Lambeth local elections 2010 thread
- Thread starter se5
- Start date
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
In answer to the possibility of the Greens going into coalition with any of the other three parties (as asked over here - seemed pointless posting on old thread...)
Short answer: Nope.
I had a very useful chat with John Hare earlier, one of the Green Candidates for Herne Hill. As well as ruling out propping up another party, we also discussed the lies being put out by Lambeth Labour in Herne Hill.
This was tricky for John, as he didn't want to make political gain out of the Labour literature. I pressed him though, as I believe that if we are being fed incorrect information by any party, it needs to be shown up for the sham that it is.
So yep, Lambeth Labour actually admit that they have been economical with the truth, over in Herne Hill.
Short answer: Nope.
I had a very useful chat with John Hare earlier, one of the Green Candidates for Herne Hill. As well as ruling out propping up another party, we also discussed the lies being put out by Lambeth Labour in Herne Hill.
This was tricky for John, as he didn't want to make political gain out of the Labour literature. I pressed him though, as I believe that if we are being fed incorrect information by any party, it needs to be shown up for the sham that it is.
So yep, Lambeth Labour actually admit that they have been economical with the truth, over in Herne Hill.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Ouch for labour.
I've seen the same graph in Larkhall where Labour got about three times the votes of the tories.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Actually that is a bit closer than I had remembered, maybe those graphs have a point!
I thought Larkhall was an absolutely massive Labour majority, instead it's just huge...
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Sad that Nu Labour have to try and defeat Greens by writing them out of the picture rather than engaging with them in a discussion.
Ive heard its very difficult being a Cllr of a minor party as the big boys just freeze u out.
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
There's more as well - Chuka Umunna in Streatham isn't quite making up the data in his graphs, but is using the London Assembly vote for 2008 to give the impression that the LibDems in Streatham are dead and buried.
This is hardly the case - remember how the Mayoral elections were pretty much a Ken Vs Boris vote off. LibDem Chris Nicholson in Streatham is very strong.
The message of Vote LibDem, get the Tory bogey man is very misleading.
This is hardly the case - remember how the Mayoral elections were pretty much a Ken Vs Boris vote off. LibDem Chris Nicholson in Streatham is very strong.
The message of Vote LibDem, get the Tory bogey man is very misleading.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
You sound like a LibDem but, don't forget, it was them who pioneered this lying about two-horse races. In fact Nicholson uses it himself to claim that voting for him is the only way to keep Labour out. His misleading chart seems to be based on figures for the last Lambeth Council elections in 2006. It would have been more logical (and honest) to have used the results of the 2005 General Election, but then the gap between Labour and LibDems was larger and that between LibDems and Tories smaller (see here)
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The WRP candidate engaging an attractive young lady in the finer points of proletarian struggle.
Dishy candidate - much more bedable than the Honorable Nick Clegg. As for GB and DC - would you want to wake yup next to either of them in the morning. Noooo!
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
It seems Cheryl is put off at the thought of Cameron next to her in the morning as well.
If the Labour party wanted to get more votes they could have had have her canvassing around here.
From The Mirror
Cheryl Cole: I'll back Gordon Brown in election
8/01/2009
Labour could recruit a secret weapon for the next general election - national treasure Cheryl Cole.
The Girls Aloud star has said in an interview she supports Gordon Brown, and party chiefs want her to help attract young votes.
The interview in Vogue says: "Cheryl Cole could probably swing an election ... she is a Brown voter, by the way, not Cameron."
X Factor judge Cheryl, 25, has never forgiven David Cameron for saying he fancied her. She said: "He was just trying to be cool."
The PM, an X Factor fan, has already worked with David Beckham and Lewis Hamilton for A-list support.
Good excuse for photo of sexiest women in the world
If the Labour party wanted to get more votes they could have had have her canvassing around here.
From The Mirror
Cheryl Cole: I'll back Gordon Brown in election
8/01/2009
Labour could recruit a secret weapon for the next general election - national treasure Cheryl Cole.
The Girls Aloud star has said in an interview she supports Gordon Brown, and party chiefs want her to help attract young votes.
The interview in Vogue says: "Cheryl Cole could probably swing an election ... she is a Brown voter, by the way, not Cameron."
X Factor judge Cheryl, 25, has never forgiven David Cameron for saying he fancied her. She said: "He was just trying to be cool."
The PM, an X Factor fan, has already worked with David Beckham and Lewis Hamilton for A-list support.
Good excuse for photo of sexiest women in the world
Attachments
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Well I dunno about Cheryl - her ex is presumably now "in play" and might well be available, according to some earlier reports
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I went to the hustings organized by Lambeth Tenants Council with support of Lambeth pensioners action group and Lambeth Defend Council Housing.
