I have consistently opposed the Heseltine/Blair concept of Mayors, though I have to accept that they look like becoming a permanent part of the British political landscape. But last week-end I was trying to describe the London Mayoral set-up to an American friend, who lives in New York. He asked me about the control exercised upon the Mayor by the Assembly and I must admit that I found it rather difficult.

I explained to him that if 66% of the Assembly members objected they could defeat his budget, but apart from that I was not too sure that the members could do much except overview and scrutinise. Conversations over the years with Livingstone, Sir Robin Wales (Newham) and Edward Lister (Deputy London Mayor) confirm my general impression. They all began by opposing the Mayoral concept (though I am not absolutely sure of that with Wales) but having become Mayor or Deputy they are now so enchanted with their unlimited powers, not just of advocacy but also of executive action, that they are advocates for not only more Mayors but also more powers to be given to them.

My New Yorker friend was scandalised. “You mean once elected these guys are in total control, and unencumbered by any elected assembly? That could never happen in the States – New York’s Mayor is answerable to his admittedly rather small (my italicised words) Council” he exclaimed. Lord Hailsham’s elective dictatorship has become a reality.

I have always thought that the risks we are taking, throwing away the checks and balances implicit, and indeed explicit, in our Council and Leader structure were pretty huge. We are set on the gamble now! I await the coming cronyism, scandals and bad governance with some sorrow for what, all in all, was a pretty good form of local government, once the envy of the world.

Followers will know the position I took about evicting the family of small-scale rioter, Daniel Sartain-Clark. But that one was easy; he wasn’t found guilty of much.

But last week a gang of Latchmere residents was caught for fairly big time drug dealing. Against capital punishment as I am, my reflex action about drug dealing almost demands that the perpetrators are strung up. OK, that goes a bit far but what do you think about the Council’s threat to evict their families? (Though to be fair to the Council, it would be stretching definitions a bit far to call these political evictions).

Here are people actively destroying the lives of their neighbours, almost certainly with the knowledge of some members of their family, and the Council wants to evict them. What do you reckon? Evict immediately!

Well, I am not so sure. To start with, as luck would have it, living on the Kambala and Winstanley estates, some are freeholders, some leaseholders and some tenants and hence the power that the Council has to evict varies. Secondly young siblings and harrassed mothers are still innocent.

Let the judicial system take its course with the unpleasant dealers – on balance I still think that the Council should not evict the families any more than I think any criminal’s family deserves to be made homeless. Have I got this right?

January highlights

1  The worst moment of the month was when Daniel was sentenced on 10^th January for his part in the riots. Don’t get me wrong. I have no sympathy for those who were involved in the riots, but I do believe that we need a sense of proportion and quite clearly what Judge Darling had to say implied very strongly that the relatively minor misdemeanours Daniel was involved in would not have led to a custodial sentence at any other time. But for more detail see the 11^th January entry below.

2.  The best moment of the month, however, was when the Council back-tracked on their decision to evict his totally innocent mother and sister – see 19^th January entry below.

3.  On 12^th January I was fascinated to hear Louise Casey, Head of the Government’s new Troubled Families Unit. Her Unit, a Tory Government initiative, is based on the old 80:20 rule, though in this case the figures are probably more like 99:1 rule, which says that you spend 80% of your effort on 20% of your caseload. This rule, if you haven’t heard about it, applies to all areas of work so a doctor, say, spends 80% of his time on 20% of his patients, a teacher spends 80% of her time on 20% of her pupils, etc. It is certainly true of me, with at least 90% of my constituents (more than 10,000 of you) taking absolutely no more than 10% of my efforts and the other 10% more than occupying 90% of my attention.

So the aim of this Unit is to focus government’s attention (government in this context is meant to mean everything, such as schools, the NHS, the judicial system, the police, social services, probation services, etc.) on the very small number of troubled families – Casey estimates that 120,000 families in the UK are the source of an extremely high percentage of the criminal, educational, health, etc., costs and problems that we face. The argument being that if we put a lot of money into solving their problems then we can save £millions more in the long term on all those mainstream services.

Interesting, but frankly I am sceptical. It seems to me that until we address some pretty basic inequalities in the UK (caused by low pay, youth unemployment, unemployment, poor housing) then resolving the problems of today’s 120,000 families will only mean that they will be replaced by 120,000 others in a few years’ time.

Marco Polo House

4.  The Planning Applications Committee on 19^th January had two dramatic plans to consider. One was for the demolition of the post-modernist Marco Polo Building in Queenstown Road and its replacement with 15 and 13 storey blocks of 456 flats with associated bars, restaurants and shops. If it goes ahead, this will be one of the quickest re-developments we have seen. The Marco Polo building (pictured) is itself only 25 years old. The other was for a 5-10 storey building containing 116 residential units on the site opposite York Gardens Library and Halfords on the corner of Lombard Road. That one was refused but the Marco Polo replacement building accepted.

5.  The 25^th January, Finance & Corporate Services Committee had stacks of very important but rather technical, internal matters relating to the running of the Council, which would not I suspect be of much interest to the public at large. One very small matter, however, might be of interest to some Latchmere residents as it concerns the sale of the St. Christopher Clinic in Wheeler Court, Plough Road. The clinic has been relocated and it will be converted into flats.

6.  The 23rd January, Housing Committee decided to increase rents Council rents by an average £8.33p per week or 7%. They will continue to be the highest Council rents in the country.

My Programme for February

1.  The Council meets on 8^th February and the Clapham Junction Town Centre Partnership the day after.

2. The Labour Party is holding its “Ken Livingstone Manifesto” discussion on 11^th but as I am doing a surgery at Battersea Library that same morning I will miss most, if not all, of that.

3. The Wayford Residents Association meeting is on the 23rd.

4. The Planning Applications Committee is on the 19^th.

Eltringham School

5. For the more nostalgic amongst you I would draw your attention to two demolitions, yes DEMOLITIONS, taking place this month or about to take place. The most important to mention is that of Eltringham School in Eltringham Street, which for those who don’t know it is the Victorian School building on the left just as one drives onto the Wandsworth Bridge roundabout from York Road. One lady, who still lives in Eltringham Street, tells me that she went to school there (if you are reading this did you say in the 60’s?) and that her mother had lived in the same street for years before then.

St. Peter's Church Hall, Plough Road

And the second was featured in last week’s local Guardian and is the hall of the old St. Peter’s Church in Plough Road. The inside of the hall is rather splendid, if somewhat run-down, but the most notable element of it, at least as far as recent local history is concerned is the mural on the south side of the hall. The painting is very faded and it will hardly be a great loss to Battersea. But for some of it brings back memories of Rev Michael Wimhurst, who in the 70’s was a radical vicar at the church, which was burnt down at some point in the 80’s.

Royal Artillery Monument

Did you know?

Next time that you are in Albert Bridge Road, between Petworth Street and Albany Mansions, keep your eyes open for a blue plaque to Charles Sergeant Jagger, (no relation to Mick) who lived there in the 1930’s. It’s on about 60 Albert Bridge Road and very, very near to Jagger House on the nearby Ethelburga Estate.

Jagger born in 1885 near Rotherham, fought and was wounded three times in the 1914-18 War. For 10 years after the war he sculpted many of the First World War memorials that were constructed all over the country. His most famous memorial is the Royal Artillery Monument at Hyde Park Corner and, although it does not come out very well, that is a Howitzer on the monument.