Who says we don't need ticket offices?

This is a photo my Southfields campaign team took on Sunday morning of the queue waiting to buy tickets at Southfields station. Sundays are days the Tories think ticket offices should be closed longest, so if we get queues like this now - before their cuts bite - imagine how things will be when the office is closed 50 hours a week more than today.

Since I launched my campaign to save our ticket offices, the Liberal Democrat and Green parliamentary candidates have kindly given it their backing. The only party that has not is the Conservatives.

Given that the Conservatives were so vocal in opposing ticket office closures on Network Rail stations last year (as was I) - there are only two possible reasons for this deafening silence from the Conservatives.

Either the Tories believe rail stations deserve staffed ticket offices but tube stations don't.

Or they're simply incapable of standing up to their own party when they are in power, as in this case since the Tory Mayor of London runs Transport for London.

It's the easiest thing in the world to oppose another party. It's much tougher to tell your own side when they're wrong. I did on Network Rail ticket office closures, on Heathrow, on the 10p income tax changes and on Richmond Park parking charges. But there's no chance of that in the case of Putney's Tory candidate - she's never once criticised the Conservative council and never once voted against her party in a vote in the Commons - not once in the five years she was MP.

When it comes to election day you need to decide whether you want a local champion or a party-first politician. Vote Conservative if you want the latter - and you'll get ticket offices closed longer into the bargain.

General Election Putney Paper: out now

The new Putney Paper has just been printed and will be being delivered to over 36,000 homes in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields in the next few days by local volunteers at no cost to the taxpayer.

There are special editions for each of the six areas of Putney:

East Putney

Roehampton and Putney Vale

Southfields and central Wandsworth

Putney Riverside and town centre

Putney West Hill and Wimbledon Park

West Putney and Dover House




East Putney edition:



Roehampton edition:



Southfields edition:



Central Putney edition:


West Hill and Wimbledon Park edition:



West Putney edition:

On on 6th May, remember what the Conservatives did to Wandsworth Museum

Shirely Passmore is no Labour activist - she's a former Conservative council candidate and the wife of one of Wandsworth's longest-serving Conservative councillors and twice borough mayor, Gordon Passmore. She also chaired the campaign to try to save Wandsworth Museum, that was in Garratt Lane, from Tory closure in 2008.

So when she writes a letter like the one published yesterday in the Wandsworth Guardian, I take it as a reasonable reflection of the outrage and anger the borough still feels about the way the Conservative council destroyed the museum and two local libraries, wasted tens of thousands in a game of musical chairs, and ended up with less as a result.

The way the Conservatives rode roughshod over the wishes of thousands of borough residents who petitioned against the Tory plans caused uproar at the time - and it's refreshing to see that the borough has not forgotten how the Tories treat anyone who disagrees with them (but only in years when they're not up for election).

Well, there are elections for the council this year, and if you want the Tories to feel vindicated about their behaviour return them with the same absurd and damaging landslide majority they won four years ago.

But if you want to hold them to account, whoever you normally vote for, the only way to do so is to vote Labour. Labour fought tooth and nail against the Tory closure of the Museum and two libraries, but when the Tories have 51 councillors and Labour just 9, there is very little we could do to stop them. Even those who broadly like the way the Tories run Wandsworth recognise that such a vast gulf is not healthy for our local democracy - and that's why this year we all need to do our part to change things on the council.

Labour is the only other party on Wandsworth Council: Wandsworth has always only been a two-party borough. It's the only party second in the key marginal wards across Putney and Wandsworth that will decide the result. And it's the only party, therefore, that can cut the Conservatives down to size.

A vote for any party other than Labour in the council elections on May 6th is a vote to re-elect the Tories with another massive majority.

What does it all mean?

Every month since the summer of 2007 I've been reporting the Metropolitan Police's ward-by-ward crime figures for the Putney constituency - February 2010's are above and again show decent results, especially in Roehampton where two months of small increases have been turned around.

But what do those numbers actually mean? Well, let's take burglary. In Southfields, the February burglary rate was 7.7 crimes per 1,000 of the population. Now, the population of Southfields is about 13,000 people, give or take - so multiply the 7.7 by 13 and you get 100.1 incidents over the twelve months to February; that's just over eight reported burglaries in Southfields a month.

Eight burglaries a month is eight too many of a particularly unpleasant, invasive crime, but it does put in perspective its relatively low scale locally.

And at the end of the scale, you begin to understand why I'm so appalled by the scale of crime in Putney town centre - Thamesfield ward. Let's repeat the equation above in respect of theft and handling in Thamesfield: 75.5 crimes per thousand, multiplied by 13 (the ward's population) and you get almost 982 crimes a year, 82 every month, 19 a week, week in, week out - happening in our town centre. And these are town centre crimes - and that's before you get to what might be called "residential backstreet crimes" - they relate solely to pickpocketing, stealing, shoplifting.

It's why I've made tackling town centre crime once and for all one of my five policing pledges at the general election.

London Assembly rejects our 28 petition!

I've just heard that the Chair of the London Assembly - a Green party member, of all people - has refused to accept the petition sent in from over a hundred Wandsworth residents calling on the Mayor of London to halt his plans to axe the 28 bus route.

Remarkably, he did so because he didn't like the way the petition was phrased. We the people determine what our petitions say - not jobsworth politicians. The whole purpose of a petition is that it's asking the powers that be to do something they might not want to do! So the rejection of our petition isn't acceptable and cannot be allowed to stand.

The 28 bus service is an important local bus route. That's why I'm sending our 28 bus petition back to City Hall, this time direct to the Mayor of London himself.

Putney need cross party consensus to beat tube closures

Yesterday I wrote about the planned closure of ticket offices at the three tube stations used by Putney commuters - Putney Bridge, Southfields and East Putney.

