club propose to transform the site into a 60,000-seat stadium, which they hope will become ‘one of the world’s most iconic stadiums’, and will incorporate the power stations existing four chimneys into the design. Although Chelsea FC have not disclosed their bid amount, the 39-acre site is valued at £500 million, and their stadium plans are estimated to cost up to £1 billion, taking 3-4 years to complete.

Chelsea FC, whose current home is Stamford Bridge are keen for their bid to be accepted, however, in addition to fending off fierce competition for the site, they also have to convince re-instated Mayor, Boris Johnson.  Although we are still at early developmental stages in the process, as the bid was made only 3 days ago, Johnson’s chief of staff and Deputy Mayor for planning, Sir Edward Lister, has said: ‘I don’t think the site is suitable for Chelsea, and nor do a lot of people. It’s not a goer.’ Worried about the infrastructure of the area, and the difficulties transport networks may face in getting 60,000 fans to the site, there are already reservations about Chelsea’s bid.

Blue Plaque Hacks will keep our Plaquetivist supporters up to date with any news.

Everything changes, nothing stays the same.

Greece could be about to ask it’s people to vote again as their first decision didn’t fit the box. Conservatives and Liberals in local UK elections are feeling the voters sway towards Labour, in France too, the frogs are revolting. Decisions as to whether cities have a mayor, only Bristol said yes. London’s people chose Big Boris over Red Ken as their mayor, and I feel sure that the turn out of voters would have been enormous if a general election had been called to decide the England football manager.

Initially unsure as I had little knowledge of him, I’m now backing Roy Hodgson. Maybe the people’s choice, Harry Redknapp bless him, did a great job at family favoured West Ham, does a great job at all the football teams he manages, but Roy has the experience of managing national sides and will be a quiet but steady influence. A welcome change to the hugely inflated egos of football personalities.

And do football supporters have the right to influence whether a manager stays or goes following defeat? There can only be one winner of a championship, and if a team is relegated another team is promoted. That’s how it goes.

Another desperate few days for the LibCon pantomime.  Firstly one of their own, backbencher Nadine Dorries, described Cam/Os as “two posh boys who don’t know the price of a pint of milk” and then they took a hammering in the local elections as voters turned on them.  Cam/Os quoted the inevitable “mid-term blues factor”, low turnout and upset with the economy as the reasons behind their beating but it is clear that the people are not too happy with the boys. Cam felt the need to throw his celebratory weight behind the womanising buffoon Boris Johnson who had narrowly beaten Red Ken in the London Mayoral race.  The Etonian mafia must by now be getting the message that they are out of touch and very nearly out of time.  The roots of this useless Government go back, unfortunately, to one Tony Blair.  Good old “Tone” (man of the people) shafted the Labour Party when he left the strange Gordon Brown in charge as he rode off into the sunset to claim his enormous speech-giving royalties.  Gordon gave a cameo performance as a bumbling, angry, slightly autistic Scottish fun-denier and left the country with no option but to plump for the Etonian cabal.  The fact that Cam felt the need to wangle himself onto the BBC and tell the nation where and when he did his shopping and that, au contraire, he did know the price of a pinta, shows just how desperate he and his out-of-touch bunch are becoming.

1. “It is complete and utter nonsense to fear that London will be gridlocked during the games” – Boris Johnson
2. “There will be disruptions bit we shouldn’t get excited about it and we shouldn’t panic” – David Higgins, Network Rail
3. “On certain days and at certain times of day during the Games, some (tube) stations will operate differently” Get ahead of the games website
4. “On certain streets in London and on the Egham Bypass in Surrey, there will be temporary Games Lanes. These will only operate on around a third of the ORN and PRN and only on stretches of road that have more than one lane in each direction - in London, just 30 miles in total for the Olympic Games. When operational, they will only be accessible to athletes, Games officials, the media and those people who make the Games happen, as well as on-call emergency vehicles”.- Get ahead of the games website.

I guess those people who make the games happen include Boris Johnson and David Higgins and no doubt officials from the Get ahead of the games website.

I would be interested to hear from them as to how people can travel around London to get to work and school and hospitals during the games.

How politicians have to realise that modern technology allows their every action and word to be scrutinised and verified. So, if politicians try to play it fast and loose, saying one thing here and another there then they will soon be caught out.

In fact, it holds true for all those in the public eye. Be more careful what you say and to whom.

Rob argues:

“The free-and-easy availability of information makes it easier to catch politicians out: and if you speak as carelessly as the Labour candidate always has, you will be caught out not once but repeatedly; which is what has happened. Trust, or the lack of it, is what stopped the Livingstone bandwagon in its tracks. That’s the beauty of twenty-first century politics: it requires politicians who say the same to everyone.

In short, it is perhaps Livingstone’s failure to adapt to this new world that has most contributed to his astonishing achievement: of gifting a campaign, which should really have been won, to his enemies, on a very good night for Labour. “