Liberal Democrat concern over traffic calming measures in Stroud Green

Posted on by

Traffic calming measures in seven roads in Stroud Green are unnecessary and are likely to cause unwanted noise and vibration at the cost to the taxpayer say the area’s Liberal Democrat councillors.

They are concerned that speed humps earmarked for Albert, Lorne, Marquis, Osbourne, Beatrice, Dagmar and Cornwall Roads, part of proposals to reduce speed in Victoria and Florence Road, are not suitable. Lib Dems are asking local residents for their views on the issue.

Cllr Richard Wilson (Stroud Green) comments:

“Speeding and rat-running is a problem in Victoria Road and Florence Road, and a 20mph zone and speed humps will help. But installing speed humps in the shorter roads is not the answer. It is likely to pose more problems than solutions.

“It would be a total waste of time and money to install these speed humps in roads that do not suffer from the same problems as the larger roads. All it would do is create noise and vibrations that residents would not want.

“Once again the Labour Council seems unable to understand the consequences of their actions. It is another example of Haringey Council dictating to residents rather than asking those that live in the area what would be best for them. I have asked residents to contact me to see whether they believe that these are needed.”

Labour secretly axes £1 billion from overseas aid budget

Posted on by

Well, well – will Labour never learn? They’ve axed around £1 billion from the UK aid budget (official development assistance) – and then tried to keep it secret.

So here’s the story in black and white. Two pieces of jargon first: “Official development assistance” is what people normally think of as the UK’s overseas aid budget, whilst Gross National Income is a measure of the country’s total wealth.

And on to the evidence.

Exhibit A, from the Treasury’s own website: the 2004 Spending Review which stated: “Total UK official development assistance (ODA) … will have risen from 0.26 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) in 1997 to 0.47 per cent in 2007-08.”

Exhibit B, also from the Treasury’s own website: the 2007 Pre-Budget Report which boasted of: “an increase in overseas aid as a share of national income from 0.37 per cent in 2007-08 to 0.56 per cent in 2010-11.”

So, having promised in 2004 that aid levels would be at 0.47% in 2007-8, they’ve now cut that figure to 0.37% – which is equal to around £1 billion.

As it was an international development debate in Parliament today, I raised the issue of this missing £1 billion which would have gone to help the poorest in the world.

And what did Douglas Alexander have to say? Well, nothing much. He just dodged the issue of spending levels here in 2007-8.

Not impressed! If you’re going to cut a billion like that Mr Alexander – at least have the guts to admit it and defend it in public rather than dodging around and talking about other spending levels in other years.

Outrage as Ally Pally lease bill tops one million

Posted on by

Liberal Democrat councillors have expressed alarm at the escalating financial disaster engulfing Haringey Council and its hard pressed taxpayers as a result of the Alexandra Palace lease fiasco. This comes as a new report to Haringey Council’s Cabinet admits that the cost to Haringey Council resulting from the mess could top £1 million in this financial year.

Documents to be tabled at the Council’s Cabinet meeting for 20th November show that following the recent High Court decision to quash the Charity Commission’s granting of a lease, costs are estimated at £1 million in 2007/08 above the planned budget.

Cllr Neil Williams warns that ultimately the Labour Council may need to set aside a far bigger sum for the fiasco. And he has questioned claims by the Leader of the Council, at the last Full Council meeting that the situation regarding the lease could be resolved by January.

Cllr Neil Williams, Leader of the Opposition, comments:

“These shocking numbers show that Haringey Council is finally starting to admit the awful scale of the bill that the Haringey taxpayer will now have to face for the catastrophic incompetence and arrogance of Ally Pally bosses.

“The Palace must now start to answer some questions about how this financial disaster is arising and how it is being allowed to continue. Where exactly is all the money going? And how have we reached a situation where an operator in the building can trade, pocketing a good deal of the incoming revenue without a lease having been granted. It is a dreadful situation. How has this been allowed to happen?”

In the bunker with Gordon Brown

Posted on by

Interesting piece in the FT from Sue Cameron about life under PM Gordon Brown for those in government:

He has been in Number 10 less than six months but, to the horror of civil servants, he has already hunkered down and cut most communication with the rest of government. Insiders say that no papers, no ideas and no decisions are getting through the barbed wire – only announcements from the leader that have been discussed with no one outside Mr Brown’s inner circle.