While it is inevitable that this will become the subject of much political discussion and debate in the run up to both the local and general elections, I hope that all the parties in Putney can agree that these proposed closures by Boris Johnson should be opposed as they are not in the interests of Putney's commuters and tube users.

When the national rail companies - including South West Trains - called for similar dramatic cuts in ticket office opening times at Putney, Barnes and Wandsworth Town, I stood up and lobbied the government to reject their plans. And the closures were dramatically reined-in.

At the time, Putney's Conservative MP said: "These plans will seriously inconvenience thousands of Londoners who use these stations every day. Worse still, the serious cuts in weekend and evening services raise real concerns over passenger safety."

We agreed then - and I want her to take a similar stand now it is her own party that is making the cuts - cuts that they promised London they would not make in the 2008 Mayoral elections.

So today I have written to her, and to the Liberal Democrat and Green candidates to invite them to join me in a cross-party effort to defend Putney's ticket offices.

If Putney's Conservative MP still agrees that ticket office closures will seriously inconvenience thousands of Londoners, then - while she won't find it easy - she should put Putney before party and stand with me against these cuts.

Help me keep Putney's ticket offices open

Conservative-run Transport for London is planning massive reductions in ticket office opening hours at Southfields, East Putney and Putney Bridge stations, and a host of other stations the length and breadth of the tube network.

• East Putney ticket office will be open 40 hours a week less
• Putney Bridge ticket office will be open 48 hours a week less
• Southfields ticket office will be open nearly 51 hours a week less

The cuts will mean that no one using Putney Bridge or East Putney tube stations will be able to purchase a ticket from a ticket office before 7am; nor after 7pm. On Saturdays, the Southfields ticket office will shut up shop at 3.30pm (it is currently staffed until 9pm).

Ticket offices are about more than just having another option for buying a ticket or asking for travel advice. Stations that are staffed are safer stations. Like many of you, I'm a commuter myself: we know how foreboding largely deserted platform stations can feel - especially if you know there are no staff around.

In 2008 Tory Boris Johnson won the Mayoralty of London with a promise to set about "halting the proposed Tube ticket office closures and ensuring there is always a manned ticket office at every station." So there's no wriggle-room for the Conservatives here: this is a flat out breaking of their promise to London.

It comes on top of fare rises of up to a third since 2008 under the Tories; the threat of closure of popular bus routes like the 28 and shocking incompetence that has turned a trading surplus at Transport for London with Labour into a gaping £1.7 billion black hole.

I will be doing all I can to stop these reckless closures. I also want to work with anyone else who wants to do the same. I am sure that the Putney Society, Wandsworth Council, the local MP and others - including my opponents in other political parties, will want to do all we can to persuade the Mayor not to break his election promise and to protect Putney's tube stations from these cuts.

Celebrating Putney

As you'll know if you're a regular visitor to my blog, one of my main criticisms of the local Conservatives is that they take little pride in Putney: as the neglect of our town centre and Putney Bridge, the weak and damaging (lack of) planning policies, the never-ending service cuts and closures, the huge amount of fly-tipping and the woeful state of our roads and pavements exemplify.

It's time for local leadership that celebrates this wonderful area. That's why I've produced ten different sets of Oystercard wallets that exhibit the very best of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields. We have versions for Putney Bridge, St Mary's Church, the Alton Estate, Queen Mary's House, Dover House Road, Southfields tube, East Putney station, the Royal Hospital, Roehampton village and the London Mosque in Gressenhall Road.

If you'd like to show your pride in Putney by carrying one of these Oystercard wallets get in touch and I'll gladly send you one. For free. No catch. 10,000 to give away! Just tell me which version you'd like.

'Self' defeating

I've written before about this Southfields case I've been very heavily involved with, but this week's story in the Wandsworth Guardian underlines how badly I feel the Conservatives treat those residents who need services above and beyond the majority of us experience.

As with so many of these stories, the council's peremptory, dismissive reply is usually the last word. Just re-read it from the story above: "In order to qualify for a disabled badge the applicant must have a degree of disability and find it difficult to walk. Fortunately Mrs Self does not have any such problems."

For heaven's sake! She has angina, heart disease, is partially blind AND suffers from Meniere's Disease, which is an inbalance within the ears that prevents her from walking! The only reason she (purportedly) failed the council's test at the town hall - a test so stressful she had an angina attack in the town hall foyer - was that the occupational therapist failed to test her walking unsupported by her husband.

The problem the council gets itself into is the second part of their quote above. After all, they're categorical in the sentence I quoted: that Mrs Self is not eligible for a blue badge. That being the case, why would a council certain of its case offer a repeat assessment? It's not common practice: in fact its abnormal.

This is a Conservative council that refuses to back down when it gets things wrong and would rather pick on an elderly lady in her eighties than accept that they made a mistake. They've even written to us telling us they will not enter into any further correspondence with us unless it is to accept the re-assessment offer.

But why should the family put their mum through such an ordeal again? I'm not sure I'd want my mother to endure such a stressful experience a second time, even if it is for something that will make her life immeasurably easier if she ever, eventually, were to get it. That's the call Mrs Self's family have made and I respect them for it.

I can't say the same for the Conservative council.

My plan for Putney

Since December the Conservative-run council has been consulting on what is, effectively, a planning brief for key sites across the borough. Sites include those we've spent a lot of time on these past few years: Tileman House, Putney Place, the Riverside Quarter and Danebury Avenue, for example.

This the closest thing the Conservatives get to putting together a comprehensive plan for Putney - something I've been arguing for since 2003. But it is not a plan in itself. Here are the remaining steps needed to give us that plan.

1. A real plan

First, this document is informative but it is not genuine site-specific planning policy. That's because the planning policy governing these sites isn't new or site-specific: it's the same blanket planning policy that exists now. So pretty much every briefing on each specific site in Putney talks about exactly the same building heights being allowed. That's not site specific - it's general.

