Category Archives: Blog

Maternity policy

Posted on by

Rush to Liberal Democrat HQ in Cowley Street for briefing prior to a national press conference for a new policy launch – our ‘Maternity Income Guarantee‘.

I got the call last week to ask if I would present the policy with Charles Kennedy, Phil Willis and Hanna Hedges – the youngest parliamentary candidate next time around.

We are briefed (briefly) and then we march in prescribed order into the conference room at HQ where all our press conferences usually take place. The assembled media has a satisfactory turnout of TV, national and regional journalists – despite Michael Howard co-timing his launch of the new Tory policies on asylum and immigration – of that more later.

Charles introduced the policy. Basically it is targeted on the lowest-paid working women – who are generally on the minimum wage. Maternity pay normally cuts this income down to 90% of normal pay. However, what’s the point of a minimum wage if you are forced below the minimum if you decide to have a child?

Our help is for first babies – as that is when the expense cuts the deepest with all the things you have to get. It is a wonderful thing, a first baby – but when the door shuts, the relatives go and reality hits…

The policy is really targeted on the nearly 200,000 women who would go below the minimum wage during maternity leave. Initially it will run for 6 months – but obviously we want to extend to 9 and 12 months as further funding can be found – and, of course, make it available to either parent in the longer term.

So Charles introduced it – then I said my bit and so on – and then we jump into a cab and off to a school for the photo ops. Nursery schools always look like such fun. The children at this one were playing with coloured cooked spaghetti and seeing the comparison between long, medium and short bits. Oh to be an infant…!

Then off to meet the residents’ association rep from the Campsbourne Estate – a badly treated part of Hornsey ward (Haringey) where it nestles in a seemingly forgotten backwater. As Neil Williams (Lib Dem council group leader) and I walk around, we are shown the pieces of land that residents fear the Labour council will grab for housing rather than providing proper facilities for the local residents.

Residents want allotments and play areas and planting, and they fear Haringey Council wants to cram in housing. Labour in Haringey are finding any ‘spare’ bit of land and cramming in housing – regardless of the damage to our environment and the load on our public services.

There has been a lot of work done to provide a plan for renewal on the estate – and there is Section 106 money (from the Hornsey Waterworks site development) to the tune of £250,000 which they have been told they will get. Their fear is that they won’t.

They hope by bringing the Lib Dems into their campaign that Labour will be forced on to the straight and narrow and won’t be able to snaffle the money away for their own purposes.

That same evening at full council, a local Labour Hornsey ward councillor stands up and gives a speech as to what Labour are doing for the Campsbourne Estate.

My goodness – we’re good – word must have reached them quickly that Lib Dems were out and about walking around the Campsbourne. Still – it looks like the plot is working!

I had arrived late at the council meeting as earlier it was one of my daughter’s reports night. But I did arrive in time for the deputation of relatives of residents of Cooperscroft – the old peoples’ home Labour are closing despite promises that this would not happen.

It is a good speech from the deputation who implores Labour to vote with their hearts on the following motion put by the Lib Dems to save the home.

But their hearts are made of stone and one has to say they are a lily-livered bunch. A woman from the deputation later yells at the Deputy Labour Mayor to accuse him of telling residents and relatives outside the meeting that he is against closure – but he speaks for closure and his hand rises to vote down the motion to save the homes.

Makes me really angry. There is an offer from a charity to take over the home as a going concern – no thanks to Labour Haringey – and I hope for the residents’ sake this is pursued. The Lead Member for Social Services only acknowledges this as true because in my speech in the debate I mention the email I have from the charity to let me know. I doubt whether Labour would have pursued it at all if it hadn’t been made public.

Labour couch their decisions as ‘offering old people choice’ and the benefits of ‘being able to stay in your own home’. We are talking about people over ninety years old who need round-the-clock care. Labour really stink over this one!

Who's going to win Hornsey & Wood Green?

Posted on by

New local newspaper appears today – Muswell Hill and Crouch End Times. First edition has a big piece on the general election contest here in the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency.

A fun read. Not just because it talks about the contest being Lib Dems vs Labour with us having a good chance of winning. Also fun because nice quote from one of the main local Conservatives – twice their losing GLA candidate etc. He points out that the Tories are out of the race and whether Labour or Lib Dem wins might depend on how many Tories vote tactically. Very nice of him to point it out …!