As a result, the corridors of power have become the corridors of impotence. Whitehall teems with unhappy cabinet ministers who have not been consulted or even informed about proposals that concern them – little details such as the date of the Budget, troop withdrawals in Iraq or the cancelling of the general election.

Not much change there then from the old Gordon Brown! Reminds me of what I wrote after Gordon Brown’s election as Labour leader:

What can we expect under Gordon? More announcement, re-announcements and then announcement for a third time of the same pots of money – and a dark, brooding, master pulling the central strings from behind closed doors. I hope I’m wrong, but …

Brian Paddick to stand for London Mayor

Posted on by

Got text message yesterday that Brian Paddick has won the selection for our London Mayoral candidate. This is great news – just as it was a real coup when he decided to throw his hat into the ring for this contest.

No doubt there will be lots of ‘stuff’ about Brian – but he is the real deal. And I think Londoners will be impressed with him – and for good reason. You don’t get to be Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Met for nothing and secondly – he really demonstrated the courage of his convictions in terms of fighting for better drugs policy and actually understanding the real issues around communities and policing. So – go Brian. I think this will set the contest alight. Brian is a real contender.

I read in The Times this morning that he will publish his autobiography a short while before the polling day for London Mayor. And that it will tell all. Controversial – I’m sure it will be. But the person who leads London had better not be frightened of controversy and really fighting for London. Ken Livingstone pretty much stopped fighting when he went back into the Labour Party. He’s lost his spark and his oomph. Brian Paddick is more than a match for Mr Livingstone!

Does the right to protest matter?

Posted on by

Glad to see that Chris Huhne has made it quite clear in a news release that when the show comes to town in the form of the Olympics, the right to peaceful protest must be upheld:

The Olympics are a chance to put our values in the global showcase which is why the organisers should plan for and allow the right of peaceful protest, which is such an important part of our political tradition. It will not be on display at the Beijing Olympics.
Diversity and freedom of expression is what has always made our society strong, and we should not be afraid to show it.

And I suspect given the number of countries competing whose human rights record may not be quite what we would wish – there will be quite a number of protesters wishing to protest. A good thing too. As a country – we should be proud that peaceful protest is one of our guarantees of freedom of expression.

That’s something that won’t be the case in Beijing and it might not be the case here judging from the Labour Government’s desire to stop all forms of freedom of expression and protest – even when it is just reading out the names of the war dead!

Still – now Chris has thrown down the gauntlet on it – will Nick follow suit? There was a pattern last time round of Chris leading the way on issues – troops out of Iraq, the environment, etc – where he proposed a radical policy, others weren’t so keen – but in the end, it was Chris’s radical position that won the day.

That’s why I like about leadership contests – they push each candidate on and as a party we end up with a better set of policies as a result. Hurrah!

This time round hopefully the issue of the right to protest will become a key point for our party. And then we can also shame the Government into doing the right thing.

Good news on Haringey schools and vulture funds

Posted on by

Good news on the fair funding for education in Haringey. Haringey Youth Council are going to join the campaign and are going to start their own petition!

Excellent to have their support – and on an issue which primarily affects them – spot on! I had a huge response to this campaign so far and to the petition I’ve been organising.

My next move is to present the petition to the Government – and that reminds me – don’t think Gordon B has yet answered my letter following up on my question at Prime Minister’s Questions a couple of weeks ago. May have to start nagging!

One other piece of good news – The People yesterday ran a piece on my concerns over vulture funds. Good to get the story out beyond the usual obvious places! All adds to the pressure I hope.

Ken Livingstone should stop trying to smear Jean Charles de Menezes

Posted on by

Tipped off by Nich Starling, I’ve been reading what Ken Livingstone said on Andrew Marr’s program this morning about the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes. Our Ken talked about de Menezes making a movement that made the police think he was a suicide bomber.

The implication of this to me is clear – it was in part de Menezes’s fault for behaving like a suicide bomber and there was no mistake or misjudgement by the police – especially as Ken didn’t enter into any caveats or further explanations.

