Haringey Conservative turns UKIP

Well, well, well!

William McDougall – ex-Tory councillor on Haringey and their Tottenham candidate in the 2005 general election – has surfaced as a fully-fledged UKIP member. This is his endorsement for the candidate for Sedgefield by-election:

“I was the Tory Candidate for Tottenham in the last general election, and previously was both a Conservative on Haringey Council and Chairman of my local Conservative Association. Like Toby I have become fed up with the direction the Party has taken, and have now joined UKIP.

“If I wanted to support a social or liberal democratic group there are already two well established parties. If I wanted to support environmental extremists there is a third. But why support Cameron? He is losing the Tory base without convincing anyone else. His Ealing candidate even donates money to the Labour Party.”

Fortnightly rubbish collections – Liberal Democrat success

Haringey Liberal Democrats have claimed a success after Haringey Council finally declared that it would not introduce fortnightly rubbish collections.

Lib Dems launched their opposition to the introduction to fortnightly collections on 23rd June 2007 saying that Haringey would not be suited to alternate week collections and called on the Labour Council to verify its uncertain position. The Labour Cabinet member for Environment clarified the Council position at last night’s full council meeting.

Cllr Bob Hare, Lib Dem Sustainability Spokesperson, comments:

“Our pressure has ensured that Labour cannot think about introducing fortnightly collections in Haringey. Alternate week collections will never be right for an urban area like Haringey and Labour should have made this clear from the start. Finally our demands have forced Labour to nail their colours to the mast and confirm to residents that they have no plans to introduce fortnightly collections.”

Lynne Featherstone, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, adds:

“Of course we want to see boosted rates of recycling, but risking public health and safety in the process is not the answer.As much as Labour might scoff at our pre-emptive campaign, this is an issue residents have real concerns about.I am pleased that we can now put their minds at rest.”

Criminal investigations at home and abroad

Ealing bright and early – everyone seems very jolly this morning. Think that is probably the aftermath of the news that broke yesterday about the Tory Tony Lit (and Tory must be a loose description) who gave £4,800 to Labour just before he became Tory candidate.

Then back to Parliament, where suddenly see on the annunciator (TV screens around Parliament that tell you what is happening in the Commons and Lords) that there is a statement to be made – an update from the Foreign Secretary on Litvinenko.

I seize my opportunity, as I have been waiting for the new Cabinet to be in place before trying to arrange for Marina Litvinenko and myself to meet with the Foreign Secretary. I get called – compliment (genuinely) David Miliband on his proposal to take a hardish (but proportionate line) with the Russians – expelling diplomats in response to their refusal to extradite the murder suspect in the case – and then ask him if he will agree to meet with me and Marina. He basically says yes – him or if not him – his official. So – a good ask!

Then straight into the BAE corruption debate. It is a Liberal Democrat Opposition motion. What struck me most was the Government’s absolutely vitriol towards us for raising the issue. Very telling! They didn’t like it one bit. I expect it is because the Government has used the smoke screen of ‘national security’ to hide the reason for the dropping of the investigation into BAE by the Serious Fraud Office. They wanted the contract for jobs and commercial reasons – but that is not a reason that can be used for dropping an investigation – only national security is. Hence – it is about national security and I’m the sugar-plum fairy! I didn’t catch Mr Speaker’s eye sadly – despite bobbing up and down for a few hours. I had to satisfy myself with a few interventions instead!

Labour bans residents from planning site visits

Liberal Democrat councillors in Haringey have expressed outrage after it emerged that the Labour-run council has banned residents from planning site visits after the implementation of secret changes to planning protocols.

The new ‘rules’ have yet to be agreed by councillors and will not be brought for discussion and decision until 3rd September 2007, but the Labour Chair of Planning has decided to enforce them sooner. Lib Dems have demanded assurances that public will still be invited and that the protocols are not implemented until the change has been officially agreed by Haringey Council.