Report on meeting on 1st May
“Who will sort out Lambeth s housing crisis”
Called by Lambeth Tenants Council supported by Lambeth Defend Council Housing and Lambeth Pensioners Action Group.
The meeting was well attended (about 35) mainly Council tenants and Leaseholders. (Except yours truly “Short Life”).
John Hare (Green) , Ashley Lumsden (L/D) , Kirsty McHugh (Lab) and Whelan (Tory) attended to answer questions.
This was a 2 hour meeting so I will attempt to summarize main points made by candidates and concerns from the floor rather than give verbatim account.
The introduction by a member of LDCH stated that LBL is one of the most overcrowded in the country. It has a high proportion of young people and Ethnic minorities. There are 17 000 on waiting list and 2000 in temporary accommodation. There is also a problem of overcrowding. The Council does not do enough to regulate private landlords. Much private rented property is unfit. The 2 questions that speaker put to candidates were:
What will be done to increase Council Housing? How will empties be brought back into use and how will Decent Home Standard (DCS) be brought in.
Are Shared Ownership schemes the answer or should there be more houses/flats for rent?
Answers from candidates:
Greens. In agreement with DCH. Want “Option 4” ( Giving Councils right to borrow to build new Council housing). Would use “Empty property use orders” to get empty properties into use. Not sure about ALMO ( Lambeth Living “arms length management organization”) as this was complicated question. (The Green candidate was nice but kept on taking the line that he didn't know enough. Refreshingly modest but led to woolly answers. I could have done with more about what Greens think about housing. Started to sound like a L/D)
L/D. Zero tolerance on empty properties ( this was mainly issue of empty Council owned properties. There were complaints from floor about turn around of properties once empty)
Would borrow money to build new Council housing for rent (Option 4).
Shared ownership is a scam that developers use. Social rented housing is needed.
Labour. 3 issues 1) Customer service
2)State of housing stock
3)Overcrowding
She proceeded to answer some questions. “Long cycle voids” would be brought back into use. Private new developments should have 50% affordable housing. This should not be just for “Key Workers”. She said cleaners etc. are also Key workers and need housing. (At present Key Workers are Nurses, Firemen in general Public sector workers). There was issue of subletting of Council housing. She attacked Tories for saying could borrow on open market to build Council housing. This was not feasible. New Council funded by Government. So if Tories got into power it would be bad for affordable housing.
At this point the L/D interjected ( the Tory was late as he was with constituent). He said that he had watched Gordon Brown on tv saying that the Government had done all it can for affordable housing and now it was up to private sector. PM was saying money had already happened. There wasn't any more.
The followed discussion of ALMO from floor and candidates.
From what I understood from meeting at the last Council election Lambeth Labour did not have ALMO in it. Kirsty said there were no private discussions in Labour Group about an ALMO prior to election. The L/D disagreed and said he had seen evidence of discussion prior to election. Kirsty said that once elected as a new Labour administration the Government suddenly told Council that the last bids for ALMO ( and the money that went with it if the Council set one up. It appears that if an ALMO had not been set up the Government would effectively punished Council tenants by not funding improvements.) Therefore Kirsty said the ballots of Council tenants was rushed with little consultation as the Council only had six weeks to get bid in.
The issue of the ALMO was a clear divide between candidates. Also caused the most comp from the floor. Two issues from floor was that they werent consulted about it properly and that it was badly run. The L/D said that if elected to power they would review the ALMO. The wanted it tenant led. Not ex MPs (Keith Hill) being paid £10 000 to Chair it. If the review found that tenants wanted the ALMO disbanded then they would do that. Kirsty ( Labour) said the Labour group wanted to give it 12 months then if no improvement then would disband it.
Interjections from floor by LDCH. The promised money from Government didnt happen. Would candidates give commitment that ALMO is not first step to privatization?
Unison rep. Under the ALMO due to its mge failing frontline staff had been cut. Some frontline staff were being privatized. But the ALMO were employing consultants for huge sums. Would candidates promise no more job cuts and keep frontline workers inhouse? Said ALMO should be disbanded and housing returned to full Council control. (Applause from audience at end of Unison rep speaking)
Green candidate said opposed use of ALMO as stepping stone to privatization.
L/D said Council tenants forced into ALMO. There was no other purpose to ALMO than to lead to privatization. Tenants had not been involved in running ALMO. Despite promises of this from Labour party. It should be up to tenants to decide future of ALMO.
Labour. Kirsty said that she knows ALMO had not been popular decision. She said ALMO was not first step to privatisation. She acknowledged the carrot of Government money . (see above).
