Lynne's Parliament and Haringey diary

Brian Paddick came to Hornsey & Wood Green and we visited a number of hotspots. The area is becoming a bit of a regular haunt of his - he was here during the Highgate by-election too. This time I showed him Wood Green cross - which is the area that local residents in the Wood Green area are most worried about crime wise. There stands a disused and vacant and deteriorating police box. Originally conceived and procured to ease peoples' fears by having police on the spot - it never really opened for enough hours for anyone to have the slightest confidence that there would be a police person in the box. So it failed. Such a stupid waste for what was a good idea.

We went to Alexandra Park station (Oyster needed / on the way); Ally Pally - to show Brian the historic building which Labour Haringey first built up a debt (for which we locals had to pay) and then tried to sell on in a highly controversial deal - stopped at the moment by a local group taking Labour Haringey to court; then off to the 603 bus route in Muswell Hill where Brian pledged to extend the operating hours of this much loved route.

In Crouch End he promoted the Crouch End Traders 'Bag for Life' and posed in front of the Clock Tower whilst he did various interviews with the local press. He tried to squeeze in Weston Park Post Office - but in the end Monica Whyte (GLA candidate and local councillor) and David Winskill (local councillor) went there to meet a disabled lady whose life will be ruined if Labour's proposed Post Office closures go ahead.

And I went to visit Bonnie - living with husband, two children and sister in two rooms in terrible state - but more of this story in a while. I am on the warpath for this one.

Labels: 603 bus, alexandra palace, brian paddick, dave winskill, monica whyte

This is the response I've sent in to the consultation over the future of our Post Offices:

As Member of Parliament for Hornsey & Wood Green I would like to submit the following response to the consultation on the proposed closures of sub-post offices in Alexandra Park (N10), Salisbury Road (N22), Weston Park (N8), Ferme Park Road (N4) and Highgate High Street (N6) - this last being in Hampstead & Highgate constituency but one side of the main high street - which equally affects my constituents.

I enclose responses of those constituents who have sent in their views to me by email and by post.

All the proposed closures will adversely affect my constituents in terms of access, hardship, impact on local economy, impact on neighbouring shops, home workers and so on. The local network was already pared down to a minimum in the last round of 'voluntary' closures and these further proposals will, in varying degrees, lead to a diminution (possibly death) of a locally sustainable community hub. One key issue will be the sustainability of local/micro shopping centres that rely heavily on the footfall generated by Post Offices. If they go then other shops on these parades will become more marginal and less able to survive in a retail environment where they are more and more under fire from the big out of town supermarkets. We risk empty shop units which in turn lead to vandalism etc.

The proposed closures will also deliver a devastating impact on small businesses and home workers who rely on having a local Post Office in order to carry out their commercial activities. This was acknowledged in the Post Office’s own Counter Revolutions report which stated that nine out of ten small local businesses rely on such a facility.

On the broader issues, much is made of alternative services at other offices when deciding which branches to close. But little account is taken of the contribution made to social cohesion by the PO network. How can this be reconciled in a Borough that calls down and spends £10m's each year on regeneration projects to tackle these issues? This is not joined up thinking.

Whist the Government has considered the 'financial loss' sustained by the current level of 14,000 Post Offices across the country, it does not appear to have done (or the Post Office as its implementation arm) any work on the individual costs to people in the extra time that will be spent in accessing the proposed alternative or the extra time incurred with longer wait times at those alternatives for those already customers at the proposed alternative locations. I would suggest that work should be carried out so that the public who are affected by these proposals can see the cost / benefits properly. As it stands the benefit is to the Post Office and the cost is to local people. Quantifying that cost would be instructive and shed more light on the real cost of the suggested closures.

The accuracy of the information on the 'branch access report' is variable which must cast doubt on the basis on which decisions are being made. Moreover, the suggestions in terms of alternatives in some cases are laughable - demonstrating a lack of accurate assessment or knowledge of the alternative branches, their capacity and their suitability.

In my response I address the criteria as laid down by the Post Office consultation team in relationship to each of the proposed closures that affect my constituents. The Consultation Team will receive a huge response to their consultation for each of the proposed closures affecting my constituents. I trust that the individual stories that people will tell of the personal affect of the proposed closure on them will have a positive outcome in the final decision.

I assume that the responses will be analysed and that they will be available to public scrutiny and that decisions taken post-consultation will be demonstrated to have taken count of the responses.