At last Monday’s planning meeting the Labour Chair of Planning refused a request by Lib Dems that local residents living around a site should be allowed at a planned visit to the site by members of the planning committee

Cllr Jonathan Bloch, Lib Dem Spokesperson on Planning, comments:

“This is the most incredible and blatant abuse of power yet by a Labour Council that has ridden roughshod over local people. Councillors simply cannot do their job properly under Labour’s new restrictive rules.

“These new rules are already being applied, despite the fact that they have not been approved by any committee of Haringey Council, nor are they in the newly agreed Constitution.

“The gold standard for planning procedures is the Government’s Planning Inspectorate, whose Inspectors judge appeals, and who always carry out their site visits with ample notice, and with the interested members of the public invited and able to participate fully. It is absolutely fundamental that those people who are directly affected by an application are able to point out local circumstances to the members of the planning committee.”

Lib Dem Leader, Cllr Neil Williams, adds:

“It is hard to imagine what possesses this Labour Council other than their misguided wish to do as much as possible with as little intervention from the public as possible. It is said that doctors bury their mistakes. Unfortunately, with planning local people have to live with and look at the mistakes of this Council for the next 50 or 100 years. Lib Dems will be doing everything we can to force Labour to back down over this and to achieve proper consultation.”

A weekend of congratulations

Saturday I go to the Highgate Horticultural Society Show to award the prizes. It is a complete delight to see the absolutely beautiful exhibits. My children don’t let me near our plants! That says it all. However, clearly the prize winners and all who took part are green fingered. A lot of work goes into these events – so congratulations to all.

As indeed, on Sunday, congrats to the Golf Course Allotments – particularly Karen – whose sterling efforts resulted in a successful (but modest) lottery bid to have a new Community Hut. And what a splendid hut it was – absolutely gorgeous. This is an amazingly committed community and I was delighted to have supported their bid and delighted to be asked to open the new hut. As the heavens opened as I cut the ribbon – lucky we all had a new hut to gather in!

It's still the economy, stupid

I’ve just uploaded my latest article – this time one about the economy for Liberator magazine:

I have petitioned and campaigned for – and against – many, many things since the world of political campaigning crossed my path. But the absurdity of the thought of running a petition calling for next month’s inflation figure to be cut by at least 0.3% or running a street stall demanding an extra 0.1% on the third quarter’s GDP growth figure should not become a reason for ignoring economic issues in our campaigning.

You can read the full piece over on my website.

Winning in Camden

Hurrah! Wake up to two texts on my phone saying we won the by-election in Camden by 150 votes – which is pretty huge and a great sign of things to come. Well done Matt. No one is going back to Labour (it was a Labour resignation that caused this by-election) and no one is swinging to the Tories. So – hey – not resurgent after all!

Haringey Council reneges on promise of 'the greenest borough'

The shocking u-turn by Haringey Council on its promise to aim to be the ‘greenest borough in London’ has come under criticism by Liberal Democrats.

This month the Council Leader, Labour Cllr George Meehan and Cllr Brian Haley, Cabinet member for the Environment, openly boasted of their aspirations to become the greenest borough but the turnaround shown in recent Council papers setting out the Council’s priorities shows only to make Haringey ‘One of the greenest boroughs’. Lib Dems have criticised the admission as evidence of Labour failures on green issues.

Cllr Bob Hare, Lib Dem Sustainability Spokesperson, comments:

“Not only does this show that Labour have not done as well on green issues as they wanted but also that their objectives have changed. The admission that they no longer want to be the greenest borough is alarming.”

Avenue Gardens Residents' Association

Spend the morning in Ealing for the by-election. Seems very jolly over there and upbeat. Main community event of the day back in the constituency is going to Avenue Gardens Residents’ Association to do a ‘Question Time’.

Key issues from the evening included Haringey’s lack of consultation with residents over planning proposals – in particular – Haringey Heartlands. And – even if there is a consultation – they ignore it.

