European elections this Thursday

European elections this Thursday

Recycling needs a big boost to save big bucks

The Council has issued a press release urging residents to help cut council tax by cutting the amount of rubbish they put out and increasing recycling.

At first, I thought the Council had thrown its support behind the radical idea I've been supporting for some time - that of allowing councils to cut the council tax of those who recycle more. This is something that would act as a personal incentive for all of us to boost recycling and save money at the same time.

Just 26% of Wandsworth's rubbish is currently recycled: that remains a low figure given recycling has been a mainstream environmental policy for twenty years or so. I think our recycling rate should be double that - and it's achievable, even in an inner London borough like ours.

But for that we need stronger local leadership. Recycling on council estates remains minimal: a few bins are provided but they're insufficient and not emptied regularly enough. Recycling on estates has become associated with mess and inconvenience, rather than a social good. Only this week I've been in correspondence with the council about this: they sited a bin right next to a resident's living room window. He can't open his window because of the smell created and flies attracted by the recycling as the bin gets full a few days before it is due for collection. This isn't an incentive to recycle: it's a barrier to it.

Doubling Wandsworth's recycling rate won't be easy but we need to make the effort. On council estates, the council has to look at something that has a terrible name but is the only way to really get recycling going: "vertical kerbside" - which means door to door recycling collections. Or, in blocks where there are two distinct rubbish chutes, it should look at the viability of designating one for recycling and one for non-recyclable rubbish.

But as well as making the practicalities of recycling easier, we also need to give residents an incentive to recycle beyond the warm fuzzy feeling we get from doing something "good". I believe that the financial gain realised by a council from the savings made from a reduction in the amount of rubbish sent to landfill, should be shared only with those of us who actively recycle, rather than everyone. As recycling becomes easier and easier, why should those who have never recycled benefit in equal measure to those who do? How we bring that about needs a lot more thought and debate because the issue of councils monitoring each household's rubbish has, understandably, been very controversial.

In part, the hostility aroused was because councils didn't consult on their plans, didn't explain properly what they were doing and why, and - most importantly - didn't want to reduce the bills of those who did recycle: they just wanted to add even more tax to those who didn't. Well, as I've argued before, that's a disastrous mistake: green taxes must not be EXTRA taxes. And besides, incentives to do something usually work far better than punishments for not doing it.

More on MPs' Expenses

Along with over 100 fellow Labour parliamentary candidates I have signed up to these ethics pledges that Progress, a network of Labour party progressives, has put together. I support them and pledge to observe them both as a candidate and, if elected, as Putney?s MP.

However, along with many of the signatories, I think we need to go further if we are to restore a degree of confidence between voters and their political representatives. I intend to return to this issue and will be following ? and participating in ?the emerging debate on how parliament must be reformed.

Congratulations to the outgoing and incoming Mayors

Last week I attended the annual Mayor making ceremony at Wandsworth town hall. The occasion, to thank the outgoing Mayor for his year of service and to witness the inauguration of the new incoming Mayor, is an annual highlight in the civil calendar.

The outgoing Mayor is Councillor John Farebrother, a highly regarded councillor from Furzedown ward in Tooting. As a serving Labour councillor elected by a majority Conservative council, his election was unique and a welcome break from the usual partisan dividing lines of the town hall. I know that politicians from both parties have been enormously impressed with the manner with which John has conducted himself during his mayoral year. I was delighted to be amongst the audience to hear Leader of the Council Edward Lister and opposition leader, Tony Belton lead the tributes to John.

The event also saw the inauguration of Councillor Professor Brian Prichard as the Mayor of Wandsworth for 2009/10, with Councillor Jane Cooper elected to serve as his deputy mayor. I know both extremely well having served on the council with them from 1998-2006, and as both are Putney councillors, I am sure we will see much of them during their civic year in office. I extend my best wishes and congratulations to both of them.

The picture is of the members of the Labour group of councillors with outgoing Mayor, John Farebrother. From left to right are: Judi Gasser, Billi Randall, Tony Belton, Nick Bowes, John Farebrother, Rex Osborn, Leonie Cooper and Andy Gibbons. Absent from the photo was the final member of the Labour group, Maurice Johnson. I think this is a really nice picture!

A reminder to vote

A new text messaging service has been launched by Labour for anyone worried they might forget to vote on polling day.

If you want a personalised text message reminder to vote on Thursday 4 June, register on Labour's website or text VOTE to 60022. Tell them what time you want to vote and they'll send you a reminder by text.

This is a great little service because for everyone other than political anoraks, polling day is just a day like any other and it's easy to forget or run out of time. But once polls closed, your chance to have a say is gone for the next four or five years. So if you want a handy little prompt on polling day, sign up for our reminder to vote service.

The choice on SureStart

Keeping Roehampton Safe

In March I spent a week calling on residents on the Lennox estate in Roehampton, which for those of your who know it is a somewhat isolated part of the constituency off Priory Lane.

Every night after work my campaign team and I called on residents to discuss their local priorities and concerns.

You can read more about the issues that I took up and the actions I won in a special edition of The Putney Paper delivered to the whole estate.

As you might imagine, crime and policing was raised by a number of residents - both on the doorstep and in response to my residents survey. So yesterday I met with Inspector Kevan Martin (Putney's Sector Inspector), Sergeant Mark McLeavery (Roehampton SNT) and PCSO Marco Serrano (Lennox Estate Micro-beat) to discuss the various concerns that were raised with me.

The meeting was extremely productive and it was encouraging that the majority of the issues I raised were matters already known to the police and on which action was ongoing. It bears testimony to my belief - and that of many others - that safer neighbourhood policing really is delivering results. Locally based police teams are picking up intelligence on low level crimes that have an impact of people's quality of life disproportionate to their "seriousness".

The principal issue that I wanted to raise with the police was that residents feel they do not see enough of the SNT on the estate. This is a difficulty for the police because I acknowledge and accept that they cannot be everywhere at the same time and Roehampton is a very big ward geographically. It runs from Upper Richmond Road in the north all the way south to Wimbledon Parkside.

There is a perception that the SNT tend only to be seen at the parade of shops and were thought rarely to venture furether into the estate. I was assured by Marco Serrano that this was not the case and that he visits the whole of the Lennox at least every other day on his bicycle. I was impressed with Marco, who clearly knew his patch and displayed a welcome enthusiasm for his role.