I understand that petitions will be counted as one submission. If the Royal Mail Chief Executive received a letter signed by 300 staff in HQ, would they dismiss it as "just one letter"? If that is the case, I would argue strongly that is unacceptable as these petitions are gathered locally by users of each Post Office and not everyone is able to respond to a written consultation with their personal story. I met many such people on my visits to my local Post Offices and would suggest that petitions be given a proper weighting to take count of them and not any diminution of their strength of feeling. Many older people, often the most affected by the proposals, will not write an individual letter but will sign a petition. Freedom of Information will be used to hold the Post Office to account for the decisions it makes.

The following points relate individually to each of the proposed closures:

Alexandra Park Road (N10)
There has been an enormous (angry) response to the proposal to close this sub-post office. Two officers of the Post Office attended a packed (over 300) public meeting to explain the proposed closures and answer questions. It was a civilised meeting and we were grateful to the officers for attending. However, they will have heard in no uncertain terms the powerful arguments made by so many in the hall. I attended the meeting myself.

The footfall count on the branch access report is wrong and substantially lower than the actual footfall. The information is therefore inaccurate and should be re-assessed.

I understand that a promise was made (in writing) when the Crescent Road sub-post office was closed a couple of years ago that Alexandra Park Road Post Office would not become the subject of any proposed closure in the future.

Numerous people, particularly the elderly, those with mobility problems, mothers with buggies will face hardship as the proposed alternatives will see them having to use public transport or a car with the obvious difficulties that presents. In addition - this is a hilly area which adds greatly to the problems of accessing the proposed alternative of Alexandra Parade or Muswell Hill.

One older local resident trialled the alternative to Muswell Hill. Including walk time to bus, wait time for bus, queuing time at Muswell Hill and the reverse back to her home. It took her one hour fifty seven minutes.

The proposed alternative of Alexandra Parade is smaller and more difficult to access and the second alternative of Muswell Hill is already at capacity with long queues.

There is a very high level of home working in this area and a high usage of postal facilities for both post and package.

At the public meeting it was clear that many home workers who post packages would not use the alternative Post Office but would convert to other providers resulting in a loss of business to the Post Office and therefore not providing a saving but a loss.

The post mistress and master at this sub-post office are much loved by the community, are part of the community and literally keep an eye out for their customers well-being.

In a small parade of shops vital to the area (where older residents can find most of what they need to survive without having to go into a more central area) closure of this sub-post office will affect the trade of these other shops detrimentally and will threaten the sustainability of the parade itself.

Hardship, access, impact on local economy, impact on neighbouring businesses, impracticality of alternatives etc - all apply to Alexandra Park Road.

Highgate High Street (N6)
This is my own local Post Office - so I declare an interest - but it is an interest shared by everyone in Highgate. There was a mass protest held outside the Post Office and you may well have seen some of the coverage in the media - Evening Standard, local papers, Mail, Sky News etc. The Highgate Society has been at the forefront of the campaign - and this campaign is supported passionately by local residents. There will again be a huge response by individuals to the consultation.

Highgate is extremely hilly and the alternatives proposed mean that even if an elderly or mobility impaired person was able to walk to one of the proposed alternatives - their chances of getting back up the hill are slim. This is a truly impossible task for anyone with mobility issues. Please come and walk it with me to see for yourself. This will cause extreme hardship.

There is an elderly population in this area who would be particularly affected.

The proposed alternative on Archway Road is not suitable. It is tiny, really tiny and already sustains a virtually permanent queue of 15 or minutes.

The footfall recorded in the branch access report of the Archway Road alternative is misleading. Archway is a tiny Post Office where all us Highgate residents have to go to retrieve any parcel that could not be delivered because we were out. Parcel collection from this function alone must raise the counted footfall on the branch access assessment. It could not cope with even half the people from Highgate High Street if they did re-route there.

Because of the hilly nature of Highgate, people who have no car and cannot walk may be involved in either the expense of a taxi, may not go out to a Post Office when they need to and may be reduced to staying in their homes and relying on friends or relatives.

Alternatively for those who have cars, they will use their cars - which is not something to be encouraged for such journeys.

The Highgate Post Office situated as it is at the back of a wonderland of a stationery shop is part of village life, provides custom to the shop itself and neighbouring shop and a vital part of this sustainable community.

Again there is a high level of home working, which will be adversely hit by the loss of the Post Office.

Hardship, access, impact on local economy, impact on neighbouring businesses, impracticality of alternatives etc - all apply to Highgate High Street

Salisbury Road (N22)
I held a surgery in this sub-post office to hear what local residents thought of the proposed closure. Once again there was a fantastic turn out - and it was crystal clear that if this Post Office closes it will cause severe hardship to many, many local people. At this surgery - there was a large contingent of older ladies who made it clear in no uncertain terms that they wanted to tell the government exactly what they think of the proposals. I write below a few of the stories as whilst many signed the petition, they were a bit nervous of actually responding individually to the consultation itself. I am concerned that this may be the case for some older residents for whom writing an 'official' letter is a challenging step.