2. Cast-iron guarantees

Second, the plan constantly refers to buildings of more than twelve storeys only being given permission in "exceptional circumstances". But what is ?exceptional?? The Tileman House developers are appealing the refusal of their 16-storey block because they believe their building is exceptional. The design for Putney Place, rejected in 2008, could be regarded as exceptional by some. And just one exception could become the rule because of precedent: the planning rule that says that once one building of a particular type or scale has been approved that sets the benchmark for future development.

3. A comprehensive plan

Third, looking at specific sites in isolation isn't a comprehensive plan. Putney High Street, for example, is a poor quality environment that will only be radically improved if we have a planning framework that looks at it in its entirety - not just the three sites that have been identified (which are the Putney Cinema/Jubilee House block; the block on the corner of Putney Bridge Road where the Real Greek is; and the hideous block between Lacy and Felsham Roads where TK-Maxx now is, that I've already published an alternative plan for).

We need consistent design the length of the high street to improve the overall shopping environment; to tackle the pollution that makes Putney's high street the worst in London, to diversify the shops and make sure different use-types are better spread throughout the town centre and to give pedestrians more priority.

4. A clear vision of how Putney should evolve

And finally we need to have the political leadership to debate, not duck the controversial issue of capacity. One of the big problems with the Putney Place development was that East Putney station is already full to capacity. So is Putney Station. Our local schools are expanding because their capacity is being reached. Our major roads are often gridlocked because they are full beyond capacity. The only way Putney can handle an increased population of the scale the Conservatives seem to want will be for massive investment in improved infrastructure: and that's simply not on the cards.

We also cannot duck the fact that while it is Putney's character that makes developers want to build huge amounts of extra homes in the area, were we to succumb to their overdevelopment plans the very character that makes Putney a target for development would be changed significantly - perhaps beyond recognition.

Now that's not an argument for mothballing Putney; for never allowing any development here ever again; to try to freeze our area in time. But there are clearly two entirely incompatible agendas for Putney here: the Conservatives that believe skyscraper development in Putney is not only inevitable but desirable - and my Labour view that Putney's character is not high-rise but human scale and that this is the constraint any future development needs to operate within.

It's a straightforward difference of opinion between the Tory MP and her 18 Tory councillors in Putney, and me. You get to choose which side you stand on at the elections later this year. But be in no doubt: if the Conservatives win, their vision of Putney will be writ large - irreversably -by the time the next elections come around.

You can read my formal submission to the council here.

28 Bus petition sent to Boris

In the picture above I'm handing in the 100 28 Bus petitions I've collected from the small corner of my constituency alone to the London Assembly. Labour London Assembly member Val Shawcross, who chairs the assembly's transport committee will submit the petition officially at the next assembly session so that Boris Johnson has to respond.

Given that only a tiny section of Putney would be directly affected by the loss of the 28, the response has been great. The thing that's become clear to me is just how important this bus is to the area: there are so many people, a lot of them elderly, who rely on this service to get them into Fulham, Notting Hill and Kensal Green.

I'll let you know what the Mayor of London, who according to today's Evening Standard thinks he has a "divine right" to be Prime Minister, says. With such lofty ambitions it must be tiresome for him to have to respond to ordinary people about bread-and-butter issues for them like their local bus service. But respond he'll now be obliged to.

My policing priorities for Putney

The Real Policing Pledge is a campaign by the Police Federation of England & Wales (the grassroots police officers' representative body) to ensure that our MPs after the next election are committed to strengthening the thin blue line.

As you can see above, I'm fully signed-up to the Real Policing Pledge. Putney's Conservative MP is not - odd given she talks up her concern about this critical local issue.

I've been deeply critical of the lies and scaremongering on crime the Conservatives have been guilty on with this issue. It isn't the sort of leadership I'll provide Putney with as your MP. So, as well as signing the Real Policing Pledge, I have five key priorities that I'll spend my first term of office on.

1. Cutting street crime in Putney town centre

Street crime like pickpocketing and shoplifting is the main reason why crime in Thamesfield ward is unacceptably high, and the Conservatives in Putney refuse to get to grips with the problem. I want town centre wardens introduced to Putney High Street - wardens who, when they were introduced in Clapham Junction and Tooting town centres cut street crime by a third. Town centre wardens will free up our Police Safer Neighbourhood team to tackle crime in the rest of Thamesfield ward.

2. Cutting violent crime in Roehampton

Violent crime is to Roehampton what town-centre crime is to Thamesfield, and even though the police have made huge strides to reduce crime in Roehampton, violent crime here remains at unacceptable levels. That means providing more facilities and opportunities for young people in Roehampton: youth clubs and activities that Regenerate do such excellent work on for example - and employment opportunities like the King's head Hotel plan the Conservatives want to prevent.

3. Far tougher action on criminal damage

That means Wandsworth opting in to Labour government schemes like community payback where offenders convicted of less serious offences are forced to give back to the community they've damaged. And far more high-profile use of Labour schemes like Roehampton Community Court. Criminal damage matters because the evidence from right across the developed world shows that vandalised, neglected areas are far more likely to attract other forms of crime and also engender greater fear of crime among residents. There's no excuse for this form of crime, and we can do so much more to tackle it locally.

4. Protecting our Safer Neighbourhood teams

The verdict from the community is in - and it is that our Labour-introduced Safer Neighbourhood police teams have been a big success: putting police back on the beat throughout the week, rebuilding the connection between people and their local bobby on the beat, helping cut crime by having the more visible deterrent presence in our communities, and making the police far more accountable to the public. The Conservatives have already started cutting police numbers in London and we simply cannot go back to the Tory days of more than 100 fewer officers in Wandsworth than we now have. Police are worth paying for. And I will always support the implementation in full of police pay settlements negotiated by the independent pay review body.