Kirsty is on board of ALMO. ( At one point she was going on about how committed she was to Council housing as she was brought up in it. Proper working class then . Labour party people often do this to show there credentials when pushing what are in effect right wing policies. I digress) She said at last meeting the tenants had said they were happy that service was improving. This led to heated interjections that this wasn't the case.
Further interjection from Unison that just prior to election the housing Call centre was being “reorganized”. Anecdotally he had been told this was prelude to outsourcing the Call centre. These decisions are made by Labour leadership outside Cabinet below the “Radar”. L/D candidate agreed with this.
part two in next post. My PDF was too big and posted it up needs two posts as to long .
Report on meeting on 1st May
“Who will sort out Lambeth s housing crisis”
Called by Lambeth Tenants Council supported by Lambeth Defend Council Housing and Lambeth Pensioners Action Group.
The meeting was well attended (about 35) mainly Council tenants and Leaseholders. (Except yours truly “Short Life”).
John Hare (Green) , Ashley Lumsden (L/D) , Kirsty McHugh (Lab) and Whelan (Tory) attended to answer questions.
This was a 2 hour meeting so I will attempt to summarize main points made by candidates and concerns from the floor rather than give verbatim account.
The introduction by a member of LDCH stated that LBL is one of the most overcrowded in the country. It has a high proportion of young people and Ethnic minorities. There are 17 000 on waiting list and 2000 in temporary accommodation. There is also a problem of overcrowding. The Council does not do enough to regulate private landlords. Much private rented property is unfit. The 2 questions that speaker put to candidates were:
What will be done to increase Council Housing? How will empties be brought back into use and how will Decent Home Standard (DCS) be brought in.
Are Shared Ownership schemes the answer or should there be more houses/flats for rent?
Answers from candidates:
Greens. In agreement with DCH. Want “Option 4” ( Giving Councils right to borrow to build new Council housing). Would use “Empty property use orders” to get empty properties into use. Not sure about ALMO ( Lambeth Living “arms length management organization”) as this was complicated question. (The Green candidate was nice but kept on taking the line that he didn't know enough. Refreshingly modest but led to woolly answers. I could have done with more about what Greens think about housing. Started to sound like a L/D)
L/D. Zero tolerance on empty properties ( this was mainly issue of empty Council owned properties. There were complaints from floor about turn around of properties once empty)
Would borrow money to build new Council housing for rent (Option 4).
Shared ownership is a scam that developers use. Social rented housing is needed.
Labour. 3 issues 1) Customer service
2)State of housing stock
3)Overcrowding
She proceeded to answer some questions. “Long cycle voids” would be brought back into use. Private new developments should have 50% affordable housing. This should not be just for “Key Workers”. She said cleaners etc. are also Key workers and need housing. (At present Key Workers are Nurses, Firemen in general Public sector workers). There was issue of subletting of Council housing. She attacked Tories for saying could borrow on open market to build Council housing. This was not feasible. New Council funded by Government. So if Tories got into power it would be bad for affordable housing.
At this point the L/D interjected ( the Tory was late as he was with constituent). He said that he had watched Gordon Brown on tv saying that the Government had done all it can for affordable housing and now it was up to private sector. PM was saying money had already happened. There wasn't any more.
The followed discussion of ALMO from floor and candidates.
From what I understood from meeting at the last Council election Lambeth Labour did not have ALMO in it. Kirsty said there were no private discussions in Labour Group about an ALMO prior to election. The L/D disagreed and said he had seen evidence of discussion prior to election. Kirsty said that once elected as a new Labour administration the Government suddenly told Council that the last bids for ALMO ( and the money that went with it if the Council set one up. It appears that if an ALMO had not been set up the Government would effectively punished Council tenants by not funding improvements.) Therefore Kirsty said the ballots of Council tenants was rushed with little consultation as the Council only had six weeks to get bid in.
The issue of the ALMO was a clear divide between candidates. Also caused the most comp from the floor. Two issues from floor was that they werent consulted about it properly and that it was badly run. The L/D said that if elected to power they would review the ALMO. The wanted it tenant led. Not ex MPs (Keith Hill) being paid £10 000 to Chair it. If the review found that tenants wanted the ALMO disbanded then they would do that. Kirsty ( Labour) said the Labour group wanted to give it 12 months then if no improvement then would disband it.
Interjections from floor by LDCH. The promised money from Government didnt happen. Would candidates give commitment that ALMO is not first step to privatization?