Anyone wishing to raise policing concerns with the SNT can contact them on 020 8247 7681 or at roehampton.snt@met.police.uk

Labour's manifesto for Europe

I had a survey back yesterday asking for more information on what Labour was standing for in the forthcomign European elections.

Sadly, this was a first in this election campaign: the big issues dividing the political parties and, indeed, our country, have been completely subsumed by the MPs' expenses scandal. I understand that; the scandal is a massive and incredibly serious issue, and it is also a far clearer issue - and one it is easy to reach an opinion on very quickly.

But all that said, it is not the only issue - and there remain substantial challenges for our country that are at stake in the European elections.

So I thought I'd post Labour's European Election manifesto - it's only fifteen pages long, so you won't be overwhelmed by it. It sets out what Labour, and our allies across Europe have achieved over the past five years and the challenges we're going to be working on these next five.

Worth a read if you're interested in making an informed choice on the specific issues the European elections will actually determine.

The choice on keeping your home

MPs' expenses

The tsunami of public disgust released by the revelations about MPs' expenses - about which the Daily Telegraph acted rightly in the public interest - is entirely justified. This is a scandal that has infected and infested Westminster politics to its core.

So let me start by stating publicly something that I never imagined would become especially relevant, but that now - in the light of this ongoing expenses scandal - I feel it is important you should know:

The work I do as the Labour Party parliamentary candidate for Putney is unsalaried and undertaken in an entirely voluntary capacity. I have a full time job separate from politics (dare I say, in the "real world") and all the activity I undertake as a candidate for Parliament I do so in my own time at weekends or in the evenings.

Likewise, my campaign team comprises local members who volunteer their time to deliver leaflets and knock on doors alongside me. Although I am a trade unionist I do not receive any money from them. Every item of publicity we distribute is paid for through membership subscriptions, fundraising and donations from local members. Nothing is paid for from public funds.

And that?s exactly how it should be.

These claims about the probity of my campaign finances can be independently verified because all political parties are required by law to submit reports on the donations they receive to the Electoral Commission, which are then published.

This scandal crosses party boundaries. But Labour is taking the biggest hit and I appreciate why. We are not only the party of government but we are also the party that has always been on the side of ordinary working people. With Labour we expect - no, demand - better. And several Labour MPs have fallen well short of that mark. So I understand why Labour is this week recording its lowest levels of support since records began. I understand it and as Labour's representative in Putney I apologise to everyone let down by those in my party who have acted so disgracefully.

I joined Labour when I was 17 and I have spent nearly all my time since here in this borough. In those 20 years plus, I have delivered leaflets, knocked on doors, sold raffle tickets, donated my own money and served as a councillor for eight years. It was a huge privilege when local members here in Putney chose me to be the party's candidate at the next general election.

As someone born and brought up in the borough, I care passionately about politics - not as a career, but as a means to improve the life and life chances of everyone who was born here or who has made it their home. I know the same is true of most Conservative and Liberal Democrat activists, too; and I believe that before they entered the "Westminster bubble" this is what motivated most MPs, as well.

I'm not sure trust in this current batch of politicians can ever be restored, but confidence in parliament and politics perhaps can. A root-and-branch overhaul of how parliament works and a massive slimming down of MPs, perks and privileges must be at the heart of the much needed reform we need to bring to Westminster. Being a Member of Parliament is an honour, not a ticket on a gravy-train.

At some point - and we may not yet be there - we do need to begin looking at where we go from here. From amidst the rubble of this scandal there is a tremendous opportunity to build a political system where parties are weak and voters are strong; where MPs don't slavishly obey their party's whip but have an independence of thought; Who aren't in it for a cosy life - but for a challenging, difficult one. And who will speak up when they believe something other than the cosy consensus.

I passionately want to be part of that change. I am optimistic for the future as well as despondent about the recent past. If as a country we are to tackle the big issues facing this nation then trust and confidence in politics, Government and politicians needs to be restored.

Clapham Junction plans withdrawn

The Clapham Junction Station overdevelopment plan has just become the latest to be withdrawn; just hours before the Planning Applications Committee was set to determine it.

While this is of course another victory for local people and another massive sign that the Conservative Counil has got to put its planning policy in order, I have to say that I find disingenuous the behaviour of developers who, seeing the writing is on the wall, withdraw their plans.

We've seen it with Tileman House. Now we've seen it with Clapham Junction. And had they not "gone first", as it were, I suspect we'd have seen it with Putney Place. I think developers need to stop playing fast and loose: if they believe their plans were good enough to be submitted in the first place their plans should be good enough to be voted on in open, public meetings of the planning applications committee.

Withdrawing them is dishonourable: it means that they can be re-presented at any point with no or minimal change and with the risk that residents will have to resubmit their objections all over again. Because of the developers' conduct, these plans hang over us just as their 39 storey towers would hang over our area.

But for now, let's congraultate the campaigners, led by Battersea Labour MP Martin Linton, who have achieved this result.

Arton Wilson: a housing scandal

This is Arton Wilson Wilson House, Roehampton Lane; the derelict nurses' accommodation that the NHS is trying to sell off for maximum profit.

At a time when thousands are losing their homes and council housing waiting lists are so long, I think it is a scandal that affordable housing like this is boarded up and fenced off.

The NHS is wrong to seek maximum profit for this site when they themselves have admitted that they have a local shortage of school nurses in part due to the lack of affordable local homes. And a local council serious about tackling homelessness would have sat down with NHS bosses and hammered out a deal to provide - at the very least - short-term temporary accommodation for the many on the housing waiting list.

Apparently the NHS argue that nurses "didn't want to live" in Arton Wilson House. I find that slightly odd, because on the last electoral register before it was decanted there were almost 100 people living here. But if it's the case that the housing is substandard, the common sense answer is to renovate it, not close it down and sell it off.

The NHS cannot, I understand, find a buyer for this site. They are a public service first and foremost: not a profiteering fat-cat land developer. They should take Arton Wilson House off the market immediately and open negotiations with the Council, local Housing Associations and the Homes and Communities Agency to house 100 Putney people waiting for a home.