You can read his words in full on the paper’s website. Though I think they’ll feature on a leaflet or too as well…

Flags on marches

Posted on by

TV interview on the taxi story – and earlier in the day do a radio piece on the police ‘banning’ national flags from a march in Ealing.

In fact it was a ‘request’ not a ‘ban’ – although I am not sure there is much of a distinction. I wrote to the local commander to see whether there was particular intelligence which led to this move by the police. Still awaiting an answer. If there was – then that is exactly the right thing to do – but if not – then our freedom to demonstrate peacefully must be protected.

Crime figures and taxi fares

Posted on by

Meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) committee that I sit on which monitors the Met performance. Bit of a barney over crime recording. The Met always try and have it both ways. When there is a bad stat – such as recently the rise of violent crime – we are told that the increase is not real – it is due to better recording and better reporting. On the other hand when the stat is good and crime rate is dropping – then of course the drop is real and the recording is totally accurate.

Afterwards, have my surgery at Muswell Hill library. Interesting case where a guy developing a site is going to appeal after his planning application was refused. I had backed residents in opposing the application as, from what I saw of the original drawings, the new house would be over dominant, over development etc. This chap not surprisingly disagreed! He disputed some of the pictures used previously. Am doing some research to try and find where the truth lies on this one.

Then off to the local branch meeting of the Liberal Democrats – but have to do a quick radio interview from the chair’s bedroom on arrival. I am attacking Mayor Ken for raising taxi fares.

Together with the tube and bus fare rises (above inflation and breaking his election promises) the cost of using public transport is rising fast in London. And this from the man who made his name on ‘fares fair’! And to add insult to injury, raising black cab fares can only serve to drive more people into unlicensed mini-cabs – which we are supposed to be trying to exterminate. Not clever! But Ken is short of cash. He’ll probably try and put a tax on walking next!

RNID

Posted on by

The RNID (Royal National Institute for the Deaf) came to see me today. It was a good reminder that the issues that I have been banging on about in terms of accessible transport for the deaf and hard of hearing have not really materialised – despite promises from the Mayor and his henchman.

Determine to pursue vigorously. It’s completely ridiculous for transport providers not to automatically build in both visual and audible warnings and information.

Disgruntled Labour supporter

Posted on by

Meet a man who had rung wanting to discuss getting more involved with the Lib Dems. We meet in a local Muswell Hill pub – or rather outside – as it turns out to be closed. Finding a nearby coffee shop, we get our drinks and then discuss future involvement.

I only mention this here – because he has been a Labour supporter all his adult life and is not untypical of the sort of political journey being made as we approach the General Election. The level of disgust and mistrust is palpable – but it must be a hard journey to make when you have spent your political life believing in something that turns to dust.

I am always quite clear with Labour converts to liberal democracy: our policies are balanced and follow our values and beliefs – that very sane position between the rights of the individual and the rights of community. He was very keen to join and to get involved – so we will see.

Parking tickets

Posted on by

The moment we have all been waiting for – the first session of the Parking Enforcement scrutiny which I chair at the London Assembly.

Today’s session saw witnesses from the British Parking Association, the Chief Exec of NCP, the RAC Foundation (not to be confused with the RAC) and The Association of International Express Couriers.

It was a really interesting session with the witnesses across the board agreeing on two important points. First, that the financial imperative of the enforcement contracts meant a certain level of financial outcome had to be delivered. Second, the signs and rules across London were confusing for many people. Can there be simplification and harmonisation whilst still respecting the need for different policies to suit different areas?

Of course, my now legendary ‘unfair’ parking ticket came up. I had managed to get through half the meeting before it raised its ugly head. Thanks to the Evening Standard it would appear the whole of London knows that on Bank Holiday Monday I got a ticket.

Having been seduced into Central London with no congestion charge and no parking charges, I drove into the West End on New Year Bank Holiday Monday. I parked on the first parking bay in Luxborough Street. There was a parking sign immediately by the space where I parked with no indication of any restriction other than the normal sign indicating the direction to the pay machine, hours and dates etc. On my return about 10 minutes later – there were two wardens ticketing the cars. They confirmed it was Bank Holiday and there were no charges – but told me that the bay was suspended.

I pointed out that there was no sign on the parking instructions by the space indicating any suspension. They said the notice was by the pay machine, but of course, being Bank Holiday I had not gone to get a parking pay and display ticket from the machine which was about 60 or so metres away. They said they did not have the power to cancel the ticket and suggested I talk to a supervisor.