Some of the views given by local residents on the day. Obviously people will be responding to the consultation but to give the Consultation Team a flavour read the following:

'In this case the suggested alternative is on an impossible to cross, never free of traffic junction. It is a quarter of the size of the Salisbury Road one and you can’t get wheelchairs properly through the door and to the counter. This one - by contrast - is easy access for wheelchairs (two at a time if need be), has plenty of meter parking for those who cannot walk and has lots of room in the shop.I met many, many people here today. The older ladies were all up in arms. Olive wanted a soap box to tell the Government where they could stick it! But Mrs Howe, 75 in a wheelchair is incandescent at what this will do to her life and her ability to get out and about. Another lady who cannot walk very far – but who can get to this Post Office – told me that it would cost her £4.00 each way to the Post Office she would have to go to as she would have to get a taxi. Was Labour going to reimburse her? Another woman told me that she cares for her severely disabled husband who would have no chance of ever being able to get to a Post Office again.'

Once again the information on the branch access report is inaccurate. It states that there is no post box outside. There is. These inaccuracies make these reports unreliable as a basis for decisions.

There is a high proportion of older people who will be adversely affected.

Local shopkeepers from other businesses in this little parade approached me to say that if this branch closes their business will be adversely impacted.

Ferme Park Road & Weston Park (both in Stroud Green ward)
The proposed closure of Ferme Park Road and Weston Park is a double whammy for residents of neighbouring Stroud Green and Crouch End that would leave a large gap in provision in their area. A large march of several hundred residents was staged to highlight this issue. The march to the Crouch End Post Office alternative demonstrated both the strength of feeling and the inability of Crouch End to absorb diverted business.

There are a number of reasons why these Post Offices should not close:

- Hornsey High Street is proposed as an alternative: it is already grossly overtrading - long queues and long waiting times. This will be made much worse when the Hornsey Central Depot development (300 dwellings) arrives.

- There are no direct bus links from Weston Park to Hornsey High Street.

- The remaining Post Offices at Tottenham Lane and Stroud Green Road are already very busy. Tottenham Lane in particular is already at full capacity and there does not appear to be any room for it to expand. Residents told us they were already using smaller Post Offices like Ferme Park Road to avoid the long queues elsewhere and get a more helpful, less rushed service. Other Post Offices stated as alternatives are simply not realistic. For instance, Hornsey High Street is not a location residents in much of this area are aware of, is further away and already very busy.

- The closure of both these Post Offices would create a large gap in provision. People living in the centre of this gap (on roads around Mount View Road) would be a long distance from any alternatives. This area is on top of a very steep hill which adds to the difficulty, especially for those with reduced mobility. Also residents would have to cross either Tottenham Lane or Stroud Green Road which are both busy A-roads.

- Again, there is a high rate of home-working and self employed people using these Post Offices, who have said they would take their custom to competitors rather than travel further and wait longer to use the alternative Post Offices.

- Both these Post Offices are very convenient for less mobile groups. Ferme Park is next to a primary school and Weston Park is next to a primary school, a secondary school and older people’s sheltered housing block. They are well used by families with small children and elderly people, who would find it difficult to travel further. The alternative Post Offices are on very busy main roads with limited parking opportunities.

That concludes my response to your consultation. I trust that together with the responses from individuals and other groups in the area – the Post Office will halt its proposed closures.

Yours sincerely...

One of my interns, Helen Duffett, has started her own blog. Hurrah! More women political bloggers I say!

Having had V20 (volunteering for young people) come to see my at Parliament - I went to visit some of their volunteers in Haringey this weekend (see bigger picture here).

In this instance - it was sports coaches who devote themselves to Friday night coaching younger children to run at the White Hart Lane Community Sports Centre. How fantastic they are! Loads of kids also turned up - as they do each week.

For the coaches - who are all young and have come through the system themselves - it means they not only can give something back in return, but also it helps open up future coaching and similar careers from themselves too. As for those receiving the coaching - they receive great coaching to help their own sporting prowess.

We have loads of talent in Haringey - and it was good to see it being encouraged!

Visited HARTS for Families on Friday to take part in a film about the work they do.

I was really impressed by them when I visited in 2006. They are a unique facility for those who are too vulnerable to get themselves out of the dreadful holes people can get into as life's problems and difficulties mount up. Without a helping hand to sort out things, they can spiral down and down - but with HARTS people are helped to turn things round instead and given assistance to get matters back under control to the point where they can live an independent life again and take care of themselves.