"The crippling cost" of right to buy

This article on the hidden consequences of the Conservative right to buy policy from the BBC is really worth reading. The couple in question: Mr and Mrs Okwalinga are Ugandan refugees who came to this country - not, as refugees are typically caricatured, living off benefits - but to work hard and get on. He was earning £18,000 and she was setting up a catering business.

They believed that owning a home was a social responsibility: they wanted to leave a nest egg to their children and have the independence of investing in their home. Familiar stuff to many of us. Exactly the sort of person targeted by the Tories for their right-to-buy dream.

Unfortunately, Mr and Mrs Okwalinga are now struggling to keep their home because of a sub-prime mortgage lender demanding absurd amounts in interest payments after their fixed term deal ended. The Courts appear to have sided with the lender.

Now you may say that this isn't a fault of right-to-buy: it could happen to anyone with a mortgage. And that's true. But in this instance, right to buy is repsonisble for two problems:

First, it has halved the amount of affordable housing available to support families like the Okwalingas should they lose their home - because the critical failure of right to buy was that it placed no obligation on local authorities to replace the homes they sold off. I've never opposed the sale of council homes; I have always opposed the failure to replace them. Here in Wandsworth, the number of affordable homes to rent has halved from over 32,000 to barely 16,000 in the last 25 years. And that's nothing short of a housing catastrophe.

And second, we have to put an end to the stigma that the Conservatives created that renting social housing from a council or housing association somehow represents a failure or absence of success. I know that most people, given the choice, would probably prefer to own their home (I'm one of them), but it's not right or viable for everyone, especially in London where house prices are so much higher than everywhere else.

For those, we have to restore a viable, vibrant and flexible affordable housing sector that provides decent homes, not ones tacked on to the poorest-quality corners of luxury developments.

We should start by imposing a duty on every council that for every local authority home they sell off they have to build TWO new ones for rent. That's the first piece of legislation I would press for if elected as MP for Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.

The last figleaf slips?

The passage above is from the Planning report on the Clapham Junction towerblock plan - it's the section that reports on comments received from Tory Mayor of London Boris Johnson on the plan.

I've highlighted the lines where he says the 39-storey tower blocks "have been positioned to have minimum impact", "are not considered to harm these views"; that their "design quality" ensures they don't "overwhelm the surrounding townscape" and, most damningly of all "the design of the towers adds positively to the skyline".

This from the man who promised you time and time again last year when he was running for Mayor that he was opposed to high rise development in London and would block such towers.

What do you think of that pledge now?

Wandsworth's Conservative Council and London's Conservative Mayor are united in their determination to bury our area under high-rise overdevelopment. Stand with me against these destructive Tory plans.

Spot the difference

One of the Tory leaflets above was paid for by Putney Conservative Party. One of them was paid for by you, through Conservative MP Justine Greening's Parliamentary allowances. Can you tell which one is which? But more to the point, can you think why you've paid for either?

I support the Conservatives' right to raise funds to publish their own party political newsletters - it's what we do in Putney Labour Party whenever we distribute copies of The Putney Paper. Not a penny of public money goes to my campaign, to Putney Labour Party or to me. My campaign is run solely by volunteers - and all donations to Putney Labour are declared on the Electoral Commission website.

But on top of this, and on top of the over £19,000 Justine Greening's Putney Tories received from under-investigation Belize Billionaire Lord Ashcroft, she also claims a £10,000 allowance a year to distribute extra leaflets - Tory in all but name - which you pay for. And worse: she voted against the allowance being introduced but then claimed it anyway. Cynical and hypocritical.

(By the way, the Tory leaflet paid for by taxpayers is the one on the right with all the blue on it, in case you were wondering).

The Euro voting system is a disgrace

It's not just this Saturday's Eurovision song contest that will fall victim to - at its kindest - a dodgy voting system.

On Thursday 4 June, we Londoners - all 7 million-odd of us - will have the chance to elect eight MEPs to represent the entire capital altogether. I defy even the most politically savvy reader to reel off - without checking - the names of all of London's current nine MEPs. The vast majority of Londoners can't name one. Those who get elected on 4 June will be absolutely unaccountable to Londoners; not through any fault of their own but simply because where do you start in trying to serve a constituency of over 7 million?

A representative without any duty of representation - nice work if you can get it.

It gets worse. You see, you don't get to pick and choose which of the long list of prospective MEPs the parties are nominating - even if you were familiar enough with any of them to be able to make a refined choice. No. You are obliged to vote not for a candidate but for a party, and that party has determined the order of the candidates they want to be elected.

In the old days we had the same electoral system for electing Euro-MPs as we had for MPs and Councillors. The whole country was divided into constituencies, and each returned one MEP. Putney was part of London South West, represented first by Dame Sheila Roberts for the Conservatives, and then by Labour's Anita Pollack.

I'm not claiming those days were a utopia with everyone knowing and loving their local MEP - far from it. But at least a constituency of 350,000 people, represented by one MEP based somewhere in the area they represented is head and shoulders better than this farce of an electoral system.

This isn't a criticism of any of those individuals standing - indeed, the candidates making up Labour's team (of whom more can be found here) have my full support. But right from the start those elected will have an incredibly difficult job trying to understand, articulate and then represent such a large and diverse constituency as London. Nevertheless, it is time to reinstate fair votes for Europe and return to our constituency-based system.

The current system not only removes choice from voters - it removes the incentive for parties to get out and talk to voters: the one thing that people actually want their politicians to do more of.

Let me put it this way: my campaign team has been out and about in the constituency talking to voters all over the place. But if we fight the most fantastic campaign imaginable Labour will get two, maybe three MEPs elected in London on June 4. And if we had decided to do absolutely nothing, Labour will get two or three MEPs elected on June 4. Ditto the Conservatives. And in respect of the Lib Dems the same thing applies except they'll win just one MEP whatever they do.

In fact the only people motivated to work hard are those on the extremist fringe, who have a realistic chance of getting an MEP elected with just 6-8% of the vote. In a fair vote election under First Past the Post, no BNP fascist would ever get elected to Europe because instead of 6-8% they'd need at least 35%-40% to win.