Unison rep. Under the ALMO due to its mge failing frontline staff had been cut. Some frontline staff were being privatized. But the ALMO were employing consultants for huge sums. Would candidates promise no more job cuts and keep frontline workers inhouse? Said ALMO should be disbanded and housing returned to full Council control. (Applause from audience at end of Unison rep speaking)
Green candidate said opposed use of ALMO as stepping stone to privatization.
L/D said Council tenants forced into ALMO. There was no other purpose to ALMO than to lead to privatization. Tenants had not been involved in running ALMO. Despite promises of this from Labour party. It should be up to tenants to decide future of ALMO.
Labour. Kirsty said that she knows ALMO had not been popular decision. She said ALMO was not first step to privatisation. She acknowledged the carrot of Government money . (see above).
Kirsty is on board of ALMO. ( At one point she was going on about how committed she was to Council housing as she was brought up in it. Proper working class then . Labour party people often do this to show there credentials when pushing what are in effect right wing policies. I digress) She said at last meeting the tenants had said they were happy that service was improving. This led to heated interjections that this wasn't the case.
Further interjection from Unison that just prior to election the housing Call centre was being “reorganized”. Anecdotally he had been told this was prelude to outsourcing the Call centre. These decisions are made by Labour leadership outside Cabinet below the “Radar”. L/D candidate agreed with this.
part two in next post. My PDF was too big and posted it up needs two posts as to long .
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Second part of meeting organised by Lambeth Tenants Council. See previous post for first part.
John Whelan (Tory candidate) arrived at meeting. He said it was bizarre that the leader of the Council Steve Reed had just before the election said that the ALMO needs rethinking.
Interjection from floor. A problem with the ALMO was that the Council didn't tell them how much money they will get. Its understaffed and underfunded. They cant budget if they aren't told what funding they will get.
A tenant from the Loughborough estate brought a petition asking there concierge be kept and not cut. She said the the GMB union was asking people to vote Labour to save jobs. But in fact what was happening was that under Labour jobs were being cut. What was needed for people on her estate were proper jobs with proper wages and conditions. Also apprenticeships for young people. There was need for housing and repairs so the Government should do this.
The Tory ( who was late) said he wanted to see a proper ballot of tenants on ALMO. Both the L/D and Tory candidate complained that the previous ballot was biased in favour of a yes vote. The L/D said he wanted a new ballot where the tenants were involved in setting the question. A proper ballot where both those for and against the ALMO could put there arguments openly.
The L/D said the ALMO was a failing structure. ALMO was not answer. It does not allow people to hold the Council to account.
Green said ballot not needed as people didn't want ALMO in first place.
One of the Lambeth pensioners said properties should not be sold off.
Kirsty said that the Labour had come in saying it would not sell houses off. Then unwillingly took political decision to sell some of it. The L/D said they would sell only those which would bring in a lot of money. There was disagreement between the 2 main parties on this. Feeling from floor was against further sell off's and that Government should fund Council housing properly.
Someone from LDCH said that Housing had been plundered in Lambeth to subsidise Council. That central Labour Government had been terrible on funding Council housing.
Green said that the Council Tax had been kept down by increasing Council rents and services that Leaseholders paid for ( I have been referring to Council tenants. There are also Council Leaseholders
as well). This was in effect transferring money from the poor to the rich. The Greens nationally had an “Equality Pledge”. Any policies would be scrutinized to see effect on equality.
Also raised from floor was appalling service that Leaseholders got from Council. They were being charged for services they didn't get. Charges had gone up astronomically. Bills were wrongly sent out and incorrect.
Lambeth Pensioners Action Group said that the needs of older were not recognized. The was also the case for disabled people ( there was a disabled person at meeting bringing this issue up) . Kirsty suggested all party commission on disability. This led to laughter from audience. They said that there already been a commission on Sheltered housing that had been ignored. It was pointed out from floor that there was a Disability Act therefore the Council didn't need a commission. It was general feeling that older people and disabled peoples were not consulted or included in Housing mge.
My conclusion on meeting.
It was lively interesting meeting. It did concentrate on Council Housing. Didn't cover those in other forms of affordable housing. Perhaps this is an argument for more democratic control of housing in general. Whilst there were complaints from the floor at least Council tenants/ Leaseholders have some democratic say.
As the Tory Whelan said Kirsty ,representing Labour, was brave to attend. There were complaints that Steve Reed the leader should have attended. Would I feel safe voting Labour if I was a Council tenant? No.
The accusations of Labour group policy being decided off the Radar seem credible. Also I get the impression that Lambeth Labour are so loyal that if central Government want them to do the latest Nu Labour policy they will jump to it. Trying to convince there mainly old Labour voters after the fact.
I was a bit disappointed the Greens were more forthcoming about an alternative housing strategy.
