Category Archives: Blog

Crouch End lap dancing application returns

Posted on by

I had hoped that the applicants for a lap dancing club in the middle of Crouch End would take the hint – that local people didn’t want them there and that they would disappear forever with their tail between their legs.

The message from the campaign was quite clear: lap off! But they haven’t. They’re back!

So – the Lib Dems are pushing for there to be wide, wide consultation on this new application and for the views of residents to be heard loud and clear.

Indeed, the original application was withdrawn in the spring after really fierce local opposition from residents with their ‘Lapoff!’ campaign, helped by local Liberal Democrats.

Cllr Dave Winskill (Crouch End) has requested that Haringey Council organise a public planning forum to give local residents a real chance to raise their concerns about this fresh application.

We don’t know if Haringey will agree to that – but in the meantime we have until the end of June to object. The final planning decision is likely to be taken by 30th July. The Music Palace (which is the location) has to get both planning and licensing to be allowed to run their lap dance club.

Residents can comment on the application by going to the Haringey website and entering reference: HGY/2009/0953, or by contacting me on lynne@lynnefeatherstone.org or 020 8340 5459.

For more about the issues around the site of the application – and why it isn’t suitable – see my earlier YouTube clip:

Following the Equality Bill through Parliament

Posted on by

OK – so am going to try and blog the process of legislation through the Equality Bill. To date – we have had the First Reading of the Bill (a formality) and then the Second Reading , which happens in the chamber of the House of Commons and where the Bill overall is debated. We have had ‘evidence’ sessions where witnesses (groups with particular interest in the Bill) give their views on parts of the Bill and we get to questions them. And now we have entered the Committee Stage where we (a smaller group of MPs) scrutinise the legislation line by line.

If this gets too long-winded or onerous I will cease – but as I write so often about local issues – thought it might interest some to see the Parliamentary process at work.

The Bill is gone through in order and we, the Tories and the Government, table amendments to the Bill and some are selected each session of the Committee for.

The key issues that came up in the first sessions were:

– the “socio-economic duty”: this would be a new duty on, for example, local councils to consider the impact of their decisions and spending on the gap between rich and poor, and to try to reduce these socio-economic divides where possible.
– which bodies should be covered by this new duty: it would apply to parts of ‘the state’ but how narrowly or broadly should the net be cast?
– the “protected characteristics” – that is, those categories which would be protected by this Bill from discrimination, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

The socio-economic duty is something that the Government bunged in at the last minute. All parties believe narrowing the socio-economic gap is important – but the Tories feel it shouldn’t be in this particular Bill. We Liberal Democrats think it is one of the greatest and most intractable of inequalities – but that this duty is somewhat tokenistic. We have no objection to the good it might do – but believe it far too weak to really deliver change.

When we got to debating the Government’s list of authorities that would come under this duty, the Government was disposed to accept/look at two of my amendments which question why the Greater London Authority bodies like the Fire Authority, the Metropolitan Police Authority and Transport for London were excluded when they are clearly making strategic decisions that can affect the socio-economic status. Ditto for fire authorities across the country.

The ‘form’ for amendments is that even if the Government agrees with them, they don’t support them at the Committee Stage, but instead say they will introduce similar amendments of their own at the subsequent Report Stage. Sometimes this can be for good reasons (they can get their lawyers to pour over the wording to ensure it’s just right) but sometimes also there is a touch of “if it hasn’t got our name on it, we won’t support it” about it all.

Anyway – the Government said they will bring back their own amendments on these issues, so it looks as if the changes I was asking for will end up in the Bill – hurrah!

What would it mean in practice? Well, consider the example of a fire authority making decisions about its fire prevention efforts. The duty would require them to consider the different risks in areas arising from how deprived they are – for example, in poorer areas there may be fewer firm alarms, buildings may be less fireproof, more use of paraffin heaters etc. If it then turns out some areas are therefore at greater risk of fires and death from fires – then they’d have to take this into account when planning their fire prevention work.

Then we debated the list of ‘protected characteristics’ such as race, gender, sexual orientation, disability etc – sometimes called the ‘equality strands’. We (Liberal Democrats) were proposing amendments to stop discrimination on the grounds of someone’s caste, their genetic make-up and family history, disadvantaged socio-economic status, paternity (discrimination on grounds of maternity or pregnancy is already covered, but not paternity) and on grounds of being a carer (people who have caring responsibilities are often discriminated against, for example by an employer who won’t take them on in case their caring responsibilities interfere with their work). And then there was the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ – which turned into a bit of an argy bargy.

