Jobless Too Busy Shopping To Look For Work, Says Tory.
Yes, that was the headline over a story in the Evening Standard on 16 November 2011. What followed was a poisonous diatribe from Balham Councillor Paul Ellis. Look it up, if you can, on the ES website; I must admit I have not found the link!
But the article was so irresponsible that I intend to make the following speech at the 7 December Council Meeting.
“Marie Antoinette was tasteless enough to advise that French peasants should eat cake if they could not find enough bread. Jeremy Clarkson was vulgar enough to suggest that strikers should be taken out and shot in front of their families, but at least Antoinette was not the Minister for Wheat production and Clarkson not the Minister in charge of Industrial Relations.
Councillor Ellis was vulgar enough and tasteless enough to make the outrageous assertion that the Jobless in a Battersea estate were too busy shopping to look for work – and he is Chairman of the Housing Committee and responsible for tenant relationships. Louis XVI may have had some marital reasons for not chopping off Antoinette’s head and Cameron does not have any official role in terms of Clarkson’s employment at the BBC, but Wandsworth’s Leader does have the power and certainly has the grounds for guillotining his Chair of Housing.
Put to one side the comparison of an estate, which one I wonder, with the Oxford Street sales; forget the absurd generalisation about people in their 20s, 30s and 40s (his phrase – not mine), who after all have a 40% chance of being leaseholders rather than tenants and are probably employed rather than not – after all nowhere has unemployment rates higher than 50%; putting all that to one side he completely ignores the fact that this Council’s policies are to some extent based on the fact that some of our estates contain some of the most multi-deprived people in the UK.
Now I don’t want to make the same kind of ludicrous assertions about the residents of Balham, those whom Ellis represents, as he does about some unnamed estate but the grotesque assumption that in some ways more will be spent on Christmas on our estates than in the comfortable streets of Balham beggars belief. There is a class war starting in Wandsworth and it is the Tory party that is firing the first shots.
BOUNDARY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CURRENT BATTERSEA CONSTITUENCY
1 The Boundary Commission recommends:-
- moving Fairfield ward from Battersea into a new Putney constituency numbering 80,073 as of 1st December 2010;
- moving Balham and Northcote wards into a new Clapham Common constituency of 79,354 as of 1st December 2010;
- and making the remaining four wards of Latchmere, Queenstown, St. Mary’s Park and Shaftesbury the majority element of a Battersea and Vauxhall constituency of 78,199.
All three of these proposed constituencies are larger than the UK electoral quota of 76,641 and yet population growth in Wandsworth in particular and in south west London in general is expected to be one of the fastest growing in the country. It is therefore probable that all three proposed constituencies will be larger than the target maximum electorate of 80,473 by the time the new boundaries actually come into effect. These proposals, therefore, build an even greater instability and democratic unfairness into the system than is in any case inherent.
2 We have taken the Greater London Authority’s 2010 Round, Demographic Projections for the London Borough of Wandsworth, to illustrate this point. It shows that the Borough’s population is estimated to have grown by 11% between the years 2001 and 2011 and is expected to grow by a further 11% in the ten years 2011-2021. There are actually three projections, known as scenario one and scenario two and the Strategic Housing Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The following figures are largely based on the SHLAA figures, which are close to scenario one. The figures in scenario two have been excluded for these purposes, but it is worth noting that they predict an even greater rate of population growth for Wandsworth.
3 Two of the fastest growing ward populations, namely in Thamesfield and Southfields, are in the Putney constituency, which even on 2010 figures is only 400 people short of the maximum number. It is almost guaranteed to exceed it by May, 2015.
4 However, by far the largest growth rates in the period 2001-21 are expected in Queenstown ward with an estimated 96% growth rate and St. Mary’s Park with an estimated 50% growth rate. These two wards alone represent 30.9% of Wandsworth’s estimated population growth and both of them are proposed to be in the Battersea and Vauxhall constituency. By way of confirmation of these trends, they actually supplied 30.9% of the growth in the decade 2001/11 as well as being expected to provide 30.9% of the growth in the coming decade. The neighbouring wards in Lambeth, with which they are coupled in the proposals, are also likely to have high growth rates thanks to major developments in Vauxhall and Nine Elms.