5. Honest crime figures you can have confidence in

I've been genuinely shocked at the way Putney's Conservative MP has consistently misreported what's really happening with crime in our area. Claiming police numbers are down when they were up; claiming crime is up when it's down and staying silent when the Mayor of London starts cutting police numbers just because he's a member of her party - all this shows a complete lack of integrity.

I've been reporting the real crime figures here on my website since the summer of 2007 - from figures figures provided by the Metropolitan Police. I will never misrepresent them. I will always source my claims. And you know you can rely on that promise because if I was solely about painting unrealistically optimistic pictures on crime I wouldn't have spent the first three of my pledges above discussing the three big crime problems we still have in Putney.

Here are the January crime stats for the six Putney wards: as usual figures in red show the crime rate has increased since the previous month; green figures show either a fall or no change from the previous figures.

New Putney Papers out now

I've just published the Spring 2010 edition of the Putney Paper. For the first time ever, there are six versions of this Putney Paper: one for each of Putney's six wards: East Putney, Roehampton, Southfields, Thamesfield, West Hill and West Putney.

Local stories relevant to your specific part of our area rather than one version that tries to include stories from across the whole constituency, some of which you might not find of any relevance.

The state of Edwyn House

This is a video one of my volunteers took a few days ago whilst delivering letters about my campaign to save the 28 bus. Edwyn House is the middle of the three Arndale estate blocks in Neville Gill Close. I've written regularly about my concerns about the condition the Conservative council keeps the Arndale, and this is just the latest example.

Litter-strewn stairwells, heaven-knows-what stuck to the ceiling, nazi graffiti, roof panels torn out and general neglect are all shown in the above film - and all things I report over and over and over again to the Conservative council - but who never act to sort out the problem long term.

As I've said before: the Conservative MP and Conservative councillors for the Arndale wouldn't dream of putting up with such disgusting conditions where they live - so why should residents of the Arndale have to?

It's one rule for the Conservatives and another for everyone else in Putney. And here's the difference a Labour vote makes: live-in caretakers for the Arndale who'll have a stake in keeping the area clean because they'll live there too.

Labour councillors who'll make regular inspections of the blocks - not just the Neville Gill Close blocks but Wentworth Court, Eliot Court and Sudbury House - so that they really are up to the standard residents should expect.

Far tougher action on those caught littering, defacing the buildings or vandalising the blocks - those responsible for this damage (or their parents) should get one warning, have the damage added to their rent, and if the problem persists face eviction.

And far more regular deep cleans of the blocks - simply because they house so many families that the amount of wear and tear each will experience is greater than other housing estates in the borough.

That's what electing me your local MP, and Matt Hay, Alex Lisinge and Tom Marsom as your local Labour councillors, will achieve.

December's crime figures

The December crime figures show crime across all categories, and in five of Putney's six wards down again - figures in line with the borough and London average.

I've written before about the Conservative MP's dishonesty when she claims that burglaries in Putney are on the rise - and this latest set of figures again shows that she's simply not telling the true story. Burglaries in Southfields, Thamesfield and West Hill are down somewhat; they're up very slightly in East Putney, Roehampton and West Putney - but the trend remains downward in Wandsworth borough and London.

What I'd like the police to focus more on in the coming year is having higher visibility right across Putney, not just in particular parts of wards. I've come across concerns in Southfields, for example, that their Safer Neighbourhood Police - who do an excellent job - aren't seen enough along Merton Road. In part, that's because they're focussing on the shopping areas around Replingham Road and central Wandsworth where crimes like robbery will be highest - and it's of course right that police resources go where the need is greatest. But a regular patrol and an occasional focus on areas like Merton Road and the Earlsfield end of Southfields would be welcomed by residents in this part of the ward.

View from Sudbury House

Here's a photo my campaign team took from about half way up Sudbury House, above the Southside shopping centre in Wandsworth at twilight today.

The orange building right in the centre caught our eye. That's the sun reflecting off Trellick Tower, a well-known London landmark right in the farthest northern corner of Kensington near Paddington Station - here it is enlarged somewhat:



That chunky building in front of it is Empress Place, right next door to the Earls Court 2 Exhibition Centre. As well as looking pretty amazing I'm always surprised quite how far across London you can see from parts of our area. This, incidentally, is a view that will be lost if the twice as high towers planned for the Ram Brewery site in the foreground get the go-ahead.

And this photo is of the new Hardwick's Square development just behind Wandsworth High Street, again taken at twilight this evening:



Just posted it because it's a nice photo!

Does this reassure you on the flood threat?

At last month's council meeting a Conservative councillor asked about the risk of flooding to homes in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, principally from the Wandle and Beverley Brook (rather than the Thames).

I've reproduced the answer below and you can draw your own conclusions, but the thing that strikes me is the complacency of it. It's all about what the Conservative council might do after a flood rather than what can be done to prevent or mitigate flooding in the first place. Hundreds of homes in the constituency are at risk. If you live in one of them, this reply is likely to raise far more questions than it answers.

Here's the council's reply in full (and you can check about your property on the Environment Agency's flooding pages here):

"The principal cause for concern so far as major flooding in the Borough is concerned lies with the River Wandle. Here the risk of flooding is higher and in some areas is assessed by the Environment Agency as significant (more than 1:75 in any one year. There is also a risk of flooding in the Beverley Brook catchment area.

"The River Wandle is a fast flowing river which, when subjected to heavy rain, can rise very quickly. If it were to flood in a significant way a large number of properties both residential and commercial could potentially be affected. It would also have the effect of cutting the Borough in two.

"In terms of the Borough's readiness to deal with such a flood there is a specific section in the Council's Emergency Plan dealing with flooding. In a large scale flooding emergency the response would be co-ordinated within pan-London arrangements. The main role of the Council would initially be to provide shelter for any residents displaced from their homes. In this respect the emergency plan identified a number of buildings able to be used as rest centres - the plan also notes those rest centres located above the flood plain and therefore suitable for use during a flooding incident.