Typically, for example, someone will come to me when they are being evicted. But way before they get to that point they have generally got into arrears through being out of work or not understanding tax credits or why benefits have stopped - and instead of dealing with it (perhaps because they can't read or write or even speak English) it mounts up and trouble heaps upon trouble. HARTS sends in the support not just to get them out of trouble in the direct instance - but to put in place support, or training or help so that they can get out of the situation for the future.

People who can deal with life sometimes find it difficult to understand why people get themselves in such a mess. But with mental health challenges, difficult or challenging families - and without the wherewithal that the haves can take for granted - the mess deepens. So all credit to HARTS for the key role they play.

Thursday saw a topical debate on policing in London in Parliament. I took the opportunity to raise with the Minister about the need to station Safer Neighbourhood teams in their own ward - i.e. Highgate!

Of wider note was the brief appearance of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London - Boris Johnson. Mr Johnson has famously only mentioned London once in his entire lifetime at Parliament prior to his current and somewhat sudden interest in being our Mayor.

So - a debate on what the very heart of Londoners are concerned about - you would have thought he would be there paying rapt attention. None of it. After his 'contribution' he left!

Labels: boris johnson, crime

Sigh ... this is the story from the Ham & High:

More than £182,000 of taxpayers' money has been spent on employing Lexington Communications since 2005 - money that critics say could be better employed combating the Palace's asbestos contamination.

Lexington Communications, employed by the charitable trust which is administered by Labour-lead Haringey Council, also has Labour links. Founding partner Michael Craven has acted as chief media spokesman for the Labour Party.

Mr Craven was accused of waging a "massive disinformation campaign" by the Corporate Europe Observatory website when managing director of the Market Access PR firm in 1998.

Lexington Communications, which describes itself as "London's fastest-growing public affairs and issues management company", charged Haringey Council £108,000 in 2005, £33,200 in 2006 and £41,000 up to November 2007.

The total sum would come close to covering the £225,000 needed to clear the palace of asbestos contamination.

Clive Carter, secretary of Stroud Green Residents' Association, said: "Shouldn't the policies of the majority group be defended by the elected politicians responsible for them, rather than getting one of London's most expensive PR companies to put a gloss on what is going on?

"We need spokesmen who do not need to speak through PR firms at great public expense in order to persuade us."

You can read the full story here.

Labels: alexandra palace

That's the question I posed to fellow Liberal Democrats over on Lib Dem Voice yesterday:

So why is it that it is so rare for my stories to be picked up and spread online, even when they are newsworthy enough for mainstream journalists to be picking them up and running with them?

Perhaps you think it’s because of something I don’t get right with my blog - but the same question applies to all the Liberal Democrat blogs I’ve seen. Despite the impressive and growing range of Liberal Democrat blogs - it seems very rare for a story to be picked up and spread.

Read the full piece here.

Well, well, well - just after I started Twittering, 10 Downing Street starts using Twitter too.

Nice to know I have such influence. (Oh don't be a spoilsport and say it's a coincidence!)

Labels: gordon brown

Four hours yesterday in marathon meeting trying to get through to the Post Office how dreadful the proposals for shutting many of our local Post Offices are. And they didn't really answer any of the questions put to them on finance at all properly. If they don't know the answers to the actual financial situation - then that probably explains their diminishing empire – as the first step to running something well is to know what is actually going!

The refusal to give information on profit on each of the proposed closures because of 'commercial' sensitivity means that none of us can judge the choice of Post Offices for closure. It makes rather a mockery of a consultation when you say, “we’re doing this for financial reasons but we’re going to keep those financial reasons secret’.

And anyway, it’s not just a matter of the short-term financial situation of Post Offices. Post Offices are a crucial part of so many local communities, and their presence is a key part of having thriving high streets. Closing a Post Office isn’t just about its own finances, it’s about the other local businesses and it’s about the impact on residents. Mixed in there too is the Labour Government’s decision to make the Post Office make cuts – but then try to dodge responsibility by saying it’s up to the Post Office to decide how to make the cuts which in effect they’ve been ordered to make.

It was quite apparent from the second half of the Council's scrutiny meeting that all five local Post Offices earmarked for closure (includes Highgate High Street which technically in Camden but affects Highgate residents on Haringey side just as much) were vital to their local residents.

The Post Office have admitted that when they close a Post Office, not all the business will then actually shift to other Post Offices. Instead, they expect to lose 20% of the business which each Post Office previously had. They were unable to answer what that 20% loss means in terms of lost profit - so it is very hard to understand whether the £45million per year that they will save is really a 'saving' if that loss is taken into account.

There are plenty of creative ideas around to make Post Offices more viable – but for all their talk of local communities, when it comes to the crunch – Labour is forcing the cuts on the Post Office, Labour MPs have had the chance to block closures in Parliament and voted the wrong way – and Labour is failing to push those creative ideas.