5 Currently the proposed Battersea and Vauxhall constituency already has a population larger than the electoral quota although below the maximum allowed. Its growth rate is, however, so high that it will, like Putney, almost certainly exceed the maximum by May, 2015.
6 The five wards proposed to be moved into the Clapham Common constituency, that is Balham, Earlsfield, Nightingale, Northcote and Wandsworth Common, have much lower growth rates with an average of approximately 16% but they are all likely to be growing at a faster rate than the London and certainly the national average rate.
7 Ironically the slower growing wards of Bedford, Furzedown, Graveney and Tooting, averaging about 15.5% growth rates, are proposed to be moved into the new Streatham and Tooting constituency – the only one of the proposed “Wandsworth” constituencies with an estimated population smaller than the quota figure, 464 smaller to be precise.
8 In the interest of greater stability of boundaries and of fairer democratic representation we urge the Boundary Commissioners to reconsider the proposals on the basis that fast growing areas should, if anything, have proposed populations smaller than the average electoral quota and that slow growing or declining areas should have the larger populations.
9 Unless the Boundary Commission proposals are amended in this way, and given the narrow parameters that have been set, this would result in Shaftesbury ward and possibly even Latchmere ward being moved out of Battersea and Vauxhall by 2020. It is difficult to model what the ripple effect would be of that, but it might suggest that Balham ward would have to go into Streatham and Tooting, and Wimbledon Park into a Wimbledon seat. The effect is constant instability.
10 The Boundary Commission is required to respect natural geographic boundaries, but it has defined that in a fairly narrow sense without regard to the nature of place and geography. As a result the place of Battersea comes out of these proposals extremely badly. Despite the name, Battersea and Vauxhall, much of the traditional area of Battersea would under these proposals be in either Clapham Common or Putney constituency. The station, Clapham Junction, which is at the heart of Battersea, will be in Clapham Common and whilst the old Town Hall and the main library are in the proposed Battersea and Vauxhall constituency, they are only just so. Indeed the main shopping and commercial centre of Battersea is almost exactly where the three constituencies meet.
11 Given the current need for extra attention to this (at least in part) troubled town centre, it is inflammatory to divide the area so arbitrarily, taking no account of the unifying and centralising role of Clapham Junction station and town centre in the social and communal life of Battersea.
12 Moreover, the proposed new Clapham Common constituency has no coherent geographic centre, divided as it is into three almost equal parts by the large open spaces of Clapham and Wandsworth Commons.
13 Given the level of instability inherently built into the system and with three of the four proposed “Wandsworth” constituencies both larger than the electoral quota AND fast growing, a question must arise about the closeness of the links between the MP and his/her constituency. The probability is that at the next review, due for the 2020 election, several wards including probably Shaftesbury, Balham and Wimbledon Park will have to be moved from their constituencies as they would otherwise be too large. It must therefore be questionable whether the relevant electors will be able to expect a good service from their MP given the transient nature of the boundaries.
14 Because of the prescriptive nature of the legislation, it is likely that significant constituency boundary changes will be required at every review. Currently these are scheduled for every 5 yearly parliamentary elections. This can only result in unstable constituency boundaries which will be destabilising for electors. It is also worth noting that the local party organisations (of all parties) will be forced continually to form and then re-form, destabilising the bedrock of community politics. Boundary Changes should therefore revert to the customary 10 year cycle.
15 The current legislation mandates a reduction in constituencies from 650 to 600. We believe this is short sighted and ill-advised, especially with reference to inner city constituencies. They generate high demand for MP’s services and currently benefit from co-ordinated attention from MPs and local authorities, working within co-terminous boundaries.
16 An extra feature of the Wandsworth and Lambeth constituencies, which the Boundary Commission should take into account, is the considerable discrepancy between their electoral populations and the actual populations. This is largely accounted for by the very large numbers of European and other immigrants, who live in these parts of London, but who do not have the vote. This population often imposes a large workload on both the MP and local councillors.