Those ranked 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th on any party's list have zero chance of winning. Not even a fluke chance. There will be no "Michael Portillo moment" in this election - because the result's been determined before the first votes have even been cast. Only at the edges will one or two seats change hands between the fringe candidates.

Every argument that the PR lobby deploys against the first past the post electoral system is here is spades with this unfair PR system:

• It creates safe seats no incumbent can ever be shifted from
• It removes any notion of accountability to their constituents from those elected
• It gives the extremist fringe a much higher chance of getting their representatives elected
• It takes power from the public and gives it to parties
• It encourages apathy because six or seven of London's eight seats have already been decided because of the system
• And worst of all the PR lobby promised that people would no longer have to vote tactically: they could vote for the party they most supported, not the one that would beat the party they least wanted. And yet here we are, urging out supporters to turn out to stop the BNP winning. It's an important message, but it's not a positive incentive to vote FOR us, is it?

The response from those who support this unfair Proportional Representation system will be that changing back to fair first past the post is against the law: the European Union directs us to choose our MEPs by this sort of electoral system. I say in response: let the EU refuse to seat the delegation of one of Europe's largest countries - the second largest economy in Europe - solely because of the system used to elect them. It would be a democratic outrage were they to even attempt to, and I suspect the EU would lack the courage - or stupidity - to even try.

You know, despite my utter contempt for this appalling, rigged electoral system, I still want people to vote in these elections because there remain huge dividing lines between the parties on Europe. And also because voting matters - it's an important right: just ask those from some of the eastern European countries who were denied it until recently.

But until the European Parliament can truly claim to be representative of and accountable to the people it claims to speak for, there will never be public acceptance of the EU as having any sovereignty over the UK. Nor should there be.

What do you have to do to get a disabled Blue Badge around here?

The case reported yesterday in the Wandsworth Guardian, above, is one I've been asked to get involved in.

I'm not going to say too much about it at this stage simply because I want to see what the council has to say for itself in response to my enquiry before I do. But I hope it is better than the quote they issued above because, frankly, it beggers belief.

"In order to qualify for a blue badge, an applicant must have a degree of disability and find it difficult to walk. Happily, Mrs Self does not have any such problems" they say.

This 81 year old lady has coronary heart disease, angina (including an attack she had immediately following her interview with the Council as part of her application for the Blue Badge), is blind in one eye and, most clear-cut of all, suffers from Meniere's Disease. So there's the "degree of disability" box ticked.

Meniere's Disease is a defect within the ear that seriously disrupts balance. Those suffering from it cannot walk straight: they either fall over or walk into walls. She can only walk (or more accurately: shuffle) with the support of her 82 year old husband. So there's the "difficult to walk box" ticked.

The Council's press office really should have checked the facts of this case a little more thoroughly before rushing out with such an unconvincing comment - it makes the council look callous, thoughtless and wrongheaded - which some of us recognise as the reality of Wandsworth's Conservative Council - but which isn't the appearance press officers get paid to present.

A sign of desperation?

The ad above appeared in today's Wandsworth Guardian from those behind the Clapham Junction 42-storey tower block overdevelopment (click on it for a larger version).

This looks like a last, desperate roll of the dice by developers who have completely underestimated the local residents who have fought so valiantly against these twin towers led by local Labour MP Martin Linton.

The desperation is evident not only in the false choice the ad is founded upon: that the choice is between their grotesque overdevelopment or doing nothing - something I wrote about only yesterday; but the astonishing absence of any mention of the centrepiece of their plans: the two 42 storey towerblocks right above the station! If the developers can't even sell them to us why on earth should we buy such a crazy idea?

Whatever the decision of the pending planning committee on this (and word on the grapevine is that the developers aren't going to be best pleased), it's unlikely to put paid to this particular scheme.

Because, simply put, the Conservative Council will be obliged to explain why these plans are suitable for rejection (if that, indeed, is what is going to be proposed), when almost identical plans were approved - and in fact encouraged - by the Tories for the Ram Brewery in central Wandsworth?

That question goes to the heart of the chaotic lack of leadership by the Conservatives on the issue of overdevelopment. They're for it before they're against it. In reality, they're following public opinion like sheep when we actually pay them to create a robust planning framework that should have prevented such plans ever being proposed in the first place.

It could be so different: a plan for Putney and our other town centres that says what we want them to be like and how developers can contribute towards that - but also says unequivocally what is unacceptable.

That places an obligation on developers to show how local services and infrastructure can not just cope with the development they want to build but will actually improve them and increase capacity.

That demands excellence in design and architecture, rather than tolerating someone trying to make a name for themself or win an award by saddling our area with a hideous experiment in quirky architecture.

That says that integrated, mixed and diverse communities are stronger, fairer and more successful - and that we will not tolerate gated-off exclusive developments without a single affordable home within them any more.

It could be different - but only with local leadership that beyond dispute has been woefully lacking from the Conservatives in Putney and Wandsworth. Be angry about what the Conservatives are doing on this critical issue - because only anger will force change and we desperately need change locally.

Greening's £10k communication allowance

David Cameron at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday demanded that the £10,000 a year communication allowance MPs can claim should be scrapped.

Putney's MP Justine Greening claims this optional allowance, despite voting against it when it was first agreed by the House of Commons a few years ago. She uses it to pay for frequent newsletters that are remarkably similar in colour (Tory blue), design and format as the Conservative Party paid for newsletters she produces.

Voting against an allowance and then claiming it anyway is hypocritical and cynical. Using the allowance to publish Conservative Party style newsletters is what used to be called "campaigning on the rates".

Given his views on the allowance, David Cameron should instruct all his MPs to stop claiming it. Even if he doesn't, Justine Greening should do the right thing and voluntarily give up this allowance.

Given we now live in a world where politicans feel compelled to pay back certain allowances, perhaps she might choose to reimburse the public purse to the tune of £7,910 - the amount of her latest claim from an allowance she says she never wanted in the first place.

For the record, The Putney Paper and all communications I distribute are paid for from private donations from local residents. Not a penny of public money funds me or my campaign - and that's the way it should be.

UPDATE: Conservative blogger Iain Dale agrees, at least in part.

The Neverending Story (except this one isn't a fantasy)

The Wandsworth Guardian is running two stories about the Tory overdevelopment plans for Clapham Junction.

