A sunny day in West Hill

Why do I want to represent Putney? Well, just look at this fantastic view from Southmead Road at the top of West Hill, for one reason. Despite all the things I want to put right or improve locally, isn't Putney, Roehampton and Southfields a fantastic place?



Click on the photo for a larger version.

Don't forget our atrocious pavements

When I was out campaigning the other day, a pensioner I called on reminded me that it's not just our potholed roads that blight Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, but also dreadfully dangerous pavements.

She's absolutely right. Anywhere you go in our constituency you'll probably find examples of damaged or unsafe pavements - stones lifted by tree roots; kerbstones overturned by cars cutting corners; bollards or street signs having been knocked and dislodging the pavement around them or simple neglect by the Tory council.

Here's a classic example of that last problem: this is Victoria Drive alongside Winterfold Close - the stretch between Albert Drive and Wimbledon Park Road.







Here the Conservatives are evidently content to allow subsidence to simply shift the paving stones down the verge that separates pedestrians from the road. This is probably the worst example I've come across of such a sustained length of unsafe, uneven paving, but there are hundreds - maybe even thousands - from one side of the constituency to the other.

The Conservatives keep promising that they've learnt their lesson and are fixing their potholes. But in most cases they have not, and in the remainder they're resorting to simply patching up potholes which last only a few weeks before the holes open up again. If you want well-maintained pavements and roads in Putney, you need to vote for change in the local elections, because the Conservatives have shown beyond reasonable doubt that they can't cope with this most basic of responsibilities.

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:

Congratulations to St Cecilia's

St Cecilia's School in Sutherland Grove has won the 2010 BBC Question Time Challenge - one of four in the entire country to achieve the feat.

Two students from the school will now join David Dimbleby and the Question Time team for a workshop in May. They will also shadow members of the production team as they produce an edition of the programme on 8th July. To win, they staged a Question Time event and were judged, along with 11 others across the UK, in various categories including citizenship skills, creativity and project management.

Students from all four winning schools submitted ideas for their ideal QT when they originally entered the competition last year.

The Schools Question Time Challenge aims to help students aged 14 to 18 in schools nationwide by supporting the citizenship curriculum, helping improve students' public speaking and listening skills, and engaging young people in society and politics. It has now run for seven years.

If there's a year to win a competition like this, it's a general election year when engagement in and awareness of politics is hopefully higher than it otherwise is.

So congratulations St Cecilia's.

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.

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.

Weekend casework

Here are some of the issues I've been working on sorting out this week. There are just two points I want to make about this. The first is that some of these are issues I reported last year - and which I got fixed but are now in a poor way again; and the second is that these are all problems in and around just one medium-sized estate: the Orchard estate in West Hill.

My point is this: just consider how many problems there must be throughout Putney, Roehampton and Southfields which your Conservative MP and councillors are just ignoring or can't be bothered to fix.

The Conservatives are right that 2010 needs to be a year of change: in Putney that change is Labour.


The pavements in Linstead Way are dreadful - and they've been dreadful for years under the Tories.





Damaged banisters in Linstead Way which leave these dangerous metal spokes in an area full of young families.


It just wouldn't be Tory Wandsworth without some shocking potholes - these on the slope from Beaumont Road to Linstead Way, past Andrew Reed House





Only last November I finally got the council to fix these railings along the path from Beaumont Road to Royal Orchard Close. They've been vandalised already - mainly because on one side this is a convenient cut-through to Linstead Way. So we either need more substantial railings or a designated, safe path with steps down the slope.


The bollards like those on the other side of this raised crossing by Castlecombe Drive have somehow vanished, leaving two craters in the Beaumont Road pavement.

'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.

Tories' final blow to Whitelands parking need

The Conservative council is to press ahead with plans to deny any parking to residents of the Whitelands Park estate off Sutherland Grove, disregarding the views of hundreds of local people who asked them for help.