PS Remember to sign the petition here and there's also a Facebook campaign for Highgate Village's Post Office.

So - the Speaker is going to court to try to keep secret the details of MPs' second homes expense claims. Well, he doesn't speak for me when doing that!

I've got an open mind on the security benefits of keeping the addresses of the homes secret - especially as if you know an MP is at Parliament, that might be a good time to burgle ... and for most MPs they're not - for example - the addresses which get published anyway on nomination papers at election time.

But - goodness me - that's no excuse to keep everything else secret.

Why not publish all the other details straight away, here and now - even if there is going to be further discussion over the addresses? That would be the act of an organisation that really believes in openness and understands the crisis in public confidence.

Instead - yet again we seem to have the Parliamentary authorities looking for excuses to avoid doing the right thing rather than finding the best way of dealing with any minor fallout from doing the right thing.

UPDATE: My colleague Norman Baker (MP for Lewes) has put it well in the papers today, "I think it sends entirely the wrong signal that the House of Commons will appear in the public's eye to be resisting a tribunal decision and we will look as though we are trying to protect our own backs. I am sympathetic to the point that MPs' addresses should not be made public. I think they have a right to query that point but no more."

UPDATE 2: Nick Clegg has now written to the Speaker on the topic.

Labels: nick clegg, norman baker

Two apparently small - but actually both important and symbolic - campaigns have just been launched to modernise Parliament's attitude towards the internet.

First - my colleague Jo Swinson who is calling for Parliament to axe its ban on YouTube. The current situation is - MPs can take footage of them in Parliament and put them on their own website, but they can't put the footage on anything like YouTube.

Well - I think that's wrong because not only is using YouTube or similar the easiest and best way of putting footage on your own site, but also - we should be putting information about what is going on in Parliament out there in as many different places as possible. It's not as if our political system is suffering from having too much interest from the public!

You can back Jo's campaign on Facebook.

Second - the good folks at They Work For You have a campaign to get information about legislation going through Parliament in a more sensible electronic format.

All power to them too - making information about what's going on in Parliament available in a convenient way for others to then use is just what a Parliament that wants to engage with the public should be all about. And we've got the record of sites such as www.theyworkforyou.com to see just how powerful the results can be when information is made available in a sensible format.

The whole way the wording of legislation is handled in Parliament is archaic, and often I feel it's almost designed to deliberate obscure what is actually going on. The system behaves as if the idea of having a document with track changes in it had never been thought of - so when you get one version of part of a bill replaced with another, you don't get a marked up copy showing what changes are being proposed, but instead you just get a whole lot of text dumped on you that then has to be checked line by line, word by word to see what's changed. Daft!

So - do go and back this campaign too and let's hope this is one more step towards improving Parliament.

Other blog postings about the campaign: Guido and Puffbox.com.

Labels: jo swinson

Appalling, quite appalling:

A Tory councillor has claimed that there should be compulsory sterilisation for parents on benefits ... Mr Ward, who has sat on Medway Council in Kent for eight years ... said, "I think there is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second (or third, or whatever) child while living off state handouts."

The Daily Mail has the full story on their website.

Here's one example of what that would mean - suppose you have a happily married couple, hardworking for years and then one of the suffers a horrible accident at work and is invalided out. They decide they want to have a family, and rather than bring up an only child would rather go for having two children. Knowing full well the financial implications, and being willing to bear them, they decide that the partner of the injured one will also stop work for a couple of years to help bring up their new family as it arrives.

Only not in the world of John Ward - he would have them ordered off to compulsory sterilisation.

As I said - appalling, quite appalling. He seems to have in mind some caricature of everyone who is on benefits as being irresponsible and feckless - what a wrong, out of touch and insulting view. And that's without getting on to the appallingly extreme and inhumane nature of the solution he wants - compulsory sterilisation.

UPDATE (26 March): John Ward has now quit as a councillor.

I see Liberal Democrat Voice has now got an online poll on the question of the medical research proposals in the bill - so go and vote!

No surprise that this Bill took up a good chunk of the time when I appeared on The Westminster Hour yesterday – but, as ever, the discussion was largely about process. Should it be a free vote or not?

Focusing in on the question simply of whether or not there should be a free vote on the bill (or on parts of it) misses two main points.

First – this political process story is presenting it as if the only way that Labour MPs will get to vote with their conscience is if there is a free vote. That’s wrong – a vote being whipped doesn’t suddenly mean all choice is taken away from you. Sure – it’s harder to vote ‘the other way’ if there’s a three line whip in place, but we shouldn’t be so blinded by the Parliamentary whipping system as to think that if a whip is in place you have all your freedom of choice removed.