The first reports that councillors are gearing up to determine the appalling application for twin 42-storey towers immediately over the station itself. I tend to find that when developers (or anyone, for that matter) has a weak case, they construct an argument against a flawed premise.

In the case of Clapham Junction, the developers (MSF) have said this:

"Without new retail space high street chains, which are a vital part of the mix for a vibrant town centre, will either continue to compete for space with independent retailers which inevitably forces up rents, or they will leave the town centre."

So according to MSF, the only choice is their overdevelopment blight or Clapham Junction town centre declines. No. We could go for a moderate development that provides more commercial and retail opportunities, housing - but not 2 x 42 storeys of it (with a large chunk of it affordable) and a refurbished Clapham Junction into the bargain. That's the real leadership Conservative indolence refuses to provide - not this "my way or the Highway" mentality.

I mentioned two Wandsworth Guardian reports. The other demonstrates perfectly how overdevelopment spawns yet more overdevelopment, because another developer is now proposing a 132 room hotel, in a 16-storey tower across the road from Clapham Junction Station. And down the line, that will spawn another out of proportion monstrosity - then another.

Both these schemes fall within the constituency of Battersea whose Labour MP Martin Linton is working as hard to fight these overdevelopment plans as I am in Putney. But the same principle applies wherever you go in Wandsworth.

There is a Tory Overdevelopment Line and it's running right through our area: from Battersea Power Station, past Battersea Park, through Clapham Junction, across Wandsworth town, on into Putney and up into Roehampton. And it's an express service: it doesn't stop.

I'll be returning to the Overdevelopment Line theme later this Summer, because it's the simplest way to express what the Conservatives have planned for our area, and we - all of us - need to say no. Now.

A new website for new families

Wandsworth NHS has set up a website to help new families get as much information on services available and offer help, support and advice. It's called http://www.wandsworthlittlefeet.nhs.uk/.

Often, government-run websites aren't exactly easy to use and look terrible. But this one is pretty well designed and easy to navigate. if you are pregnant, have given birth, or even if you are just thinking about having a baby, this site could be of use.

Tebbit says: "Don't vote Tory"

Lord Tebbit was one of the lynchpins of the Thatcher Conservative Governments during the 1980s. He was Party Chairman, held several middle-ranking cabinet jobs and was injured during the IRA Brighton bombing. He was also the author of controversial but catchy soundbites such as demanding a "cricket test" to determine whether immigrants genuinely wanted to be British citizens; and telling the unemployed to get on their bikes to find work further afield.

Well, he's at it again, although I doubt David Cameron will be cheering. In the clip above, he's urging voters NOT to vote for the Conservative Party he's been a senior member of for years.

I have to say that I did struggle at times to follow Lord Tebbit's explanation of his stance - and the clip's just worth watching for the verbal gymnastics he employs to try to square his continued membership of the Conservatives - and how he'd have reacted had someone been telling people not to vote Tory when he was Conservative Chairman - with his incitement to vote against his own party.

I'm considering inviting Lord Tebbit to Putney to help spread his "Don't vote Tory" message around. I wonder if Putney Conservatives would like to countersign that invitation?

Support Stuart on Facebook

Stuart now has a public profile page on Facebook - and we'd very much like you to get involved by becoming a supporter.

Over 220 people are now members of the Stuart King for Putney facebook group, but the introduction of public profiles provide a much more effective way of keeping in touch with Stuart's work around Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.

Stuart's page is here - when you arrive, just click on this button at the top of the page:



...to join Stuart's rapidly growing band of supporters and well-wishers.

An end to mixed sex accommodation in hospitals

Labour Health Secretary Alan Johnson MP last week announced the final phase of funding to make sure that virtually all hospital accommodation for patients will become single-sex by the end of 2009.

This is one of those issues that people understandably feel very strongly about: it's about feeling safe, respecting each others' privacy and dignity - and let's face it: it's something we should be able to expect in any 21st century health service.

So I'm delighted at the announcement of £100million to complete the work we've been doing on this since Labour was first elected. Here's a Q&A about the changes:

Why do I say "virtually all" and not "all" accommodation will be single-sex?

Mixed sex accommodation can never be fully eliminated; there will always be some emergency cases where fast, effective treatment will take priority over ensuring separate accommodation. But it must be reduced to an absolute minimum. Examples might be:

• A patient needing very high-tech care, with one-to-one nursing, such as Intensive Care Units
• A patient needing very specialised care, where one nurse might be caring for a small number of patients; or
• A patient needing very urgent care (e.g. rapid admission following heart attack) when a bed - any bed - has to be found and one in a single sex area may not be available.

Where mixing does occur, it must be justifiable for all the patients affected. When a patient is no longer in a condition that clinically justifies mixing we would expect segregation.

What type of changes are being implemented by the trusts?

A large majority of the works funded are capital improvements such as adding new bathroom and toilet facilities, screening and new buildings.


Is the funding provided sufficient for Strategic Health Authorities to carry out the improvement works that needs to be made, what if costs overrun?

Each SHA has submitted costed plans that in some cases exceed their allocation from the £100m.

Funds have been agreed on the basis that improvements will be achieved by the end of June. There may be some minor overrun in a small number of exceptional cases, but all Strategic Health Authorities have confirmed that they expect their trusts to be able to deliver their plans on time. Strategic Health Authorities are monitoring progress fortnightly to ensure they stay on track.

When will the proposed changes to Mixed Sex Accommodation be completed?

The vast majority of developments carried out as a result of the £100m challenge fund will be implemented by the end of June 2009. However some trusts have long term plans in place which the funding will assist them with, so in some cases action will continue beyond this date. We want to be sure that improvements are well-established and sustainable in the long term.

What happens if the trusts do not meet the deadline of their own proposals?

Tough financial penalties will be imposed from 2010/2011 to the trusts that do continue to treat patients in mixed sex accommodation - unless it can be clinically justified.

What do we mean by single sex accommodation?

Single-sex accommodation can be provided in:

• Single-sex wards (i.e. the whole ward is occupied by men or women but not both)
• Single rooms with adjacent single-sex toilet and washing facilities (preferably en-suite)
• Single-sex accommodation within mixed wards (i.e. bays or rooms which accommodate either men or women, not both; with designated single-sex toilet and washing facilities preferably within or adjacent to the bay or room).