John Whelan (Tory candidate) arrived at meeting. He said it was bizarre that the leader of the Council Steve Reed had just before the election said that the ALMO needs rethinking.
Interjection from floor. A problem with the ALMO was that the Council didn't tell them how much money they will get. Its understaffed and underfunded. They cant budget if they aren't told what funding they will get.
A tenant from the Loughborough estate brought a petition asking there concierge be kept and not cut. She said the the GMB union was asking people to vote Labour to save jobs. But in fact what was happening was that under Labour jobs were being cut. What was needed for people on her estate were proper jobs with proper wages and conditions. Also apprenticeships for young people. There was need for housing and repairs so the Government should do this.
The Tory ( who was late) said he wanted to see a proper ballot of tenants on ALMO. Both the L/D and Tory candidate complained that the previous ballot was biased in favour of a yes vote. The L/D said he wanted a new ballot where the tenants were involved in setting the question. A proper ballot where both those for and against the ALMO could put there arguments openly.
The L/D said the ALMO was a failing structure. ALMO was not answer. It does not allow people to hold the Council to account.
Green said ballot not needed as people didn't want ALMO in first place.
One of the Lambeth pensioners said properties should not be sold off.
Kirsty said that the Labour had come in saying it would not sell houses off. Then unwillingly took political decision to sell some of it. The L/D said they would sell only those which would bring in a lot of money. There was disagreement between the 2 main parties on this. Feeling from floor was against further sell off's and that Government should fund Council housing properly.
Someone from LDCH said that Housing had been plundered in Lambeth to subsidise Council. That central Labour Government had been terrible on funding Council housing.
Green said that the Council Tax had been kept down by increasing Council rents and services that Leaseholders paid for ( I have been referring to Council tenants. There are also Council Leaseholders
as well). This was in effect transferring money from the poor to the rich. The Greens nationally had an “Equality Pledge”. Any policies would be scrutinized to see effect on equality.
Also raised from floor was appalling service that Leaseholders got from Council. They were being charged for services they didn't get. Charges had gone up astronomically. Bills were wrongly sent out and incorrect.
Lambeth Pensioners Action Group said that the needs of older were not recognized. The was also the case for disabled people ( there was a disabled person at meeting bringing this issue up) . Kirsty suggested all party commission on disability. This led to laughter from audience. They said that there already been a commission on Sheltered housing that had been ignored. It was pointed out from floor that there was a Disability Act therefore the Council didn't need a commission. It was general feeling that older people and disabled peoples were not consulted or included in Housing mge.
My conclusion on meeting.
It was lively interesting meeting. It did concentrate on Council Housing. Didn't cover those in other forms of affordable housing. Perhaps this is an argument for more democratic control of housing in general. Whilst there were complaints from the floor at least Council tenants/ Leaseholders have some democratic say.
As the Tory Whelan said Kirsty ,representing Labour, was brave to attend. There were complaints that Steve Reed the leader should have attended. Would I feel safe voting Labour if I was a Council tenant? No.
The accusations of Labour group policy being decided off the Radar seem credible. Also I get the impression that Lambeth Labour are so loyal that if central Government want them to do the latest Nu Labour policy they will jump to it. Trying to convince there mainly old Labour voters after the fact.
I was a bit disappointed the Greens were more forthcoming about an alternative housing strategy.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
Thanks Gramsci. I wish I'd been able to get there. There are a number of questions that desperately need asking about the relationship between the council and the ALMO. It looks like Kirsty kind of hinted at an answer to one of them. Seems like it never has been arms length and never will be since it was simply a reorganisation of staff in order to grab some promises of extra funding.
Which leaves the question of how can anyone justify a situation where the ALMO competes with TMOs for a share of the HRA, supposedly on a basis of parity, and yet the ALMO can demand that the council cut funding to a specific TMO and have the council act immediately on that demand.
I don't believe that waiting 12 months to see if the ALMO improves is any longer an option. It has to be either brought to an end immediately, or it has to be organised in a way that makes it's relationship with the council clear and legally sound.
Which leaves the question of how can anyone justify a situation where the ALMO competes with TMOs for a share of the HRA, supposedly on a basis of parity, and yet the ALMO can demand that the council cut funding to a specific TMO and have the council act immediately on that demand.
I don't believe that waiting 12 months to see if the ALMO improves is any longer an option. It has to be either brought to an end immediately, or it has to be organised in a way that makes it's relationship with the council clear and legally sound.
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
Great overview Gramsci, many thanks.
I was also at the hustings!
I feel that housing should be the major issue locally here in Lambeth on May 6th. Sadly I think it is a debate that for whatever reason, has been tragically overlooked.