17 Furthermore, whilst recognising that the Boundary Commission has not taken into account local authority boundaries, the results of this review are perverse. For many years, the Boundary Commission, local authorities, the Metropolitan Police Service and the NHS have been working towards co-terminosity. Clearly that has had many advantages, eliminating the duplication of roles and number of communication links to the extent that Wandsworth Council now has to deal with only three MPs, each of whom has to deal with only one local authority and one police division. If the current proposals proceed as proposed then Wandsworth will have to deal with four MPs, each of whom will have to deal with at least 2 local authorities and 2 police divisions.
18 With the proposed Battersea and Vauxhall constituency having 4 Wandsworth wards and 4 Lambeth wards, and the proposed Clapham Common constituency having 5 Wandsworth constituencies and 3 Lambeth wards it appears obvious that the boundaries could be drawn with far greater respect to local authority boundaries. That would respect both the historical and geographical expectations of the relevant population.
19 In conclusion we believe that the Commissioners proposals for Wandsworth are flawed. They should be revised taking into account:-
- the growth rates and trends in population estimates;
- greater concern and attention to historic as well as natural boundaries;
- the workload on MPs and the real population as well as the electoral suffrage;
- co-terminosity with other authority boundaries.
Tony Belton and Penelope Corfield on behalf of the Battersea Labour Party
31st October 2011.
November Newsletter
November highlights
1. On 1st November I spoke at the Boundary Commission Hearing, in the Town Hall. The Commission’s recommendations for the new Parliamentary boundaries are very extensive and involve massive changes across the country. As far as Battersea is concerned the plan is to divide it in half, with the railway lines as the approximate boundary, with the north joined to Vauxhall in a Battersea and Vauxhall constituency and the south, including Clapham Junction itself, being joined with parts of Tooting and Clapham in a new Clapham Common constituency.
This change is due to the need to revise boundaries across the country as some areas grow, in population terms, faster than others. The problem is largely caused by the Government’s insistence that no constituency should deviate from the norm by more than 5% – it used to be 10%. As it happens, the current Battersea constituency is more or less the right size but when you start changing boundaries right across the country then clearly there is a ripple effect. The result is just about “All Change”.
I opposed the changes for all kinds of reasons but the most important is that the planned growth in population in Nine Elms over the next few years will require the boundaries of Battersea to be changed again before the end of the decade. It is a recipe for constant change and constant confusion. It will weaken people’s identification with their constituency and will therefore, in the end, weaken deomocracy.
For those of you, who are really interested, my actual presentation to the Commission is also on this blog.
2. On the 10th November, I had dinner with Ken Livingstone at a fund raiser for the Putney Labour Party. This picture was taken a couple of years back.
3. On the evening of 1st November I attended the York Gardens Library re-launch. Clearly this was a grand occasion for some celebration, as the work of all those volunteers, who have done so much to save the library, came to fruition. The only really galling thing about the evening is that Tory M.P. Jane Ellison and Tory Cllr Jonathan Cook – the ones who had done most to put the library under pressure – got to have the pleasure of speaking and opening a library that owes almost nothing to them. Really galling for this Labour councillor, and for some of the activists involved in saving the library!
4. On the 3rd November I went to a debate in the Council Chamber on “How Green Wandsworth Council is” with new Transport Minister and Putney MP, Justine Greening, and Wandsworth’s Deputy Leader Jonathan Cook. It was largely about the Government’s new “Green Deal” initiative. Last month, I said that I was sceptical about the Tory party being green – I was not wrong!
The purpose of the “Green Deal” is, in effect, to persuade the energy companies to lend money to domestic customers, so that they can buy insulation and other energy conservation measures. In theory, the utility bills will then be reduced and the customer can re-pay the debt by continuing to pay the old level of bills until their debt is paid off.
It all sounded ok in theory, with repayment made through utility bills on the basis that, as the energy content of the bill declines, then the repayment content of it will increase until the loan has been paid off.
It sounds reasonable in theory but whilst it is clearly not the “Big Solution” that the Government seems to think it is, it also seems to me to have a myriad of problems. Who says a particular investment is going to pay off? Who guarantees the quality of the job done? Who picks up the bill if the energy bills do not come down significantly? How is this all going to be calculated in a period of energy inflation? As they say, the devil is in the detail and details are what this Government is notoriously bad at.