In addition, patients should not need to pass through opposite sex accommodation or toilet and washing facilitates to access their own.

Haven't the Conservatives come up with a better plan?

The Conservatives have announced a policy of giving every NHS patient the opportunity to choose a single room when booking an operation in hospital. But they estimated that this would cost £1.57 billion - and that was before the economic downturn. Unfortunately, they got this figure completely wrong ? in fact, it would cost £9.51 billion.

They got their figures wrong because they based their figures on just 80 existing conversions, where the work had been the easiest to carry out. All of them were in NHS Trusts which already had space suitable for conversion, and all are small in relation to each trust's total number of beds.

They also failed to take into account the need to find extra space while the work on the old mixed sex wards is being undertaken.

And the Tories ignored the land costs of increasing NHS single room capacity. Some hospitals would be able to build additional capacity on existing sites but others, particularly in London, would incur significant extra capital costs. And this extra cost is not part of the £9.51bn costing - so the true cost of the Tory plans will be substantially higher.

3,000 SureStart Children's Centres opened

Yesterday the 3,000th SureStart Children's Centre was opened. When Labour was first elected there were zero. In our area, Roehampton's SureStart, in Roehampton Lane, was one of the first centres opened and has been going from strength to strength; but it's since been joined by over twenty extra Children's Centres in the vicinity - as can be found here.

By providing universal services for 2.4 million children under five and their families, these centres are a living embodiment of Labour's commitment to making sure that all children - not just some - get the best start in life, regardless of their background.

This investment in every child's formative years is absolutely critical to success later in life. But it's threatened by the Conservatives, who are already committed to cutting £200m each year from the Sure Start budget.

That's the equivalent of closing one in every five Children's Centres across the country. We can't go back to the 1990s when more than a million children than today lived in poverty; where failing schools were tolerated by the government as long as they were in less affluent areas; and where children were not given every chance in life to succeed.

That's the difference between Labour and Conservative when it comes to SureStart.

Putney Paper: Lennox report-back

During my recent campaign week spent on the Lennox Estate in Roehampton, I was asked to get involved with a range of issues local residents asked for my help on.

I've today published a special edition of The Putney Paper for the estate, reporting back on the issues residents raised and results I've already managed to achieve. You can read it online here.

Many of the issues I've got results on aren't big issues that will resonate right across the constituency: they're small things that affect the quality of life of a handful of constituents.

But to me this is one of the most important parts of an MP's job: to proactively find out what needs fixing; to learn where something is going wrong; to help get things improved.

Whether it is this example from my time on the Lennox estate, or my efforts to get the potholes in our roads fixed, or my campaigning to close drug houses in the constituency: I believe I have showed that as your MP I'll roll up my sleeves, get stuck in, and deliver results for Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.

When is free swimming not free? When it costs £2

At the end of March, the Labour Government introduced free swimming for under 16s and over 60s.

Right from the outset, the Conservative Council tried to shirk the scheme: the only reason under-16s swim free in Wandsworth is because the local health service stumped up the funding because the Conservatives wouldn't. They also cranked up leisure centre charges for everyone else at the same time as they agreed to opt-into the Labour free swimming scheme.

But it gets worse. Yesterday, I discovered that free swimming in Wandsworth isn't free at all. Because the Conservatives have levied a "membership fee" of £2 for any pensioner wanting to take it up.

I asked the Council to confirm this - and their response was that they had been allowed to. Well, just because someone's allowed to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. Neighbouring Lambeth doesn't, for instance. I've asked the Tory Council to explain, as a matter of urgency:

1) Why does Wandsworth Council feel the need to levy this charge?

2) Which other local authorities in London are levying a similar charge?

3) Does the charge apply to under-16s "free" swimming as well?

4) Why does there need to be a "membership" scheme as eligibility for the scheme is clear and can be verified using other existing means of identification?

5) Is this a one-off membership fee or will those being charged be asked to re-register each year?

6) What are the actual costs of administering this "membership" scheme, and what is the expected income this will generate?

Wandsworth is among the highest-charging councils in the country for almost everything except council tax. Free swimming should mean free swimming.

Why we never forget

The Australian Memorial at Fromelles, (c) Commonwealth War Graves Commission

The Battle of Fromelles began 19 days after the opening of the Somme campaign during the First World War. It was the first major battle involving Australian and British troops on the Western Front. The 5th Australian Division suffered 5,533 casualties, of which 1,780 were killed, and the 61st British Division suffered the loss of 1,547 men killed, wounded or taken prisoner.

In 2008, the existence of mass graves was confirmed and the British and Australian Government decided to undertake a full archaeological excavation of the site. Earlier this week, work to recover the bodies of up to 400 soldiers began at Pheasant Wood.

Dignitaries from the UK, Australian and French governments were present alongside representatives from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is overseeing the project on behalf of the UK and Australian governments, and the team from Oxford Archaeology which is undertaking the recovery operation. They were joined by people from the local community, and those visiting Fromelles to pay their respect to the fallen.

By 2010 all bodies found will be permanently laid to rest in individual graves at a new Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery at Fromelles, the first to be constructed in fifty years.

The lists of names of UK and Australian soldiers who are thought might be recovered has been published, and families who believe their relatives may have lost their lives at Fromelles are urged to check the lists on http://www.cwgc.org/fromelles.

Anyone believing they may be related to British soldiers buried at Fromelles should contact the Historic Casualty Casework, Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre, Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, Imjin Barracks, Gloucester GL3 1HW, 01452 712612 extension 6303 or 7330 or email SPVA-JCCC-fromelles-GroupMailbox@spva.mod.uk.

Electronic English

One of the most valuable things I think MPs contribute is their work on the issues that rarely are deemed newsworthy, or which very few people think about but which need lots of work below the surface. You just have to do a search of some of the committees backbench MPs set up or belong to to get a flavour of some of these.

I've written about one such issue that I feel strongly about for the Labour thinktank Progress. At university I studied History, which we perhaps commonly associate with hefty books and dusty archives. But history's a living thing: we're creating it every day, and today much of it is documented on websites.