One resident raised the issue of the proposed polyclinics – and the potential of these plans to denude us of our local GP practices. That is what we need to make sure doesn’t happen.

It was interesting when I met with the Trust and asked what I would think is a critical question – what proportion of GP visits require further action (diagnostics, referrals to a clinic, etc), they couldn’t give a full answer.

But this is key to the polyclinics idea – because if, say 90% of doctor’s visits require follow up with one of the services that will be at the polyclinic – then having the GP and those other services all on one site can have advantages of saving further trips (and so further delays). But if those 90% instead don’t require further services, then having GP practices centralised isn’t nearly so attractive.

Anyway – back to Avenue Gardens Residents’ Association – we also ranged over excess of traffic, HGVs, the tick-box society, the quality of councillors, the poor quality of decision-making at Planning Committee, and other topics too. I enjoyed it – as I always do. Meeting people at events like this always reaffirms the point to the whole process. It is always about peoples’ lives!

It's still the economy, stupid

I have petitioned and campaigned for – and against – many, many thingssince the world of political campaigning crossed my path. But theabsurdity of the thought of running a petition calling for next month’sinflation figure to be cut by at least 0.3% or running a street stalldemanding an extra 0.1% on the third quarter’s GDP growth figure shouldnot become a reason for ignoring economic issues in our campaigning.

For economic issues are crucial to winning support – and if ourtechniques do not easily apply to them, then it is those techniques thatneed adapting. Why do I say that economic issues are crucial? Well – Ihave written before about the significance of the economy to generalelection campaigns and its importance is best summed up in two ways. First, peopleconsistently rate economic issues as amongst the most important inhelping to make up their minds when it comes to voting – especially whenyou add together the numerous different issue labels into which theeconomy is often broken down in polls. As one example – in May 2005YouGov found that it was the third most important issue, even breakingin on that near-holy trinity of health, crime and education we have all(rightly) been taught to use with such effect.

Second, take a step back from our own conduct of campaigns and look athow the rest of the world describes and acts during election campaigns.The economy is frequently at the centre – just as when Philip Gouldwrote to Tony Blair in April 2005 that he should: “drive the election tothe point where it came down to one central question: ‘Who do you trustwith the future of the economy?'”

The regional variation in the Conservative performance in 2005reinforces this message: in the South East the Conservatives didconsistently better than in other English regions and this was theregion which had the worst economic experience, with unemploymentuniquely rising in 2001-2005.

More recently, it is striking that in the successful US Democratcampaigns in Montana, Missouri and Virginia – those which in fact gavethem control of the Senate last year – populist economic messages playeda major role, as did the long-term health or otherwise of the Frencheconomy in their Presidential election earlier this year.

Neglecting economic issues therefore comes at a real cost to ourelectoral prospects. If we are not engaging in a key area for voterswhen making up their minds, we are hobbling ourselves in the electoralrace.

And what image does it leave of us as a party if we skip lightly overthe economic heart of government when laying out our messages? It israther like meeting a police officer who talks their great plans tostart using a low-emission police car, is getting solar panels on theroof of the police station, takes part in a charity stall at the localsummer fair, is introducing organic food to the staff canteen and has aneffective twinning arrangement with a police force in France – butavoids talking about the business of catching and arresting people. Alllovely things – but in the end, isn’t there something rather crucialmissing at the heart of all that?

We have a good basis on which to build – particularly the party’shard-won tradition of not just having fully costed general electionmanifestos, but having costings that stand up to close examination. Thecareful balancing of the details of tax cuts and rises in the “Green TaxSwitch” policy is another good building block. So what more can we do -especially as our traditional campaigning techniques may not seem easilyadaptable to this issue?