Second – the question of some Labour MPs being able to vote with their conscience and in line with their personal moral beliefs has so dominated discussion that we’re in danger of losing the larger moral picture. How can I look in the eye of a constituent who is suffering from a disease such as Alzheimer’s and say, “I am going to oppose giving scientists the best possible chance to cure your disease?”

When it comes to health care there are many difficult issues – too many opportunities, and not enough money to pay for them all (regardless of which party is setting spending levels). But when we have opportunities that resources do allow – how can I turn my back on people and say, “No, I don’t want the best research carried out into healing you?”

For me, the only moral, conscionable choice is to say – “yes, we’re going to do our best to give scientists a chance of curing your disease”.

I appreciate some people will disagree with that - but for me too, this is a moral choice.

An interesting verdict from The Independent's Readers' Editor:

Bloggers. Dontcha hate 'em? You can just imagine them out there – in some grungy internet café, consumed with bile, prejudice and misinformation, drinking from a scummy coffee cup. One thing they won't be drinking from is any kind of fount of wisdom. And as for the 'Oxford English Dictionary', doubt if they've ever heard of it. Citizen journalists? Pah! How dare they compare themselves with pukka representatives of the Fourth Estate, with their years of training, unswerving devotion to the truth, total lack of bias, and staunch regard for journalistic codes of ethics?

At least, that's the view of many mainstream journalists still, despite the fact that the media landscape has changed almost totally in the past two decades. As a readers' editor who consumes blogs for a living, you'd expect me to take the opposite view – and I do. No longer are blogs merely – as one former editor of 'The Independent' once put it – "the din of small voices". The best of them now rival Fleet Street's finest. So here are half-a-dozen reasons for all you bloggers to be cheerful...
(Read the full piece here)

So - David Cameron's at the centre of a fuss again where he's being painted as someone who - basically - looks down on the rest of us.

Previously it was his track record of breaking traffic rules ('Stopping at a red light? Going the right way down a one way street? Those are only rules for little people' seems to be pretty much his attitude).

Today, it's a comment he's meant to have made to his daughter, as reported in the Sunday Mirror:

David Cameron was at the centre of a political storm last night over claims he had compared his untidy daughter to someone who had "fallen out of a council flat".

The incident allegedly happened when four-year-old Nancy came down the stairs to join the Tory leader and his guests at his £2million West London home.

According to senior political sources, Mr Cameron looked at her and groaned: "You look like you've fallen out of a council flat."

Now - as I said when this came up on the Sky News newspaper review this morning, there is some controversy over whether or not he actually said this (as the Mirror goes on to report) but the underlying problem I think is this - David Cameron has consistently invited media coverage of his personal family life - not just on ITV a few days again, but also with the whole start to Web Cameron, where again his children featured.


If you're going to wheel out your family in the good times - and basically say, 'Look what a good parent I am' - it's hard then to draw the line and rule off limits even conversations with your children. If you invite coverage in, you can't then just turn round and expect privacy whenever it suits.

Labels: david cameron

Just started using Twitter - after all, if it's good enough for Mayor candidate Brian Paddick, it should be good enough for me too!

If you've never heard of it before - Twitter is a free service that is sort of a cross between mini-blog updates and Facebook style status messages. You can sign up to follow anyone you want and then get their updates direct to your mobile phone - free.

You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/lfeatherstone and Brian is at http://twitter.com/brianpaddick

PS I couldn't see any other MP using Twitter, so I think I might be the first - but let me know if that's wrong! (Update: the answer seems to be I'm sort of the first - see Puffbox for details.)

Labels: brian paddick

Morning and evening, I'm in the media tomorrow.

In the morning it's the newspaper review on Sky for Sunday Live, from 10am.

Then in the evening, I'm back on The Westminster Hour: Radio 4, 10pm. If you miss the show you'll be able to listen again on their website.

If you want to get advanced notice of my media appearances like this one, you can use the media events service at Flock Together. You've got three choices:

1. Using this feed: http://feeds.libdems.org.uk/LiberalDemocratsMediaAppearances, or
2. By email: register at FlockTogether and pick “Media appearances” as one of the categories of events you want to be emailed about. (If you are an existing Flock Together user you can also change your preferences - login and then click “Edit your preferences” in the left-hand menu; you need to tick “Media Appearances” under “Email options”), or
3. On the web: take a look at the dedicated Flock Together page.

Labels: the westminster hour

Labour-run Haringey Council has refused to join the campaign against the expansion of Heathrow:

Haringey Council has refused to join a coalition of local authorities opposing an expansion at Heathrow.

In the last two weeks, neighbouring boroughs Islington and Camden have both signed up to the 2M Group, or Two million voices against Heathrow expansion, alongside nine other London boroughs.