"As flood water recedes the Council would have a major role to play in the recovery phase of any incident. This would include leading on clearing debris, restoring any damaged infrastructure such as keeping thoroughfares open, etc.

"Flooding is one of the risks in the Community Risk Register for South West London and regularly discussed at the Wandsworth Emergency Planning Forum attended by the three blue light emergency services, the health sector and other key responders.

"In summary, the Council is well aware of the risks from flooding and has a well developed emergency plan which has been tested via various emergency planning exercises.?

Save the 28 bus

I reported in November about the threat to the 28 bus route from London Tory Mayor Boris Johnson. Not content with increasing public transport fares by the largest ever amount, the Conservatives are also slashing investment in London Transport and one of the casualties looks like it could be the 28 bus.

Not if I've got anything to do with it.

The 28 serves central Wandsworth, including Mantle Court OAP sheltered housing, the huge Arndale estate above Southside shopping centre and the new Argento Tower and Palladio Court housing in Mapleton Road. It's crazy to cut this service, which runs from Wandsworth through Fulham and on to High Street Ken and Portobello Road.

That's why today I launched my campaign to save the 28 - and I'd really appreciate you signing up, which you can do below, or by visiting www.stuartking.net/savethe28

I support Labour?s Stuart King in opposing the plans by Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson to end the 28 bus service. The 28 connects a growing part of Wandsworth with central London and should be kept, not cut.

Name

E-mail address

Address

Telephone number

At the 2010 General Election, which party do you intend to vote for?

Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
Green
UKIP
BNP
Other
Won't vote

At the last General Election in 2005, who did you vote for

Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
Green
UKIP
Didn't vote

At the 2010 Council Elections, which party do you intend to vote for?

Labour
Conservative
Liberal Democrat
Green
Don't vote

If you'd like to get involved with Stuart's election campaign tick this box

"The biggest fare increase in Transport for London history"

It's deja vu. A year ago almost to this day I flagged up the inflation-busting fare increases Conservative London Mayor Boris Johnson imposed on commuters.

Well, this year, the Tories are doing the same thing, except on an even bigger scale:

• A single bus journey by Oyster: 18 months ago 90p; now £1.20
• A weekly oyster bus pass UP 20% to £16.60
• Six-zone peak single Tube fare by Oyster UP 10.5% to £4.20
• A five-zone off-peak single Tube fare (outside zone 1) UP 18.2% to £1.30
• Most Oyster pay-as-you-go Tube fares UP by 20p per trip
• Overall tube fares will rise 3.9% and overall bus fares up by 12.7%

The Financial Times calls it "The biggest fare increase in Transport for London history". In just 18 months since they took over from Labour in City Hall the Conservatives have increased fares by one third. And they've done so by making sure those on the lowest incomes pay most.

Why is this happening? It's nothing to do with the recession: passenger numbers continue to rise. It's because the Tories have completely lost control of Transport for London budgets - which is why they're slashing services and massively increasing fares. Anyone want to claim the Tories are the party of good financial management?

And the difference with Labour is stark.

• With Labour, fares were frozen in real terms for four years.
• We simplified fares - introducing the 70p and £1 flat-rate fares.
• We reintroduced free bus journeys for children, and extended it to teenagers.
• We were able to scrap planned fare increases because revenue from the extra people using London Transport meant there was more in the budget than we anticipated.
• And whereas Labour increased fares only to invest in renewing transport infrastructure, the Tories have cut investment while raising fares.

We've got absolutely nothing from the Conservatives except a bigger hole in our wallets and worse services.

The Tories are also planning on ending the 28 bus service, serving the Southside shopping centre, Mantle Court OAP sheltered housing, the huge Arndale estate and the new housing at Argento Tower and Palladio Court. And we know London's Conservative councils want to wriggle free from their responsibility to fund the Freedom Pass that gives pensioners free London transport.

This is callamitous Conservative mismanagement of Transport for London, and it forewarns us what life will be like under a George Osborne-run Treasury if the Tories were to win this year's general election.

The Conservatives have - literally - shown they're unfit to run a bus service; they're certainly unfit for government.

November crime stats

I can't say that the crime figures for November bring much seasonal cheer: although not by much crime is up more than it's down. I'm somewhat concerned by the rise in theft and handling offences, which are up in every part of the constituency except East Putney.

Theft and handling is a particular problem in town centres, which is why Thamesfield - which covers Putney High Street - in particular has such a high crime rate. Likewise, Southfields includes the Southside shopping centre. That said, this type of offence is significantly less likely to occur in most of the constituency than in the borough as a whole, or indeed London.

In fact compare the London average against the Putney council wards and you'll see that the majority of our area does a lot, lot better than the capital as a whole, so even in a - hopefully - aberrant month like November, we're still one of the safer parts of our city.

Clamping down on Wandle pollution

The Environment Agency has kicked off a week-long campaign designed to help keep the local River Wandle pollution free and healthy.

Agency officers will visit sites near Mitcham including the Felnex Trading Estate, Willow Lane Industrial Estate, Weir Road Industrial Estate, Wimbledon Train Depot, and Lombard Industrial Estate.

Urban pollution is common within a river catchment like the Wandle, but as I've covered on this blog, the Wandle has suffered more than most recently from large scale spillages.

It can be caused by lots of small pollution sources, such as little drips from an oil tank that flow into drains, watercourses and the ground.

The river is currently failing to achieve Good Ecological Potential as defined by the European Union?s Water Framework Directive. Urban diffuse pollution pressures has given rise to poor water quality and habitat diversity in the area.

This is very welcome though it's ironic that the Agency is working with Thames Water, one of the worst polluters of the Wandle in recent months.