The ALMO clearly isn't working. I'm not sure what the solution is. Housing is a HUGE spend out of the local authority pot. The part-privatisation model has failed, but I can't see the council offering any improvement.
Very depressing
I was also at the hustings!
I feel that housing should be the major issue locally here in Lambeth on May 6th. Sadly I think it is a debate that for whatever reason, has been tragically overlooked.
The ALMO clearly isn't working. I'm not sure what the solution is. Housing is a HUGE spend out of the local authority pot. The part-privatisation model has failed, but I can't see the council offering any improvement.
Very depressing
twistedAM
Left Of The Dial
Yeah I'd NEVER trust a LibDem...everyone of them a chameleon to the core.
They're winding me up more than ever before. I might have to vote labour and then take a shower.
WarmharbourLane
New Member
Is there anywhere to watch the election night locally by the way - or am I gonna have to bring the duvet down to my sofa and try to stay awake past 3am.....?
Are ther various political groups having election night parties anywhere ?
Are ther various political groups having election night parties anywhere ?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
TMOs was the one question that didnt come up to my surprise. Yes Kirsty was saying that the newly elected Labour group did this in a hurry to not lose the extra funding that goes with an ALMO.
I think more likely there were Cllrs who saw it as a pragmatic way to get funding. .Also there were true believers who would have gone down the ALMO route anyway. Look at the PFI scheme for Myatts fields Its straight of Nu Labour ideological cutting edge modernisation.
The problem with turning Council from "providers" to "enablers" harnessing a combination of entrepreneurial expertise and community involvement to provide social good is the very point u brought up. The relationship between semi autonomous organisations , Cllrs and "customers" is not thought through.
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
It's possible to do it well. In Leeds the TMOs and the ALMO have an excellent relationship. Which is because the council made a lot of effort to separate the responsibilities between itself and the ALMO. In Leeds everyone knows where they stand. In Lambeth many of the staff in the council and in the ALMO don't know which has responsibility for what aspect of housing, and many seem to be confused as to which they are working for. Which would be fine if Lambeth Living were the only provider of council housing in the borough. As it is however, it is a bit of a bugger for TMOs who have to compete for funding from the HRA with a body that many council officers seem to think is still part of the council.
It's not come to bloodshed yet, but seriously, there are people here in Angell Town who are VIOLENTLY angry at the way they are being treated. I don't think any of the politicians have any idea what's in store after the election. There is a clash coming between some officers in the housing department and in Lambeth Living, and various tenants groups, that will either end in officers being sacked with extreme prejudice, or tenants representatives jailed.
Unfortunately all that we get from the politicians (of all parties) is a complete lack of understanding, total ignorance of any problems, a complete disdain for anyone living in any form of social housing, vague platitudes and broken promises, and a whole load of shit stirring and blaming of other politicians. This in a situation where the last two administrarions have raised rents, reduced repairs, sold off properties, and overseen a complete destruction of anything resembling organisation in the management of council housing in Lambeth. We are facing a 30% budget cut in a single year from a situation that was already untenable. We have had officers remove over a million pounds of regenaration funding simply as a way of bullying us into accepting that 30% cut. The same officers are currently threatening that regardless of what is decided in a court of law they will simply not hand over any more funds than that.
I don't think any of the candidates for the council have a clue what is facing those unlucky enough to be elected.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that Eric. It interesting to hear about what is actually happening in Angell Town. You. are in my ward (Coldharbour) I think. I went to see the Angell town estate at the last Open House weekend as they were doing guided tours. Its really interesting how it was tenant led regeneration of estate. I was impressed by what has been done there with tenant involvement.It also got a one off large grant to do it from central Government I believe.
There are 2 issues:
1) organisation and management.
You say that in Liverpool the ALMO was set up properly. It is possible to run an ALMO and provide a good service.
2) The politics of housing.
Should local government withdraw from being providers of social housing? If so how should housing be provided? The Market? Or by funding from central Government? What is "affordable" housing? Should decent housing be a social right?
I think gradually truly affordable rented housing is on its way out if New Labour get re elected.
There are 2 issues:
1) organisation and management.
You say that in Liverpool the ALMO was set up properly. It is possible to run an ALMO and provide a good service.
2) The politics of housing.
Should local government withdraw from being providers of social housing? If so how should housing be provided? The Market? Or by funding from central Government? What is "affordable" housing? Should decent housing be a social right?
I think gradually truly affordable rented housing is on its way out if New Labour get re elected.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Great overview Gramsci, many thanks.
I was also at the hustings!
I feel that housing should be the major issue locally here in Lambeth on May 6th. Sadly I think it is a debate that for whatever reason, has been tragically overlooked.