But calls from environmental pressures group for the council to pledge its support have been rejected...

The introduction of a third runway would mean an additional 220,000 flights a year, higher levels of noise pollution and more carbon emissions caused by new flight paths - many of which could fly over the borough.

Janet Boorman, a campaigner from Tottenham and Wood Green Friends of the Earth, said: "The third runway will bring more aircraft over Haringey.

"It will be responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than the whole of Uganda, with over 25 million people. It's obscene to be doing this when we desperately need to cut emissions to prevent climate catastrophe"...

Hornsey and Wood Green MP, Lynne Featherstone, who has signed an Early Day Motion in Parliament calling for the for proposed third runway to be scrapped, said: "I cannot believe that Haringey Council has failed to take a position on this vital issue for Haringey's residents.

"Where other councils across London are taking a strong stance, Haringey Council has yet again shown that it is completely devoid of any environmental credentials." (Haringey Independent)

A welcome update from the campaign for Guy Njike:

We’ve heard today that Guy's application for a judicial review of his case has been successful. This means that Guy's case will now be heard in court.

While this is going on he can’t be deported. This is really, really great news for now.

But it's important that all of us keep going until Guy is truly save.

KEEP UP THE PRESSURE ON HOME SECRETARY
Please write to the Home Secretary on Guys behalf and ask your friends and family to do the same:
stopdeportationofguy.wordpress.com/urge-home-secretary/

Labels: guy njike

... but this time it is in Camden, rather than Haringey. Just heard that the Conservative councillor for Camden's Highgate ward - Paul Barton - has resigned and that polling day will be on 1st May.

It will be interesting to see what the Green Mayor candidate Sian Berry does - she's stood for the council before in Camden - and not won. In normal circumstances I suspect she'd be very tempted to stand in this by-election ... but can she do that whilst standing for London Mayor at the same time?

After PMQs yesterday, I rushed to Five Live to do Simon Mayo - and guess what - Post Offices were the issue of the day!

Loads of emails into the program expressing the rage and anger felt by local people everywhere. The Labour MP on the panel, Celia Barlow was really put on the spot by Mayo. The Opposition Day debate in the afternoon with a vote at 7pm was to put a moratorium on the proposed closures giving time for more creative solutions to be found.

Now Celia is in the position of many Labour MPs of having voted through the procedure last year which set off the new round of closures, but now is camaigining locally to save Post Offices in her constituency. So - when given a second chance to vote the right way on the issue, what was she going to do?

If enough Labour MPs voted for the motion, the consultation and the process would have to be halted. But Celia said she didn't think she would go through the lobbies with the Tories. I know it's not easy to defy the whip - but in this case - where you are saying something locally, you really should have the gumption to back it up with a vote in Parliament.

Some Labour MPs did - but if only another 10 or so Labour MPs had switched - we could have won the vote. Desperately close. And what makes me angry is that this is yet another case of Labour politicians saying one thing ("we care about saving Post Offices") but then doing another (as is also the case locally - where far from helping Salisbury Road Post Office, Labour-run Haringey Council has hit it with a huge financial bill).

In the evening I played host to our Kurdish community at Parliament for the celebration of Newroz.

There is a large and now very active Kurdish community who face terrible discrimination in Turkey and other places.

Labels: post offices

Morning protest outside Highgate Post Office with Victoria Wood, Stanley Baxter and over 100 local and very angry residents. Organised by the Highgate Society, it was a truly magnificent turn out - and since then have seen Victoria doing a storming job on various TV stations fighting for what everyone wants - a local Post Office that is open to serve local people.

In the evening - rushed back from Parliament for huge public meetings on the Alexandra Park Road Post Office - where two officers of the Royal Mail had come to explain and answer. What an unenviable job - defending the indefensible.

The well over two hundred local attendees made it plain in no uncertain terms what they thought of the proposal to close the office and why it would cause such hardship in their own lives.

Earlier in the week, the threatened offices of Ferme Park Road and Weston Park local residents marched and then marched to the suggested alternative in Crouch End and queued outside - to demonstrate the ludicrously long queues that we will all have to suffer if the closures go ahead. And of course - I held my surgery in Salisbury Road Post Office (also on the list) with a huge turnout of local people that I wrote up at the time.

The Government should be ashamed of itself for presiding over the axing of so many Post Offices. They find endless money for Northern Rock and Iraq, and yet saving our local Post Offices is peanuts - and more to the point they could be made viable if they were allowed to sell the full range of products that is available to main Post Offices. So - if this isn't a matter of taking a metaphor too far - it's not only peanuts, it's temporary peanuts - if there is the real will there to help our much loved and vital network of Post Offices survive.