So when Howard Brett, Thames Water's Wastewater Policy and Strategy Manager, says: "Everyone benefits if we can increase general environmental awareness by giving practical advice on how companies' procedures and infrastructure can be improved" I do hope they take their own advice to heart.

Tower Blocks excite local Tories

This is the view from the top of Sudbury House - a view that will be obliterated by the twice-as-high towers planned for the Ram Brewery in the right foreground. All Saints Church in Wandsworth High Street is in the bottom left, and in the top left you can make out the terracotta of Putney Wharf Tower.


In the latest sign that Putney and Wandsworth Conservatives are hand-in-glove with developers, one of the Tory Councillors for the area that includes the Ram Brewery site, Stuart Thom, testified at the Public Inquiry into the 42-storey towers that they could be "the most exciting thing since the Surrey Iron Railway? came to the borough.

He just doesn't get it, does he?

The prospect of the tallest building in the Putney constituency - Sudbury House that towers above the Southside shopping centre - being dwarfed by two new towers almost twice as high is not "exciting".

The prospect of the most congested part of the borough attracting thousands more car journeys and thousands more people into the middle of choc-a-bloc Wandsworth is not "exciting".

The prospect of the precedent these towers - if approved - will set for the developers queueing up to submit their skyscraper plans right through Putney is not "exciting".

The prospect of not a single one of the new homes being proposed being affordable to ordinary Wandsworth people when homelessness and waiting lists are on the rise is not "exciting".

It's why Labour councillors and the Labour MP for the Ram Brewery site Martin Linton have joined the Battersea Society, the Putney Society and the Wandsworth Society, in testifying against this grotesque overdevelopment.



Every time a local Conservative opens their mouth about these nightmare skyscraper developments they emphasise the two big criticisms I have of Putney Conservatives: they lack judgement to make the right call on defending the character of our area; and they lack the leadership to stand up both to their own council bosses and the developers who are determined to transform our patch into a blighted, high-rise hell-hole.

We need to clean house in May and replace these Conservatives with Labour councillors who'll work with me to protect Putney. That's the only way to protect Putney from councillors who seem ignorant of what our area needs.

Breathtaking arrogance

I wrote a few days ago about the plight of Putney constituent Christine Walker's mum, who more than qualifies for a disabled blue badge but who is being denied one by the Conservative council.

Yesterday we got this latest reply from them:

"senior council management staff have previously written in response to many contacts received from your constituent's MP, various borough councillors, the Local Government Ombudsman, General Practitioners and Mrs Self's own family members...I have also more recently replied separately to the Director of the 'Transport for All' organisation...

"...I am afraid that we will not acknowledge or respond to further communications in this matter and any such documentation received from [Mrs Walker's mum] or her representatives will be filed for information only"

It takes a special kind of arrogance to claim that MPs, councillors, the Ombudsman, GPs and transport and disability action groups are wrong and that the Conservatives - alone - are right. And it stems from having absolute power without break for over 30 years. Power may corrupt but it also makes those who have it contemptuous of all other opinion.

A democracy thrives because of checks and balances - one party vigorously held to account by its opponents. In Wandsworth those checks and balances are failing. There are currently 51 Tory councillors in Wandsworth and just 9 Labour; no other party has any seats or a chance of winning any.

And before you say it doesn't affect or concern you, then until they needed help from the Conservatives it didn't directly affect Mrs Walker's family either. My point is this: ignore our democratic deficit only if you are 100% certain that you'll never, ever need to turn to these out-of-touch, power-gone-to-their-head Conservatives for help.

The Conservatives have forgotten that they are the servants, not the masters. I can provide the evidence but only you, by voting Labour - the only alternative to the Conservatives locally - can change it.

A clean sweep

As anyone who reads this blog regularly will know, housing and the environment are my two main political priorities. The two come together when we talk about the quality of our urban environment in Putney and the far poorer state the Conservatives allow our council estates to be kept in compared to the more affluent areas.

In Labour's 2006 manifesto for Wandsworth - which I wrote - we devoted an entire section to talking about how the environment defines us - how, in other words, those who live in well-kept, tidy, litter-free, un-vandalised and free-from-graffiti areas tend to have more opportunities, live healthier lives and in turn grow up with more of a respect for their everyday surroundings. Those who live in blighted areas, where buildings are scruffy and neglected, people get away with drinking in the streets or urinating in stairwells; where grafitti and flytipping are common place face a much more challenging upbringing and are taught that no-one else cares about their environment - so why should they?

Recently, researchers from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have been looking at this problem. Sadly, the report they've come up with is incredibly tortuous to read, littered with as much jargon as some of the Putney, Southfields and Roehampton streets the Tories allow to be littered and flytipped.

But it contains this stark fact: roads in more deprived areas are dirtier - and they're dirtier not through some miraculous fact of life but because local authorities spend far less on keeping them clean than they do middle class areas.

There are of course reasons for this. Deprived areas tend to have far higher densities - more people crammed into them, and more people means more chance of environmental problems. Conversely, residents of affluent neighbourhoods are far more likely to get on the phone and complain until the problem's tidied up - and simply through default councils end up spending more on these areas than others.

But there's an underlying political reason too: and simply put it comes down to how much commitment and interest MPs and councillors take in their own patch. That problem is magnified when you have a Conservative MP, a Conservative council and Conservative councillors responsible for areas that, by and large, don't vote for them and where they have a party-political interest in making people believe that the state of their environment cannot be improved by them getting involved and voting.

Well, that may be the Conservative motivation for the state they keep parts of our area in - but it's not mine. Our estates should be as well kept as the leafiest, most expensive street in Putney - and if that means the council has to spend more keeping it clean and tidy, so be it.

The Blue Badge shame of Wandsworth Tories

On Saturday I brought a Southfields constituent, Christine Walker, to meet with Sadiq Khan MP, Minister for Transport and MP for next-door Tooting.