When the supervisor came – he looked at the situation and agreed it was a ‘travesty’. The supervisor suggested that I should write to Westminster and that he would make notes to the effect that he agreed that I should not have to pay this charge because of the circumstances.

As I said to those in the room – I bet Westminster were looking frantically through their correspondence to the parking department to find said letter!

That evening, it was the Lord Mayor’s Dinner for London Government. Mayor Ken and the 25 Assembly members are the honoured guests at this event at the Mansion House. The Corporation of London sure know how to put on a do. I love this event – pomp, circumstance, men in uniforms, pikes – all things I eschew as a republican. But the fun of seeing such another world is irresistible and so well done!

I find myself going in to the welcoming line behind Ken Livingstone who is first in line and behind me Simon Fletcher – his Chief of Staff. The Lord Mayor’s wife says ‘oh you’re the woman I wanted to see – the one with the parking ticket’. Then Ken peels off to the left (naturally) and I and Simon follow to sit for dinner.

As I am only about a metre from Ken I suggest to him that he use his after-dinner speech to raise the issue of Hampstead bathing ponds.

Health and Safety are saying that the Corporation need to have lifeguards and therefore will charge swimmers for the privilege. Outrageous in my view. People have been swimming there for decades – and a notice saying you go in at your own risk would suffice in my view. It’s not a swimming pool. Over-zealous, intrusive and nannying.

Anyway – Ken smiled and his rejoinder to me was that he would raise it if I would agree to go skinny-dipping! In the event – he didn’t raise it in his speech and North London will be spared a dreadful sight. But you know – anything to save the ponds…

After dinner – when we were taking a ‘stirrup cup’ – I had the opportunity to lobby Michael Snyder from the Corporation – but he proved deaf to my pleas. A compromise position was about to be reached where the takings are ploughed back into maintenance. I still think it’s over the top and unnecessary.

Highgate tube fence – again!

Posted on by

I had arranged a meeting with London Underground (LU) and Tubelines to look at a possible compromise over the now famous – but very problematic fence – erected by LU to stop noise descending into Priory Gardens, by Highgate Tube Station. Unfortunately Priory Gardens’ meat is Archway Road’s poison and those residents are very concerned over the reflection of noise, loss of view and so on.

Anyway – a lot of work has gone on to find a compromise position that will give everyone something of what they want – but obviously not their first choice as their first choice is bad for each other. Archway Road ideally want no fence which would be dreadful for Priory Gardens and Priory Gardens ideally want as much fence as possible – which would be dreadful for Archway Road.

The meeting was intended to be an examination of the technical merits of the proposal – to see if it was worth taking further. But when I arrived at LU I found that LU appeared to have invited some of the key objectors without any reference to me. I was very angry as this meant a technical discussion instead turned into the old rows and for the most part sabotaged the original purpose of that meeting.

However two good things came out of it: firstly the planting of foliage was agreed and can go ahead and secondly LU will have a look at the scheme that was presented.

The compromise position is basically cutting down the height of the solid fence to 1 metre, cladding it in sound-absorbent material and filling in the remaining required height with mesh. I hope a compromise can be reached.

Policing issues

Posted on by

Chairing the Stop and Search Implementation Panel at City Hall – which means following up on how the recommendations of our investigation into stop and search are going.

Today’s meeting’s hot issues are: have the Met come back with agreement on changing their vision statement appropriately and have they responded to our request for a public document to explain their new stop and search policy?

The Met came back with pretty negative responses. They hadn’t changed their vision statement and had rejected the idea of the document. As chair, I made it clear that as far as I and the other members of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) were concerned these were fundamental issues and they needed to go back and look at the issues once again.

More police business later in the day with a meeting of the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Board of the MPA.

I raised the morning’s clash of views with the meeting and asked the chair’s guidance as to what happened when the Met and the MPA could not come to an agreement. The Commissioner’s Chief of Staff was in attendance (unfortunately she had not been able to attend the morning session) and she is leading the stop and search steering group within the Met. She kindly said she thought we would be able to resolve the issues. I am sure we will come to agreement soon and I was grateful to her for a genuine effort to cross this bridge.

Another issue was faith monitoring. Diametrically opposed views split the group – which actually is a good thing. This isn’t a simple right and wrong way forward and the issues really need to be debated, aired, thrashed out. Would faith monitoring enhance our understanding of what is going on – which is the stated purpose – or would it deepen differences and be a pointless knee-jerk reaction to the very real problem faced by Muslims post 9/11?