Imagine if you were told you weren't allowed to park on the public highway anywhere near your home. Imagine you had no off-street parking space. Imagine living about a mile from your nearest tube station. Imagine - you may not need to - that your car isn't just a luxury but a necessity because you work shifts that mean leaving for or returning from work when public transport isn't running. You'd justifiably feel betrayed and angry about a Conservative council that has done just that:

• It was the Conservatives that allowed over 100 apartments on Whitelands Park to be built without any parking, despite not being in an area of high public transport accessibility
• It was the Conservatives that failed to impose a condition on the developer of Whitelands Park to allow these residents to park on the private road (Scott Avenue) through the estate
• It was the Conservatives that then tried to sneak in a parking zone without even consulting the residents
• It was the Conservatives who have been going round blaming everyone else for their mistakes, trying to play an unseemly divide-and-rule, turf war politics that cause anger and bitterness that won't easily be resolved
• And it's now the Conservatives banning them from parking anywhere near their homes on the public highway.

Incompetence and vindictiveness rarely deliver good public policy-making, and while I support the introduction of the Sutherland Grove area controlled parking zone, there is so much more the council could have done to help residents of Whitelands without harming the CPZ.

One of the simplest was the idea to exclude the stretch of Sutherland Grove immediately opposite Whitelands Park, where there are no other homes, from the parking zone so that at least there would be 20 or so unrestricted parking bays for anyone - including Whitelands residents - to use.

That would give the residents of Sutherland Grove the controlled parking zone they want and deserve; it would not mean Whitelands residents getting parking permits within the zone itself (something the Sutherland Grove residents strongly oppose); and it would at least give Whitelands residents some chance of parking somewhere close to their homes in a stretch of road with no other residents around it.

This isn't a perfect solution: Conservative mistake after mistake has made sure we'll never get that now, but it is the fairest and most just outcome for both Sutherland Grove and Whitelands Park. The essence of public service is reaching such compromises and getting the best deal for all our constituents. The Conservatives have shown they're simply not up to it with this litany of wrong decisions and divide-and-rule politics that has - entirely unnecessarily - set residents against residents.

What a pathetic lack of leadership.

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.

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.

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.

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

That's the title of a book written by US Senator Al Franken on the way some politicians tend to behave when campaigning.

I mention it because at the weekend I came across a Conservative leaflet that has been put about in West Hill ward. Just consider the key claims it contains:

The Tory MP is campaigning to cut the "rising number of burglaries across, Putney, Roehampton & Southfields"

I thought we'd comprehensively debunked this blatant lie only a few days ago - burglaries are down on every single measure in every single Putney council ward - but no, the Conservatives press ahead with the lie presumably in the hope that they can scaremonger their way to victory.

The Tories then claim that Putney now has "fewer arresting officers in Wandsworth than 1997". Again, official figures show the opposite. Today we have 617 Police officers (that's excluding Community Safety Officers) in Wandsworth according to the Conservative-run Metropolitan Police Authority. In 1997 we had 596. 617 is more than 596. So again, the Conservatives are lying.

And the lies don't stop there. Despite getting their fingers burnt when they falsely claimed that business rates in Roehampton were on the rise - when the fact is that the vast majority of Roehampton businesses are about to get their rates cut, they've done exactly the same thing in West Hill.

I count 33 West Hill businesses that are having their rates cut - and that includes EVERY business in the four main West Hill ward shopping parades: Beaumont Road, Montfort Place, Wimbledon Park Road and Inner Park Road. Only 9 face increases. The source of my figures? Conservative-run Wandsworth Council. 33 down, 9 up. So another Conservative lie.

Here's the thing: a confident, outgoing and self-assured party that believes it has the facts on its side wouldn't have any need to misdirect, mislead, scaremonger or - yes - lie. Political parties only employ these tactics when they're behind, losing, on the wrong side of the facts or simply not smart enough to tell the truth.

The biggest compliment the Conservatives can pay to my campaign - and the loudest message they send to you, the voters, is when they lie. Because it shows they've nothing positive - nothing honest to say to Putney, Roehampton and Southfields.

Britain's not broken. The Conservative Party is.