Mrs Walker's mum suffers from some serious disabilities, including Meniere's Disease which affects balance meaning that sufferers often cannot walk without falling over. More than a year ago, after being assessed for Attendance Allowance, the Department of Work & Pensions assessor set the ball rolling to get her a disabled person's blue badge so that she can be driven around more easily by her husband.

As is usual and right, Wandsworth Council invited Mrs Walker's mum in for an assessment, to make sure she wasn't attempting to fraudulently obtain a badge. Having failed to adequately test her - at no time, for example, was she asked to walk unaided (which she can't) to demonstrate the severity of her Meniere's problems - and then subjected her to a rigorous interview, the council denied her claim for a badge on the grounds that she wasn't sufficiently disabled. So badly treated was she that she had an angina attack in the foyer of the town hall.

That's when Mrs Walker asked for my help - and as a result of repeated interventions the council eventually consented to review the decision, but only if her mother was willing to undergo another medical test and interview. Understandably, the family was unwilling to put their mum through this ordeal again - and have made the fair point that either the council believes it was right, and should therefore stick to its guns, or that it thinks it's wrong and is trying to save face by agreeing to a retest when instead they should just accept their mistake and issue the badge.

This nonsense has been grinding on for over a year now. The council still has not backed down, and that's despite representations from her GP and consultants, from the Department of Work & Pensions which recognises the severity of her disability; from the Local Government Ombudsman and from local legal advice organisations.

When people like me talk about the carelessness and callousness of the Tory regime in Wandsworth we do so because we've seen at first hand the sharp end of Wandsworth Conservatism - a far cry from the soft-centred Conservatism David Cameron would like you to believe characterises his party. And it's examples like this that go to the heart of our criticism of how the Tories treat anyone who actually needs help from the council.

I'm in politics because I believe we have a duty to those who need help - we should never walk on by when we see people whose lives could be immeasurably transformed with just a little support and intervention. This outlook isn't shared by Putney Conservatives. They clearly couldn't care less about Mrs Walker's mother.

Revealed: the Tory answer to several buses arriving at once...

...Is just to cut bus services or even abolish the route altogether. The cuts, as the Evening Standard report below shows, include the 28 bus which terminates in our constituency - at Mapleton Road.

So we've had police numbers cut by London's Conservative Mayor. We've had vital station improvements, like lifts, abandoned by London's Conservative Mayor. We're now going to see London's bus services cut - or even axed entirely by London's Conservative Mayor. And if you're elderly, I'd seriously start worrying about your Freedom Pass: because London's Conservative Mayor is already telling government he isn't going to fund it.

Weekend casework

I was out and about again this weekend, and here are a few of the issues I've taken up on behalf of local residents.





These three photos are all of the passageway between Royal Orchard Close and Beaumont Road in West Hill - dangerous pavements where paving bricks have been pulled out and the hole is now covered by leaves, and a collapsed railing/fence.



More dangerous paving in Limes Gardens in Southfields; and in Albert Drive - by Mortimer Lodge.



A flytip on the Morris Gardens estate, also in Southfields



Dangerous paving outside John Paull II Secondary School, and a blocked drain creating a pool of rainwater that sprays pedestrians just before you get to the school, in Princes Way

These are all issues good elected representatives should be identifying, reporting and getting sorted. Unfortunately, we don't generally appear to have those in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields - just a Conservative MP and councillors who claim fat allowances but don't do the bread and butter work they should.

That's why it falls to me to get these problems sorted out - and I'm happy to - but just think how much better our area could be if we had an MP and active local councillors on the case for you. You can vote for that in the May council elections and next year's general election.

More Putney businesses pay less from rate revaluation

My team and I have been sifting through all the Business Rates data following our discovery that Putney's Conservative MP misled people about the changes in her Roehampton newsletter.

The reality is even more disturbing - suggesting that she's presenting the wrong figures across the entire constituency.

Excluding phone masts, advertising hoardings and car parking spaces* which are liable for business rates but not businesses themselves 1,021 Putney, Roehampton and Southfields businesses are going to have their business rates cut; 899 are going to see them increased as a result of the revaluation.

The majority of Putney businesses will pay less after revaluation.

Doesn't sit easily with the Conservative scare-stories does it?

It's also the case that the vast majority of both falls and rises are small. 208 of the increases, and 287 of the decreases are of 5% or less.

There are some big winners and losers here in Putney - as anywhere else - and I'm not going to repeat Miss Greening's mistake of over-claiming or mispresenting the facts. Some businesses are facing large increases in business rates through revaluation, and no doubt for them, this will make life much more difficult. But more are facing business rate reductions - of up to 67% here in Putney, and for them, that's clearly welcome. The issue is simply whether it's fairer to use old, out of date information as the basis for business rates or new, up-to-date records that take account of where things have got better and worse.

Business rates need to be reviewed because that is the fairest way of levying taxes. It's never going to be popular - not because it's unfair but simply because none of us enjoying paying tax, especially if we end up paying more as a result of a revaluation.

Piling taxes on the most struggling parts of Putney, Roehampton and Southfields isn't fair and it isn't right. That's what Miss Greening is campaigning for - that's what the Conservatives stand for.

*For those of you who want to know the complete data set including phone masts, parking spaces and hoardings, it's 1,035 increases, 1,152 decreases - still more winners than losers.

Wandsworth: still the flytip capital of London

One of the big blights on Putney - alongside the never-ending potholes - is the amount of flytipping the Conservatives allow to take place here.

This was one of the very first issues I raised after being selected: when I was a councillor it was a massive issue in the area I represented for eight years; and I was also responsible as the Labour opposition speaker on environmental issues for trying to persuade the Conservatives to take more pride in our borough.

I wrote about the council's extraordinary failure on flytipping two years ago. Then, there were an astonishing 158,000 incidents of flytipping in our borough: 1 in every 4 London flytips occurred in London. Could hardly get any worse, could it?