5. On November 5th, I joined Jane Ellison at the formal opening of the Mercy Foundation’s computer training facility at 64 Falcon Road. Jane and I were there to present certificates to “graduates” of their word processing and other courses. You couldn’t say that they were high level qualifications but the comments of some of the graduates were quite moving. One lady said that she was basically illiterate, and I mean illiterate and not computer illiterate, before she started the course but now, three months later, she had just made her first on-line grocery order. She was rightly thrilled – quite an achievement for the Foundation – I thought.
6. Later that day I went to the Fireworks Display in Battersea Park. Did you go? And if so what did you think? The chat where I was, was that it was not as good as in recent years. I took a couple of Japanese academics I know – and they certainly enjoyed it!
7. At the Finance and Corporate Resources Committee on the 16th there was a great deal of solid but largely bureaucratic content but there were two items of real interest to plenty of people in Latchmere and especially right down by Wandsworth Bridge. The first was the decision to declare the Eltringham School site surplus to requirements. The school is in Eltringham Street off Petergate and everyone will know it even if they think they don’t. It can be seen on the left as one approaches the Wandsworth Bridge round-about. It is in the Council’s books as an asset worth more than £10 million. I think at that kind of price we are going to get another very expensive block of flats with not many affordable homes!
The second item was about the Council’s acquisition of Putney Hospital for the purposes of creating another so-called Free School in the Borough, though on this occasion at primary level. I think there is little doubt that Wandsworth Borough Council wants to break up what it sees as the monopoly state schooling system.
8. The following evening the Planning Applications Committee had a record 350 page agenda! Bit of a sweat that was! But despite the size of the agenda, the only matter of any great interest to Latchmere was the application for what effectively will become half a dozen very expensive town houses on the site of the old Labour Exchange in Beechmore Road. If you do not remember it here it is on a wet November day in 2009, when I was canvassing for the then forthcoming Council elections.
9. I am the only Labour representative on the Heliport Consultative Committee, which was held on the 21st. The Heliport is so big and busy that it has, by legislation, a consultative committee just like all major airports in the country. It is, of course, the only heliport that large, but actually we don’t do a great deal other than monitor noise levels and try to keep the disturbance it causes to a minimum.
10. I went to the Battersea Police Ball on the 26th, which as ever was a hoot! Not a cheap evening out but, if you can afford it, I do recommend it at least once. It is so wonderfully naff, or do I mean camp? But it raises plenty of money for the Summer Play Scheme for the children of Battersea – so it’s all in a good cause.
11. I am afraid I couldn’t make the Wayford Street Residents association meeting on 24th November – apologies!
My Programme for December
1. A meeting on the Doddington Estate on 5th December about the Council’s cuts.
2. The Council Meeting on December 7th.
3. The continuing Court Case against a Wandsworth tenant’s son on 12th.
4. The Planning Applications Committee on the 15th.
5. And Christmas! Talking of which A Very Merry Xmas to you and yours!
Did you know?
This rather dashing picture is of Alliott Verdon Roe, the first Englishman to make a powered flight, and founder in 1910 of the AV Roe & Co. aircraft manufacturer (better known as Avro). I am writing about him as the last person pictured in the Haberdasher Arm’s Mural, of whom I have not yet written.
His connection with Battersea and Latchmere, apart from being in Barnes’ mural is rather tenuous. He used the stables at his brother’s house in West Hill to design and model planes including his ‘Bulls Eye’ duplex triplane, which was put into production in an arch beneath the nearby railway. (The Council has very recently, 28th October 2011, unveiled a plaque at the site of Roe’s first workshop in West Hill.)
He was the founding genius of the British aerospace industry, his planes being the first to take part in a bombing raid on German lines in the First World War. But by far his most famous aircraft, betraying his Lancashire origins, was the World War Two bomber, the Lancaster.
See http://www.londonmuralpreservationsociety.com/murals/battersea-perspective/ for Brian’s own description of his mural.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Belton
Latchmere Councillor
Tony Belton
Tony Belton 