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.

Orchard railings to be fixed

The railings off the path leading through to Royal Orchard Close in West Hill are finally to be fixed by the Conservative Council.

The Conservatives had been failing to repair the banister - which is the edge of a fairly steep slope down to Linstead Way - because they thought it was the responsibility of the housing association that manages Royal Orchard Close.

They were wrong in this case - it's always been the responsibility of the council - but what's more disturbing is that they were more than happy to sit back and allow dangerous and unsightly vandalism to persist, simply because they (wrongly) believed it was "nothing to do with us, guv".

I've been writing a lot about the state of Putney Bridge - and it's exactly the same attitude: washing their hands unless something can be proved beyond any doubt that they are responsible for it - that has led to the decay and erosion of one of our landmarks.

The Conservatives call this "the Wandsworth Way" - and I don't doubt it plays a part in keeping council tax low. What it doesn't do is get problems elected representatives exist to sort out sorted out. And that's one reason why the Conservatives' Wandsworth Way is the wrong way.

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.

Tackling Tibbets Traffic

In no small part because of the number of road traffic accidents on the Tibbets Corner roundabout, the council is going to make some improvements to the area, of particular benefit to cyclists.

A new access to the cycle network through the roundabout - which is sandwiched beneath the roundabout but above the A3 - will be provided for southbound cyclists approaching Tibbets Corner from Tibbets Ride at the top of Putney Hill. At present, cyclists have no choice but to use the roundabout because the only entrance and exit at Tibbets Ride is on the other side of the dual carriageway. There will also be some improvements to the cycle paths through the roundabout.

The council also found that traffic travels faster around Tibbets Corner than it should, in part because it apparently is so designed that it feels safer for motorists to speed. So some works are going to be done to try to design out this problem.

Along with the promised north-bound cycle lane over Putney Bridge, I think we're finally on the verge of making some major (literally) joined-up improvements for cyclists through Putney. Coming so long after it became the norm for most councils to provide decent cycle lanes, that's very much long overdue.

You can read the report here.

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.

Castlecombe Drive paving

This photo of a cave-in pavement in Castlecombe Drive was taken on Saturday. Castlecombe Drive has a number of sheltered homes for pensioners - there are a set of bungalows just to the left of this picture; and across the road is Ronald Ross primary school. In other words, such poor quality pavements are especially dangerous given the number of pensioners and young children who use this road.

Remarkably, a Conservative Councillor lives less than fifty metres from this potholed pavement: yet it's clearly either beyond or beneath her to bother to get this fixed. I have to wonder what it is that the Conservatives do for their £10,000 a year allowances - because clearly looking after the area - even one they live in - isn't it.

I've reported this and will let you know when it's fixed.

Southmead SureStart coming soon

A brand new SureStart children's centre is opening on Monday 9th November at Southmead School in Princes Way. The Southmead SureStart will be the seventh in Putney opened since Labour came to power. And it exceeds Labour's general election promise at the last general election to make sure that each constituency has at least six SureStart centres.

SureStart childrens centres will, I believe, come to be seen as one of the great Labour achievements in the same way that setting up the Open University was in the 1960s. And one reason we can be fairly sure of that is the fact that, while the Conservatives would dearly love to axe SureStarts because they cost money they've been forced to U-turn on their pledge to close them because they work and they're increasingly cherished by the communities that benefit from them.

SureStart offers real, practical help and support for families after their children have been born: support that often makes a difference between giving those kids the very best start in life or getting off at a disadvantage. Our first SureStart centre in Roehampton Lane opened getting on for eight years ago, and now we have centres right across the constituency, from Buckhold Road and Merton Road in Southfields to Fontley Way in the middle of the Alton estate.

Our seven SureStart Centres in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields are:

Fontley Way 1 O?clock Centre

Granard Primary School and Children's Centre

King George 1'o clock Centre

Southmead Primary School and Centre for Children & Families

Southfields Community College and Children's Centre

Sure Start Roehampton Centre

West Hill Primary School and Children's Centre

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.