Well, yes it can.

In 2008/9, there were 176,450 incidents - from which Conservative Wandsworth managed just EIGHT successful prosecutions. And this despite Wandsworth having the most CCTV cameras in London - supposedly to help deter criminal activity like this. Now, Wandsworth accounts for 1 in 3 London flytips, instead of 1 in 4 two years ago.

This Conservative neglect is unacceptable. The next worst borough - Lewisham - had just 47,000 incidents: that's almost four times fewer flytips.

Why is Wandsworth so much dirtier than anywhere else in London? I suggest you ask Putney's Conservative MP, or any of Putney's eighteen Conservative councillors. They're responsible for this shameful state of affairs. If you're fed up with flytipping, vote for change: vote Labour.

Here are the flytip figures for every council in England, compiled by the Department for Environment (DEFRA).

September crime

Not that much to say about the crime figures for September: most of the statistics for each ward moved only very slightly up or down.

The main exception was in Southfields, which saw another fall in crime outside what in polling terms would be called a margin of error. Drugs offences also declined.

Here's the table - as usual, red numbers indicate an increase on the previous month's figure; green indicates the number stayed the same or fell.

Labour's councillor teams chosen

I spent most of today with Putney Labour Party members choosing our councillor candidates for the six council wards in Putney.

There is a real chance that the councillor elections next year could coincide with the general election - in which case you'll have four votes: one for your MP and three to choose your councillors.

I can't guarantee this because I don't know the details of every candidate the opposition parties are fielding but we're likely to have the youngest ever councillor candidate in Sean Lawless, who's standing in East Putney.

Sean is just 18 - and last time councillors were elected in Wandsworth the law was that you had to be 21, so there's a good chance he'll be a record-breaker next May - hopefully as our youngest councillor as well as our youngest candidate!

So, I hope you'll use those votes to elect me as your Labour Member of Parliament and these excellent local people as your three Labour councillors:

East Putney
Tim Creber, Sean Lawless, Gemma Reay

Roehampton
Peter Carpenter, Donald Roy and Ben Smith

Southfields
Matt Hay, Alex Lisinge and Tom Marsom

Thamesfield
Janet Grimshaw, Chris Locke and Bibi Qureshi

West Hill
Gill Gray, Jim McKinney and Ferdous Rahman

West Putney
Maureen Booker, Andrew Crawford and Patrick Macfarlane

Wandsworth Museum Tory fiasco continues

According to the latest edition of the Friends of Wandsworth Museum newsletter there has been another twist in the debacle that has been the Conservative council's abject management of this issue.

To recap, the Conservatives decided over two years ago to close Wandsworth Museum, along with Alvering Library by Wandsworth Common and West Hill Library in Putney. They planned to sell off the West Hill Library site, convert the Wandsworth Museum site at the top of Garratt Lane into a town centre library and build a new museum on the Ram Brewery site, beneath the 42-storey towerblocks they have been supporting.

In unprecedented numbers borough residents gave this Tory plan a big thumbs down: a petition of over 13,000 names was submitted, with many of the signatories from Putney. The Conservatives however decided they knew best and pressed ahead with their plans - which, for the record, were supposed to save council taxpayers money.

Today, the situation is somewhat different. With a lengthy planning inquiry into the Ram Brewery overdevelopment looming, the Conservatives have now decided to house the museum at West Hill Library, and open a library in the Wandsworth Museum site.

In other words, after three years and at great expense to the taxpayer, the Conservative Council has managed to move a library to where a museum was, and a museum to where a library was.

Utterly pointless and utterly wasteful. Who says the Conservatives spend money wisely?

Summer violent crimes underline why it's folly to cut police numbers

If you've been at all aware of the spate of violent crimes that have afflicted Wandsworth borough - but with one exception not our part of it - in the past three or four weeks, I'm sure you'll have been as shocked as I have.

The arson attack on the Masud family that cost the lives of two sisters in Lessingham Avenue in Tooting, and seriously injured other members of that family was appalling. But it seemed to unleash a wave of craziness including two attacks, one fatal, on muslims on their way from mosque in Tooting. that included five shootings - including one (fortunately not fatal) in Whitlock Drive in West Hill, and culminated in a seemingly unprovoked attack in Lambeth Cemetery, off Garratt Lane, when a 19-year old was stabbed in the face and beaten up by two thugs this week.

These events are so shocking because they are so unusual for our part of London and because they have happened with such concentrated intensity in a short space of time.

My point in talking about them is not to scare you; to make you think that Putney, Roehampton and Southfields are less safe than they are - and ours remain among the safest parts of our capital city.

But they do show, yet again, that even though crime has fallen dramatically in the last ten years - here, across London and nationally, the need for our police is undiminished. In fact, when times are tough and unemployment rising, the need for police to prevent crime from following suit is even greater.

The crimes I mentioned above had nothing to do with the economy - they were carried out, in the main it seems, by mindless thugs who think violence makes them look impressive or intimidating to others and gives them a daunting reputation. But whatever the reasons, they happened, and while police are making arrests and those convicted will hopefully go to prison we need more police not fewer.

There is, I'm afraid, a political bottom line here because police numbers are a political issue. The Conservatives are already systematically setting about cutting police numbers. They started as soon as Boris Johnson won the London Mayoralty: £472 million of cuts announced last year and, as I covered a few days ago a further 400 police officers "deleted" in coming months. And this just as we've finally restored Police and Community Support Officer numbers above 700 for the first time since 1990.

Those aren't backroom jobs that are going - they're frontline police officers not being replaced when they retire. And it will have an impact on crime locally. That's the reality of a political choice by politicians that cut blindly and recklessly simply because they want to show they can take "tough" decisions.

It doesn't. It has consequences: the wrecked lives of the families of the victims. Is that a price worth paying? Certainly not.