All were tossed aside by the Minister (Vera Baird) with varying degrees of sympathy. Socio-economic disadvantage got short shrift as the Government couldn’t see how that could be measured – but I don’t see why given they can quantify poverty in terms of children who get free school dinners or the myriad measures of deprivation through which they give grants. We thought it would anchor the new socio-economic duty – as it is free floating and somewhat illogical without a strand.

They ummed and ahhed a bit about genetics as it clearly will be a problem down the line when the moratorium on insurance companies expires in 2014. Currently insurance companies are not allowed to use genetic information to guide their policies – so they can’t select some people and charge their higher premiums because of their genes for example. The sense of fairness behind the moratorium means it’s been widely supported – but although the Bill is the chance to settle the matter, the Government didn’t seem moved to do anything.

On caste – they were pretty unsympathetic – just saying they had tried to get evidence of discrimination because of caste but the organisations they had gone to (Hindu and Sikh) had said they were very against legal steps to outlaw caste-based discrimination and didn’t have evidence that it was needed. But I can’t help thinking that those who support a caste system might not want to volunteer evidence so that we can outlaw it. On carers – they were more sympathetic but didn’t feel it was necessary ultimately and that they would be covered by ‘association’ to someone who was disabled, old etc.

The protected characteristic currently in the list as ‘gender reassignment’ we wanted changed to ‘gender identity’. This is not a well understood area as the Bill clearly fails to understand the spectrum that exists on gender – where people can feel anything from confused, to any degree of transgender feeling, to – at the other end of the scale – gender reassignment and medical sex change. The wording in the Bill around ‘reassignment’ are all about a process leading to change, and so totally fail to encompass the wider range of situations, conditions and feelings that people have about their gender.

The Minister didn’t seem to know very much about this group of people. They are tiny in number and highly vulnerable as their ‘characteristic’ is barely understood, is reviled and joked about in the way that years ago occurred over other characteristics that we now take as mainstream. It is a hard challenge to grow up not having that certainty about gender that most of us are fortunate enough to not give a second thought to. However, Vera Baird showed no real comprehension of the complexities of this situation and could only argue defensively that ‘reassignment’ wasn’t medical but if you lived in another gender you would be protected. None of that deals with anyone at any stage before living as another gender – and many people with gender identity issues never get to such a place where they ‘change’ gender (whether by appearance or by surgery) – but can still be discriminated against as freakish in some way if they don’t present as male or female identifiably.

Anyway – we will return to that issue at Report Stage, I hope, as it is very important and I didn’t feel that the Minister really got it.

Enough for now!

Do you have enough time to cross the road?

Posted on by

I’ve often had to put a shifty on when crossing the road at the bottom of Muswell Hill. There hardly seems to be time to make it across. Well – it’s not my imagination – the lights really are not giving enough time to make it safely.

There are 26 major pedestrian crossings in Haringey in breach of national safety guidelines updated in 2005, including the signals at the bottom of Muswell Hill where it meets Priory Road and Park Road, and also the signals where Wightman Road, Hornsey Park Road and Turnpike Lane meet.

I’m lucky – I can still put a shifty on when needed – but older people, people with mobility difficulties and those with babies and young children may not be able to rush across.

It isn’t rocket science and should be easy to fix – so come on Transport for London!

For more on the story, see this week’s Journal coverage.

Gordon Brown fails first test!

Posted on by

I was listening to LBC on my way in – and my way in took longer than usual because Bob Crow was muscle flexing seemingly just to see if they still worked. Not that well – judging from the reluctance of the very decent staff on the Underground who went to work anyway and did not uniformly abandon Londoners. Three cheers for them!

Anyway – point is – discussion was on the investigation by the man appointed by No 10 to investigate Ministers misdoings etc to look into the case of Shahid Malik, Minster in the Justice Department who had to step down when it was brought into question whether he had paid a market rent on his three bedroom house in Dewsbury. Mr Malik did step down – but always protested his innocence.

Philip Mawer, who investigated the alleged transgressions and breaking of the Minsterial Code, has found Mr Malik did not break the Ministerial Code. Now James O’Brien, presenting said program, made an excellent point. Publish Mr Mawer’s report. If Shahid is innocent – and we must presume he is if the report says so – then let us see the evidence and how the investigation was carried out and what it looked into.

Old Gordon has been blubbing all over the TV that the old order of secrecy and the Gentlemen’s Club is dead. But if they don’t publish – then it’s long live the old order and business as usual.