Labels: post offices

Well - there's a very clear message from the three post-Budget opinion polls! Good to see the Liberal Democrats holding our own - but there's clearly been a big move from Labour to the Conservatives. At least for the moment - and I say that because there have been some pretty huge swings back and forth in recent times (remember last Autumn?).

I must admit I find it difficult to believe Darling's Budget is the cause of all this - yes, it was full of missed opportunities and timid half-measures, but above all it was soooooo boring. Boring equals bad in my book when there are huge challenges out there which need to be met, but boring doesn't normally equal huge swings in public opinion.

So - I wonder if the real story here is the turmoil in the financial markets? A quick look at the figures for how many people of working age are contributing to a private pension, or have a partner contributing to one, puts the total at 17.9 million people (in 2004, see figure 1.8). That's out of a working age population of 34 million - in other words, it's more than half of us.

Now - not everyone contributing to a private pension will have been hit by the big falls in the stockmarket, but there seems to me to be a huge political problem for Labour here. If you know you are heavily dependent on the health of the financial markets for your income in retirement (and with the relative falling away of the basic state pension, more and more people feel they are) then big falls in the stockmarket are very bad news - especially the older you are.

And here's the FTSE100 share index story: it closed today at the levels it was in back in January 1998 - and that's without allowing for inflation. There have been ups and downs in the meantime, but the bottom line is - for many people their pension situations are now looking far worse than they did only recently. And with that fear and reality of having your pension savaged - an outcome you have to live with all through your retirement - comes a big political price it would seem.

A young woman constituent came to my advice surgery this week - fighting to save her friend Guy Njike from being sent back to Cameroon.

Legions of asylum seekers fail to get permission to stay and have to return - but Guy's story - and the ultimate decision by the Home Office to refuse his application and his appeal is unfair. It is unfair - because he didn't have the right documentation or information at his hearing - and he didn't have the information because he didn't know he needed it - and he didn't know he needed it because he was passed through a chain of different caseworkers and none of them really took it on and presented his case rigorously.

It was a series of unfortunate events - the most unfortunate of which is that the system ultimately doesn't even let the applicant challenge wrong statements only points of process of law. As a result - Guy's life will be in danger.

There is a very good piece on the New Statesman website about this decent, talented individual, who has been treated appallingly by our faltering and inadequate Home Office and if returned to Cameroon will be in great danger as a former opposition political activist.

Now Guy himself 'belongs' to my neighbouring MP Jeremy Corbyn, who is fighting his case as you would expect Jeremy to do. But I am happy to join in this campaign on behalf of my constituent, Sara Hall, who came to see me with her friend Kirrily. More strength to their campaign. It was heart-warming to see them fighting for human rights - and human compassion. I am writing to the Home Secretary too - to add my support to the groundswell of outrage at Guy's treatment.

Update: the campaign's website is at stopdeportationofguy.wordpress.com

Labels: guy njike

Have just finished doing The Westminster Hour for Radio 4. Caught a small part of the interview with Tony Travers (LSE expert on London government etc) on the London Mayor elections - and liked this bit!

Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat who was a senior police officer in the Metropolitan Police, has actually fought an excellent campaign, probably the best of the three of the leading candidates.

Hear, hear! You can back Brian on Facebook or sign up for news from his campaign on the website.

Labels: brian paddick, the westminster hour, tony travers

Brought to my attention is the plight of refugee women and illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence but who are trapped in abusive situations because benefits rules prevent them running away - a classic and tragic case of bureaucratic rules gone wrong.

The situation is that these women who are vulnerable but whose immigration status does not 'allow' them the access that settled status does. They can't get access to emergency refuges or welfare and so are left with having no choice really other than to suffer abuse - or become totally destitute on the streets.

Amnesty International and Southall Black Sisters have just issued a report which says - and I agree - that the Government should make exceptions to the rules for these women so that they can be properly helped. It's a difficult climate - and we all want proper rules properly and fairly applied on asylum and immigration - but for goodness sakes we cannot stand by as a civilised country and simply let women be beaten up and abused.

The spotlight this report shines on the desperate situation of abused women trapped in immigration limbo with literally nowhere to turn is welcome. With no real or secure support from the Government, these women face a bleak choice between destitution or continued dependence on their abuser.

They have already suffered at the hands of their abusers - they shouldn't have to suffer at the hands of the state too. It's just not acceptable.

Well - what a slap in the face for everyone who is campaigning to save Salisbury Road Post Office.

Labour-run Haringey Council has decided to double its rent - and backdate that for three years. You'd almost think they were deliberately trying to drive it out of business - and it certainly makes a nonsense of their claims to be wanting to support local campaigners against Post Office closures!

Labels: post offices