The ALMO clearly isn't working. I'm not sure what the solution is. Housing is a HUGE spend out of the local authority pot. The part-privatisation model has failed, but I can't see the council offering any improvement.
Very depressing
You werent sitting next to me taking notes? I noticed someone was and they asked me who was at the table in the front as they came in a bit late.
The bag man gave me a UKIP newspaper as well. What i found odd was that he seemed to have a foreign accent
. I thought UKIP was Brits onlyThe meeting was out of time and with little resolved – a bit like Lambeth Living. A chap wearing a hooded anorak (hood up) and carrying endless plastic bags, came over to me to hand me a UKIP newspaper.
I would say many of the audience were Old Labour or borderline Trots (Defend Council Housing and the rep from Unison who Kirsty at one point took a swipe at). Kirsty can speak there language so it was bizarre that it was LD and Torys who were supporting the tenants the most.
Noticed that both the Greens and LD said they would use Option 4 (borrow to build Council housing). Whelan was late so dont think he was asked. But there is a Tory council in South London building Council owned housing. Kirsty I noticed avoided saying anything about Option 4.
I agree housing should be major issue. The issues of the market supplying housing was not discussed much at meeting. Private tenants have remarkably little rights compared to forty years ago. And also compared to many European Countries.
It does appear to be a huge drain but that is also due to central Government inaction and (as the LD pointed out) belief in little regulated market forces in supplying housing. The lack of decent affordable housing is also done the the fact that in this country unlike many European countries housing is seen as an investment rather than just somewhere to live.
In the long run I think DCH are on the right track.
I liked your podcast interview. Ur up on the new technology. I noticed that Ashley didnt rule out selling properties.
Talking to Council tenants this is abone of contention. The Cllrs like going on about the evil queue jumping squatters but that fact is LBL under different administrations has been selling off street properties that could be used to house people. They are inconvenient to manage unlike the larger estates.
Housing is one of those things that Nu Labour have failed at. The reason its not a big election issue nationally or locally is sadly that those who live in "affordable" housing or need it dont count.
The election at national level will be decided by the floating voter who is likely to be a property owner.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
One of the LDCH people at meeting mentioned this article:
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6509602
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6509602
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
There are a number of things that can be done to dramatically improve the housing situation in Lambeth. By that I mean the overall situation for all forms of tenant and homeowner, since that's how the council should be looking at it.
First and foremost the ALMO debacle has to be dealt with. There are two ways to go with that in the long term. Take the entire lot back in-house, or turn the ALMO into an independent co-operative that is genuinely distanced from the council itself and under the control of tenants. Which route to take should be decided eventually by a Lambeth wide ballot of all residents. In the mean time, immediately on taking office, councillors HAVE to take control of the situation away from officers. At present there is too much confusion both in the council's housing department and in Lambeth Living about who has what responsibility. Largely this is because councillors have left too much of the decision making to officers. So officers have done what is sensible from their perspective. They have made compromises and found easy quick fixes rather than actually working out a plan for the long term future of the ALMO. Which isn't their fault. It isn't their job to create overall strategies, that is what the council (as in the councillors) is for.
There has to be an absolute ban on appointing consultants to Lambeth Living as a quick alternative to properly employing permanent staff. It's draining the budget and leading to administration of the ALMO in a way that is totally dominated by short term thinking and office politics.
In the longer term there needs to be some serious thought about how the various forms of housing in the borough should be balanced. This needs to be done, for once, on a basis of fact rather than blind assumption and prejudice. For instance it needs to be done with the understanding that in terms of Lambeth council itself, tenants are not subsidised by council tax payers. In fact it's the other way around. Tenants pay far more into the HRA than they get back from it. If it wasn't for administrative foul ups the HRA would be massively subsidising the rest of the council. Council housing isn't a drain on Lambeth's resources. Screwed up administration is the drain on Lambeth's resources, and selling off council housing isn't going to fix that. Only taking on bad practise in council departments will fix it. Which means councillors prepared to take flak from officers they have upset.
There needs to be a proper understanding of what "voids" are. It's all very well mouthing platitudes about reducing the number of voids in the council's housing stock, but it's counter productive nonsense. It may play well with relatively ignorant voters, but anyone who has experience in any similar field will know that you don't aim for 100% occupancy. It's more efficient to aim for somewhere between 90% and 95%. Because you have to have voids in order to be able to deal with some types of repair, and in order to be able to transfer tenants in an emergency. Asking housing officers to aim for 100% occupancy is just plain stupid. However there are long term voids and those should be dealt with. However they should be categorised as something completely different. Especially when, as usually seems to be the case, the reason the place is empty is that there's no money to make it habitable.