So let’s be absolutely clear – that’s nonsense. The report into his death was very, very clear:

Nor must there be any attempt to blame Jean Charles de Menezes himself for his fate. He did nothing out of the ordinary.

So what to make of Ken’s comments? Well, to me they sound like a crude smear – blame the victim rather than face up to the police’s failure. Shame on you Ken.

How Ian Blair and Ken Livingstone got it wrong

Posted on by

In amongst the debate about whether Ian Blair, London’s top cop, should quit (my view? yes), not much has been said about what the IPCC investigations into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes actually found – so I thought it worth quoting in some detail some of them:

[The key questions are] ‘If they thought he [Jean Charles de Menezes] might have a bomb, why was he allowed twice to get on a bus and then on the tube?’ ‘If they thought he didn’t have a bomb, why did they shoot him?’

Nor must there be any attempt to blame Jean Charles de Menezes himself for his fate.

He did nothing out of the ordinary.

He looked over his shoulder as he walked to catch his bus; he got back on his bus when he found Brixton tube station was closed; he texted his friend; he hurried down the final few steps of the escalator when he saw a train was already on the platform; and, like other passengers, he got to his feet when police officers burst onto the train. These actions may have been misinterpreted by police officers hunting a suicide bomber but they were entirely innocent.

… the most fundamental problem on that Friday was the implementation of the strategy set by Commander McDowall, the Gold Commander, that everyone leaving the premises was to be stopped once they were a safe distance away and questioned either for the intelligence they could provide or as a suspect. That never happened – and could not happen because the firearms teams needed to support these stops were not deployed in time to do so.

… failures of communication occurred in a number of ways: at the briefings of firearms officers; between the surveillance team and both the control room and firearms teams; the firearms and surveillance teams were not used to working together; the officers in the control room whose job it was to monitor the surveillance complained about the noise and confusion in the room; there was a lack of clarity in the command to ‘stop’ Jean Charles de Menezes entering the underground system; police radios did not work underground.

In other words – this wasn’t one mistake with tragic consequences – it was as catalogue of failures across vast swathes of the police operation.

And most damming of all:

The Commissioner [Ian Blair] attempted to prevent us carrying out an investigation.

(Source: IPCC news release on the Stockwell One report)
Says it all really about how Ken Livingstone’s turned into a neutered Labour loyalist that these days Ken doesn’t speak out against a top policeman trying to block an inquiry into the shooting of an innocent man. Oh Ken, how have you changed?

Ian Blair should go

Posted on by

I worked with Iain Blair for five years when I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. He was Deputy Commissioner to John Stevens when I arrived. It was clear throughout the years he was deputy – that he was more than focused on succeeding to the top job when Sir John retired. And that’s what happened.

It is awful really to have watched him make errors of judgement – virtually since day one. He clearly set out to do things differently and to be the best-ever top cop – and it has all gone so horribly wrong.

And his errors have been the big ones and the public ones. He also politicised the police unforgivably when it suited, and made some very inadvisable media decisions – such as participating in Question Time.

There is no hiding place for him now and I don’t truly understand why he is hanging on rather than going gracefully. I guess he feels that it’s not fair to be judged on the extraordinary but tragic incident shooting of one person rather than the rest of his record where crime has fallen overall in London.

But – firstly – with us all paying for extra police and those extra police and PCSOs now on duty – it would be rank failure if there weren’t crime figures he could point at. And – secondly – the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes happened under him. The findings are damning in terms of the number of mistakes that were made. An innocent man died.

Blair has to go – because he carries the responsibility for overall whether the Met is up to scratch or not. And those damning findings of a catalogue of mistakes tell us the answer – it wasn’t.

In the end – getting the organisation right, the procedures and processes in order, helps the policeman (or woman) on the front line when they face that split-second decision as to whether to pull the trigger or not – because with the right systems they can make their decision confident that it is the right one. If the system behind you isn’t up to scratch, you can’t.

That’s why Iain Blair has to go – so that in future our lives will be protected, including by a proper and effective deployment where necessary of armed police.