How could he fail this first test of the new way? James O’Brien is spot on – we need to see for ourselves because we no longer trust. It’s sad – but we must be shown the proof.

It’s not fair on Shahid either – as if they don’t publish – he looks guilty even though he has been proclaimed innocent. And the reason that No 10 and the Justice Department gave James O’Brien for not publishing was ‘privacy’! I kid you not. As if they couldn’t redact any really personal and private stuff.

So – no change there! And this is deadly serious because we do need to prove to the British people that we have changed, that MP’s, Ministers etc cannot get away with it and must live and die by the same rules as the rest of the population. In fact, until we have earned back trust – we will just have to keep on proving ourselves and proving ourselves – over and over again.

Gordon – publish or be damned! Well – you’re already damned – but the rest of us who want to feel proud again of serving as MPs want real change. You have to publish. You have to demonstrate that the words of sorrow and contrition and change pouring out of your mouth were not just words.

And as for Shahid – he is now back in the fold as Communities Minister (I think) – and surely he deserves to be exhonerated publicly with the findings of the report and not begin his new ministership (if that’s a word) with any question marks over his past expenses.

Judging dogs

Posted on by

Just a little note to say I will be judging the dog competition at Highgate’s “Fair in the Square” which will take place in historic Pond Square, London N6, on Saturday, June 13th from 12.30pm to 5.30pm. I hope the sun shines – and that everyone comes and has a good time. And no jokes about dogs please!

Euro election results in Haringey

Posted on by

Busy day with the Equalities Bill in Parliament, so here’s our press release:

  • Lib Dems main Euro-winners, with biggest vote increase
  • Lowest ever vote share for Labour in borough election
  • Poll shock, as local Tories pushed into fourth place

The Liberal Democrats were the main winners in the European elections in Haringey last night. The party added 4.7 per cent to its tally and dramatically closed the gap on Haringey Labour, whose vote slumped to its lowest ever share in a borough-wide election.

It was also a night of disaster for the local Tories, who shocked observers by slumping into fourth place, behind the Green Party.

Lib Dem Leader Robert Gorrie comments,

“I am delighted with the result, and I would like to thank everyone in Haringey who responded to the Lib Dems’ positive message on Europe. These results show we are in a neck-and-neck battle with Labour for control of Haringey Council. For the Tories, fourth place is yet another nail in their coffin, as local people know it is only the Lib Dems that can bring an end to 40 years of Labour rule here.”

Results:

Labour – 14,093 (28.8% – down 4.1%)
Lib Dems – 11,550 (23.6% – up 4.7%)
Greens – 8,528 (17.4% – up 3.4%)
Cons – 7,396 (15.1%, down 0.5%)
Others – 7,392 (15.1% – down 3.5%)

Reshuffle thoughts

Posted on by

So – whilst we’re waiting for tonight’s results in the Euros – I pause to wonder how the mighty (and not so mighty) are fallen. I guess Caroline Flint has the most egg on face . To support Brown publicly and then execute a complete volte face to diss him certainly doesn’t help her message re window dressing. And during her stints as Minister for Housing and Europe she hasn’t really registered.

I am surprised, however, that Dawn Primarolo, didn’t get a promotion – as she has impressed me. She was particularly good at steering through the Embryology Bill – which was hardly the easiest of gigs – but which she did successfully, authoritively and well.

Looking at Gordon Brown’s record from the outside – and his behaviour and attitude to women – Caroline Flint probably has a point in that the Prime Minister always seems uncomfortable with the women in the Cabinet. The shame is that the accusation came from such a flawed quarter. He clearly damned and dumped Blears. He was underwhelmed by Flint. He failed to support Jacqui Smith. Conversely – he has protected Darling, Hoone, Purnell – although with hindsight he might have not bothered.

Harriet Harman has handled herself and the situation pretty well over recent weeks – and as she actually is the only person with a mandate (albeit not loved by her brethren – and I do mean brethen) maybe she could push further forward. Round and round she goes – where she stops nobody knows…

Blimey!

Posted on by

Game on – blimey! Came in from election at around 11pm to find news of James Purnell’s resignation. As the night wore on – it seemed the senior cabinet members were rallying around – but they would, wouldn’t they?

Of course – given the nature of Brown – he won’t cave in or go quietly – and the ultimate threat he holds in his big clunking fist is to go to the Palace and call for a general election. I reckon he would do that in preference to an ignominious exit. That is his trump card – his only card right now.