First, meeting local businesses should be a part of the diary of MPs,candidates and councillors alongside the traditional hospital and schoolvisits. This is not just a matter of show (though we should of courseget and use photographs) but also a matter of necessity, for by meetingbusinesspeople we are much more likely to pick up the issues of concernto them for us to work on. I have been struck in my own constituencypostbag and surgeries how certain issues naturally raise themselves withme; for example, most weeks I can barely move for examples of problemswith the way our planning system work. But until I started ensuring thatmore business visits were in my constituency diary, the travails andissues of small businesses rarely intruded into my in-tray.

Indeed, thinking back to when I was more involved in my family’sbusiness, I remember how often the words of politicians about theeconomy seemed a stepped removed from the reality of running a business.

That is why meeting and listening is so important. It is just like withthe general public – if you are never on the doorstep you lose touchwith the public, and if you’re never meeting businesses, you lose touchwith them too.

Second, we can emphasise the benefits for business and the economybehind our other policies. The Green Tax Switch is right for the planetbut also – by growing the opportunities for businesses marketing greengoods and services – good for our economy in the long run. It’s not justa green policy, it’s a job creation policy.

Putting effectiveness, not vindictiveness, at the heart of ourcrime-fighting policies is good for the communities who suffer lesscrime as a result – but it is also helping reduce a heavy burden on manybusinesses.

Abolishing the DTI was not just a means to fund our other policies (a policy that now needs updating following Gordon Brown’s departmental reorganisation) – itwas also a good way of attacking unnecessary bureaucracy that afflictssmall firms. Indeed, removing unnecessary restrictions on both peopleand organisations is after all a good part of what liberalism is about.

Simplifying the tax system is important not just for individualsstruggling to cope with Gordon Brown’s morass of tax credits andcomplicated paperwork – it is also important for small businessesstruggling to grow and cope with bureaucratic burdens on them. And atthe more local level of taxation, relating it to ability to pay meansnot just having a local income tax rather than Council Tax, but alsointroducing the sorts of business rates allowances we had in our 2005business manifesto.

Fighting for a fair trade deal for developing countries does not justhelp alleviate poverty in those countries, it also helps globalprosperity. The list goes on and on – and we shouldn’t be afraid ofpointing out the self-interested benefits (such as more jobs) frompolicies that are motivated by higher causes (such as saving theenvironment).

Third, we should remember that people’s perceptions of how the economyis performing are neither set in stone nor outside of our influence. Itis a staple of academic studies that people’s perceptions of how thegovernment has performed on the economy heavily influences how peoplevote. Now – we are well used to the idea of campaigning hard locally tochange people’s views of the track-record of those running the council;we do not need to shy away from bringing similar influence to bear ontheir views of politicians’ economic records – particularly if the PrimeMinister is a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leader of theopposition was a top adviser in the Treasury when Britain last plungedinto deep recession!

These three steps – meeting with business, framing our policies in thecontext of their economic and business impact, and talking about theeconomic record – are beneficial in themselves. Even better, though,economic issues help us present one of our core themes in a concrete andpractical manner. “Fairness” is a good concept for gathering up many ofour policies and attitudes of mind, but to make it work as avote-winning and society-changing concept we need to present anddemonstrate the idea of fairness in ways that are persuasive, thatilluminate the concept, that show its practical application, that showwe are in touch with and understand the concerns of non-political people- and that move beyond simply sticking the word on the cover of somedocuments or under the logo on some press or conference backdrops.

This i
s just the opportunity which the economy – and in particulartaxation – provides, because most of the policies I’ve touched on abovecan be couched in just these terms. They are about having policies thatmake life fairer for people and businesses. They take the ideologicalconcept and turn it into practical policies which let us bothdemonstrate why it’s the right concept but also that we are sincere inpromoting it.

Fairness applies in the wider economic picture too, for tackling povertyand social exclusion is essential for helping people to realise theirown potential and to truly prosper in a fair, tolerant and liberalsociety. And this is something that benefits the whole community. We allbenefit from the better public services, the lower crime rates and themore harmonious society that flow from a more content and prosperouscountry. And that’s our challenge to deliver.

(c) Lynne Featherstone, 2007. This article first appeared in Liberator.