So what happens when the subject a particular website covers finishes; which for current affairs happens every hour of every day? That documentary evidence is lost. Coupled with the gradual closure of local and regional newspapes, a vast amount of historical record - local, national and international - is disappearing to the extent that future historians will be able to find out less about today's society despite the contradiction that more information than ever is available to us all via the web.

That's the theme of my article, which you can read online here...at least for the foreseeable future!

School nurses need homes

Since she has become her party's spokesman for Communities, Putney's Conservative MP has noticed that there is a shortage of school nurses in London.

I'm delighted that like me she is calling for more school nurses. However calling for them alone won't make them happen. Nor, as she seems to believe, will simply throwing money at the problem - Labour has doubled spending on the NHS since 1997. And I must ask where Miss Greening believes her party will find this extra money she's calling for given their very clear position that government should be cutting spending, not increasing it.

The problem, as the NHS locally admits, is the lack of affordable homes for school nurses and other key medical staff in our borough. It's why I'm opposing the NHS sell-off of Arton Wilson House in Roehampton Lane: purpose-built homes for nurses which the Conservative Council is waiting to rubber-stamp for yet more luxury penthouses.

If Justine Greening is serious in her claims to be concerned about the lack of school nurses - and I hope she is - I invite her to join me in trying to persuade Wandsworth NHS to reverse their sell-off plans for Arton Wilson House. But more substantively, she needs to start standing up to her Conservative councillors on Wandsworth Council and insist on far more keyworker homes in any new plans for Putney, such as Tileman House and Putney Place.

The difficulty for Miss Greening is this a problem caused by Conservative politicians implementing Conservative policies. More of the same simply won't do.

Fixed!

This is the site of the pothole in Princes Way I highlighted a few days ago - the one that had collapsed into the drain. While the repair's not exactly a work of art, no-one is going to break their leg anymore (unless they trip over the plate!)

Hazlewell Road has also been repaired, as have most of the potholes I flagged up last year, such as in The Platt.

If anyone can explain how Putney's elected representatives - every single one of them Tory - earn their salaries (paid for by you), do please let me know, because they can't even get a pothole fixed. These are the bread-and-butter issues they're failing on. Does it give you any confidence they can get the big things right either?

putneysw15 Monthly Report live

In case you haven't seen, my monthly Putney Report is on the putneysw15 website here.

This month it covers improvements to Barnes Station and its surrounds, the crisis at Elliott School and why it is that Putney has a Tory MP, 18 Tory councillors, a Tory council, a Tory London Mayor and a Tory London Assembly Member, and yet it takes me to get local potholes sorted out.

Answers on a postcard please.

A (very) brief guide to the European Elections

On Thursday 4 June the UK goes to the polls to elect a new European Parliament, in what I'm sure will be the can't miss event of the year.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) hold the European Commission to account. They are elected in proportion to each member country's size, so the UK has one of the largest delegations of any country - second only to Germany, in fact.

MEPs are elected by a proportional representation system. The whole of Greater London is one constituency which elects 8 MEPs as a bloc. At the last elections in 2004, Labour and the Tories won three MEPs each, the Lib Dems, Greens and UK Independence Party one apiece (there were nine seats last time - all the existing member states have lost seats because of the enlargement of the EU since the last elections).

Labour's MEP candidates, in the photo at the top of this post are (from left to right): Anne Fairweather, Abdul Assad, Mary Honeyball MEP, Kevin McGrath, Claude Moraes MEP, Raj Jethwa, Emma Jones and Nilgun Canver.

The Labour team has been out and about across Putney, Roehampton and Southfields since just after the Easter holidays, and we'll continue right through until polling day.

You can find out what our policies for the next five years in Europe are by clicking here.

"Boris the new Shirley Porter"

This is from the latest edition of Inside Housing, which I appreciate probably isn't on the must-read list for many Putney residents:

Boris Johnson has been accused of attempting to 'corral' social housing into poor London boroughs, reminiscent of Shirley Porter, in an attack from London Councils' new housing chief. Steve Reed, who holds the housing portfolio on the cross-party committee, this week laid siege to the Conservative mayor's policies.

Mr Johnson - who has been in post a year this week - has scrapped Labour predecessor Ken Livingstone's 50 per cent affordable target for housing developments and is replacing it with individual targets for each borough.

Mr Reed, Labour leader of Lambeth Council, said the mayor was "trying to corral social housing into boroughs which are already relatively poor".

"He's allowing boroughs which are relatively wealthy to avoid their responsibility to provide housing to people on low incomes. That?s what Shirley Porter did," he added.

In the 1980s, former Westminster Council leader Dame Porter was at the centre of a scandal in which the council tried to use home sales to cultivate Conservative votes in marginal wards.

Mr Reed said City Hall?s calculations of each borough's capacity for new social homes had "found that poor Labour boroughs have plenty of capacity" whereas "wealthy Tory boroughs have less". Labour-controlled Newham was given a proposed target of 5,754 homes by 2011, while its neighbour Bexley got just 566, he said.

This could have "the potential advantage of taking Labour voters out of Tory areas", he added.

Housing is the most powerful tool politicians have for changing demographics of a borough. Tory Shirley Porter did it in Westminster in such a crass way she was caught out, sacked and surcharged millions of pounds - which forced her into exile to avoid punishment. Tory Wandsworth has done so more covertly but no less radically. The loss of 16,000 council homes and the refusal to oblige developers to provide sufficient affordable homes in new builds has massively reshaped Wandsworth:

• Creating massive shortages of affordable homes
• Increasing homelessness and people living for years in overcrowded, unsuitable accommodation
• Forcing sons and daughters of long-term local families to move miles away from their homes to start their lives
• Turning our estates into soulless, high-turnover, buy-to-let ghettos
• Driving housing prices up even more than they otherwise would have been
• Polarising Putney far more starkly than it ever was before

In fact the only thing it has failed to do is the one thing the Tories wanted: drive out so many supposedly Labour-voting council tenants and replace them with so many supposedly Tory-voting home owners.

Now Boris Johnson is up to the same tricks on a capital-wide scale. For anyone with any social conscience whatsoever, that should be extremely worrying.