I could go on, but I need my breakfast. However there's one more thing that I see as absolutely essential for the councillors to look at the moment the election is over. The council's housing department and the ALMO are far too insular. In other parts of the country things are being done far better than they are in Lambeth. The sensible approach is to go and look at how they do things elsewhere, rather than simply sticking their noses in the air and moaning that Lambeth is different and has to always find its own solutions.
First and foremost the ALMO debacle has to be dealt with. There are two ways to go with that in the long term. Take the entire lot back in-house, or turn the ALMO into an independent co-operative that is genuinely distanced from the council itself and under the control of tenants. Which route to take should be decided eventually by a Lambeth wide ballot of all residents. In the mean time, immediately on taking office, councillors HAVE to take control of the situation away from officers. At present there is too much confusion both in the council's housing department and in Lambeth Living about who has what responsibility. Largely this is because councillors have left too much of the decision making to officers. So officers have done what is sensible from their perspective. They have made compromises and found easy quick fixes rather than actually working out a plan for the long term future of the ALMO. Which isn't their fault. It isn't their job to create overall strategies, that is what the council (as in the councillors) is for.
There has to be an absolute ban on appointing consultants to Lambeth Living as a quick alternative to properly employing permanent staff. It's draining the budget and leading to administration of the ALMO in a way that is totally dominated by short term thinking and office politics.
In the longer term there needs to be some serious thought about how the various forms of housing in the borough should be balanced. This needs to be done, for once, on a basis of fact rather than blind assumption and prejudice. For instance it needs to be done with the understanding that in terms of Lambeth council itself, tenants are not subsidised by council tax payers. In fact it's the other way around. Tenants pay far more into the HRA than they get back from it. If it wasn't for administrative foul ups the HRA would be massively subsidising the rest of the council. Council housing isn't a drain on Lambeth's resources. Screwed up administration is the drain on Lambeth's resources, and selling off council housing isn't going to fix that. Only taking on bad practise in council departments will fix it. Which means councillors prepared to take flak from officers they have upset.
There needs to be a proper understanding of what "voids" are. It's all very well mouthing platitudes about reducing the number of voids in the council's housing stock, but it's counter productive nonsense. It may play well with relatively ignorant voters, but anyone who has experience in any similar field will know that you don't aim for 100% occupancy. It's more efficient to aim for somewhere between 90% and 95%. Because you have to have voids in order to be able to deal with some types of repair, and in order to be able to transfer tenants in an emergency. Asking housing officers to aim for 100% occupancy is just plain stupid. However there are long term voids and those should be dealt with. However they should be categorised as something completely different. Especially when, as usually seems to be the case, the reason the place is empty is that there's no money to make it habitable.
I could go on, but I need my breakfast. However there's one more thing that I see as absolutely essential for the councillors to look at the moment the election is over. The council's housing department and the ALMO are far too insular. In other parts of the country things are being done far better than they are in Lambeth. The sensible approach is to go and look at how they do things elsewhere, rather than simply sticking their noses in the air and moaning that Lambeth is different and has to always find its own solutions.
An unsigned unattributed leaflet has been circulated in Streatham Ward alleging that the Megabowl developers gave Labour Cllrs personal bribes of over £1m, that Chuka Ummana has nothing to do with Streatham (he was born and brought up there) and all sorts of allegations about lying and corruption.
It urges a vote for Chris Nicholson (LD).
It's either a cunning plot to put people off voting LD in case it actually come from them (it is very loony in tone) or the manifesto of the Monster Loony Conspiracy Theory Party - or true.
Anyone know?
It urges a vote for Chris Nicholson (LD).
It's either a cunning plot to put people off voting LD in case it actually come from them (it is very loony in tone) or the manifesto of the Monster Loony Conspiracy Theory Party - or true.
Anyone know?
Tricky Skills
Well-Known Member
My suspicion is that the bonkers @LondonElections loon. This is an individual who was part of Chuka's campaign team, and then for whatever reason, fell out with the Labour man.
He switched his support to Rahoul Bhansali, the Tory PPC, although Rahoul has been keen to stress to me that he is nothing whatsoever to do with his campaign.
Looks like the loon has now turned to Chris Nic.
He switched his support to Rahoul Bhansali, the Tory PPC, although Rahoul has been keen to stress to me that he is nothing whatsoever to do with his campaign.
Looks like the loon has now turned to Chris Nic.
Er, no. This guy has never been involved with Chuka's campaign and is instead a prolific internet loon. Do a search for Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_objectid=14557214&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=shamed-doctor-probe-name_page.html