As the reshuffle takes shape – we will see whether there is one last play of the dice – or not.

Watching the tumultuous nature of history in the making is something quite extraordinary to experience first(ish) hand. But in the four years I have been in Parliament – it seems it is always thus – a brutal rough trade indeed. I looked at Gordon during PMQs on Wednesday – where given the pressure he didn’t do too badly. I wonder how anyone is tough enough (or egotistical enough) to bear these moments. Backed into a corner and fighting for his political life – but still fighting.

As today moves on – we will see the full effect of the election results and the scale of the meltdown in Labour. In eight hours of telephone canvassing for the Euros yesterday – I found very, very few Labour voters. But who knows – the dire straights that Labour are now in may make those who bleed Labour if you cut them cleave to their tribal past – whether from pity or loyalty – who knows. Today and then on Sunday (with the European election results) we’ll see.

As for Purnell – I wonder – did he think this was his moment? If fortune favours the brave and who dares wins – did he think that this was his moment for a footnote in history, his chance to make his mark and be a serious player in future years? This game of chess is not quite at checkmate, however, and depending what happens next – we will see if he was brave – or foolish?

Judgement day!

Posted on by

Today’s Ham & High has my latest newspaper column:

Judgement day! Today we go to the polls to vote in European MEPs – and whilst the Euro election is never the nation’s hottest, must vote election, never before will people voting be voting less on European issues – if they vote at all.

The expenses scandal has engaged people in a way that we haven’t seen before – and not necessarily in the way one might have wanted – but engaged all the same. To have the fall of the body politic and the constitutional crisis played out against the backdrop of such an election has increased the pressure on Labour and Tories to accept that the old ways are dead. The old school, the gentlemen’s club, is finally at an end. But look what it has taken.

Normally, by mid-May political parties can look to punt difficult issues into the long grass – hoping that the combination of Parliament not sitting during the summer and so many people, politicians and public alike, going on holiday, will mean heads of steam and pressure will dissipate in the summer sunshine. And then in the autumn – the political establishment can return to business as usual. But this year, with elections in June – that option has not been there.

The threat of ballot box retribution from the public has instead kept eyes most firmly focused on the need to change and to change soon. Well – most eyes, because despite all the power and privilege and opportunity of his position as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown seems to have been moving all mightily slowly.

Quite what message the public decide to send today we won’t know fully until Sunday. Some local elections count tonight (Thursday), some tomorrow (Friday) and then there are the Euro results on Sunday evening.

Whatever they bring, it was very heartening to read the leader in The Observer last weekend, which finished with a line that I felt, just for once, gave Liberal Democrats our due: “It is a moment to reward the principled consistency of the Liberal Democrats’.

I hope so. As the article says we have a, “decent record of taking minority stands that are then vindicated” – and goes on to describe our lead on the environment, on civil liberties and on the debt bubble where it says we were, “quietly but consistently ahead of the Westminster curve”. Likewise on transparency about MPs and their expenses – where the Lib Dems opposed the Conservative/Labour stitch-up in 2007 to attempt to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act. Oh how different the world would be if they’d got away with keeping all those expenses secret!

It’s great in a way to see the Conservatives – and many Labour cabinet ministers – scramble now to say how much they are in favour of reform. They may have done little in the past – even when offered the opportunity in the voting lobbies in Parliament – but now taking up long-standing Liberal Democrat policies is very much this summer’s fashion!

As for the European elections themselves – our jobs, our safety and our environment depend on a strong Europe. Business crosses borders. Pollution crosses borders. Criminals flee across borders. Our ways of governing need to cross borders too – and that’s why the European Union is so important. That importance is why I want an in/out referendum on Europe, so we can settle for another generation that festering question. I may be older enough to have voted in the 1970s referendum – alas! – but many weren’t, and anyway – that was a different world. So let’s have a vote on the heart of the issue – not the details of one treaty or another, but the big question of in or out – and settle the issue for our times.

It’s been a good few months for the Liberal Democrats – as with leading the way on campaigning for a fair deal for Gurkhas who have put their lives at risk for this country. For a long time we have watched both Labour and Tories take our ideas, move onto our territory, espouse and adopt our policies. And whilst it is satisfying to be able to say – we told you so – I would much prefer that to translate into votes for Liberal Democrats. More votes, more elected Lib Dems, more Lib Dem policies carried out. Our political system is in flux and our economy in dire need of radical change – now’s the time to seize the chance for real change.