David Cameron's "Age of Austerity"

The Times should be ashamed of its misreporting

The Times newspaper has, over the past four years, built up a reputation for some quite disgraceful, inaccurate, dishonest and sensationalist reporting of cases of electoral fraud; and sadly, yesterday, we got another dose of its ongoing efforts to destroy confidence in our voting system.

Reporting on the case of six Conservative activists jailed for postal vote fraud in Slough, the paper again dredged up the same tired, discredited and unsubstantiated, ignorant and simply false claims to fit the editorial slant it has had for the past five years.

Before I debunk The Times' claims, let me just put on record that I am delighted at the sentences handed down: if anything they should have been even longer and I hope the same fate befalls anyone attempting voter fraud. But let's turn to the three claims made by The Times in yesterday's report.

Claim 1: "The rigged poll in Slough in May 2007 highlighted how easy the introduction of postal-voting-on-demand has made it to steal elections"

Firstly, I'm not sure how a successful prosecution and imprisonment of the offenders proves that it is easy to steal elections: doesn't it actually show that you can't get away with voter fraud?

But second, the May 2007 elections (which this case concerned) were the last to take place before Labour in Government introduced much tougher anti-fraud measures: which include everyone who wants a postal vote providing a signature and date of birth when applying AND when they send back their vote - which are checked by polling staff. So contrary to the system making it easy to steal elections, it's incredibly hard to cheat - especially on a scale big enough to alter a result.

Claim 2: "prosecutors descibed [this successful conviction] as part of an epidemic threatening to destroy British democracy"

In the sense that this was an accurate account of what the lead barrister - someone not paid to be impartial or accurate but rather to paint a picture in the interests of securing a conviction - said, I take it that The Times has reported correctly. But the fact is there is no epidemic of fraud sweeping the nation and reporting such a claim without any rebuttal or counter case clearly shows that the paper believes this claim to have foundation.

Yet this what the Electoral Commission - the body tasked with overseeing and defending our electoral system - says about postal voting from last year's elections (and you can read their in-depth report, jointly published with the Association of Chief Police Officers, here):

"Elections in England and Wales last May were 'free from major incidents' of fraud.Of 16 million votes cast in local, London mayoral and London Assembly ballots, 103 had resulted in malpractice cases. Of these, one has so far resulted in a conviction, with nine cautions issued."

16 million votes. 103 cases. 1 conviction.

How is that indicative of an "epidemic" of voter fraud? In fact 103 claims of voter fraud against 16 million individuals is substantially lower than the proportion of claims of any other type of fraud per 16 million individuals. And how is such dishonest and sensationalised reporting in the public interest?

Claim 3: "Mr Miskin [the lead prosecutor] referred to a report by Richard Mawrey QC, the Electoral Commissioner, which served as a warning that unless the election procedures are changed the nation's democracy will be at stake. Citing the report, Mr Miskin said 'The systems to deal with fraud are not working well, they are not working badly. The fact is that there are no real systems."

This is simply - factually - untrue. I've explained above what the systems are: personal identifiers that are incredibly difficult to forge without knowing the intimate details of the voter they're attempting to defraud, and which are checked as the postal votes are returned.

In fact, I reported a few days ago how, at my insistence, every single postal vote cast in Wandsworth will be checked, rather than a representative sample - which is what the Council was planning to do until my intervention.

For background, Richard Mawrey was a judge presiding over the most notorious case of electoral fraud, in Birmingham, committed five years ago. The Times devoted a huge amount of newsprint to that story which they were right to do - it was a shocking attempt at widespread voter fraud. But they weren't so attentive when one of those Judge Mawrey convicted won his appeal against his sentence, or when many of the claims he made were challenged by electoral experts.

Unfortunately, then as now, the Times reported subjective claims by Mr Mawrey as fact without checking their veracity. So much for the Newspaper of Record.

Voter fraud cannot ever be eradicated - any more than any other type of crime can be. Nor is voter fraud solely confined to postal voting: far more prosecuted cases of electoral fraud have been committed in polling stations than from postal votes.

There will, sadly, always be individuals determined to commit fraud. But it can be - and has been -made incredibly difficult to get away with and there is no - repeat NO - evidence The Times will be able to produce to rebut that fact, because it doesn't exist.

Alton School improves

I was delighted to read the Ofsted report on Roehampton's Alton School, which noted the satisfactory improvement teachers, parents and pupils are making.

In last year's SAT scores the Alton, at the end of Danebury Avenue, made massive improvements, and the importance of the Ofsted report is that it shows that these strides forward were not a one-off fluke; the product of an unusually strong year, but because the school is building on strong foundations.

The key sentence in the Ofsted letter for me is "Given pupils? well below average starting points in Nursery, there is evidence of stronger achievement levels as a consequence of more consistently good teaching."

The importance of measuring not simply how pupils do when they come out of a school, but where they were when they went in - what is officially called "value added" is really important, because while schools that serve a challenging area like the Alton Estate will probably never get perfect academic results, they often stretch pupils far further than schools that select on academic ability do.

No pupil left behind has been a key belief for Labour in Government - which is why school standards have been transformed for the better in the past decade. And it's why schools like the Alton are getting better and better.

Here is the Ofsted letter about Alton School.

The Budget in summary

Barnes Station sucess

Before Easter I surveyed the part of Putney closest to Barnes Station about their views on issues concerning the station and the wider area.

I was pleased that the Government had rejected the plans by station managers South West Trains to substantially reduce ticket office opening hours, but I'm well aware that this is just the tip of the iceberg when it came to residents' dissatisfaction with Barnes Station.

Some of the - many - issues raised with me, and which I then took up with SWT and Richmond Council (who are responsible for the area around the station) included:

• The unacceptably poor waiting areas for bus passengers on the Rocks Lane bridge above the station
• The cleanliness of the area - including the embankment - and the fact that litter bins have been removed
• Insufficient street lighting in the area, coupled with some dangerously potholed paths and roads on the way to and from the station.

Well, I followed all these complaints, and others, up with the environment chief in Richmond, and with my contacts in South West Trains, and I'm delighted to be able to report that major action is planned on all these concerns.

As a result I'm publishing a special edition of The Putney Paper just for the area concerned. I've also put the results of the survey I undertook on my website and you can read both by visiting: www.stuartking.net/barnessurvey