SE23.com
The community website for Forest Hill and Honor Oak, London SE23
Events | Features | Forum | Local Books | Contact
 

Forum Archive
Conservative Mayoral Campaign Launch

Author Message
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 12:16 pm:   

Today is the formal launch of the 2006 Conservative Campaign for Mayor of Lewisham.

The Conservatives came second in the Mayoral election in 2002 and I am confident that we can improve our position this time and bring about a positive change, a real step forward for Lewisham.

As you will be able to see from my sites, I was born and brought up in Lewisham and I care deeply about making Lewisham a great place to live, work and learn. We have so much going for us here, a diverse and vibrant population, excellent transport links, great parks and open spaces and a number of traditional shopping areas.

Yet there are some things which could and should be improved. Crime rates are still too high, too few parents get their first choice of school, leisure provision is not good enough and recycling levels are far too low.

Despite these few negative points there are far more things that make Lewisham great than bring it down. What we need to do is fix the few things that let the borough down and turn Lewisham into the best borough in London. It can be done and this should be the aspiration of the Mayor of Lewisham, anything less is selling Lewisham short.

I want this improvement to be community led, the people of Lewisham working hand in hand with the Mayor and councillors to make everyone’s lives better.

Many of you reading this will not have voted Conservative in the past but please remember Labour have had decades to improve Lewisham and have failed to do so, I and the Conservatives have the best chance of beating Tony Blair’s local representatives and changing the way Lewisham is governed.

If you want true community driven local government, if you want efficient administration with less waste, if you want a fresh approach to the relationship between the council and the people of Lewisham and if you genuinely want to see a step forward for Lewisham vote for me on the 4th of May.

Thank you,

James Cleverly
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Produced an promoted by James Cleverly on behalf of Lewisham Conservatives both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Andy
Joined 23-02-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 02:57 pm:   

Is se23.com a forum for blatant political posturing?
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 03:05 pm:   

We had the Liberal Bulletin a few days ago. Surely all parties should be treated as equal.
Webmaster
Joined 01-01-2003
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 03:13 pm:   

Such announcements are welcome on the forum, as they offer an opportunity for debate on matters of local interest.
Andy
Joined 23-02-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 03:14 pm:   

Indeed, but some are more equal than others.
Domc
Joined 17-03-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 03:56 pm:   

Some also joined the forum before today. Other political members I can find:

Councillor Whiting 07/12/03
Philip Peake 19/03/05
Chris Maines - just posted through Philip

Anyone find any others?
Andy
Joined 23-02-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 04:17 pm:   

Quite, but Councillor Whiting etc tend to report on what is happening regarding local issues rather than electioneering. It is probably not much of an issue anyway as I have as much chance of examining the contents of the Queen's handbag as we do of having a Conservative mayor.
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 04:44 pm:   

Andy,

Is you objection to my post based on the fact that I made it or that I am a Conservative? I notice that you made no objection to the Lib Dems announcing their Candidate on this forum.

With regard to “blatant political posturing” I think it is preferable to disguised political posturing, at least you can see it coming. The title of the post made it clear that if was about the Conservatives and that it was about the election in May. Anyone who did not (does not) want to read about either can easily avoid the post.

I have to disagree with your assessment of our chances. We came second last time and all the indications, both local and national, show that we are in a better position now than we were then.

Domc,

I only joined this forum today because I only came across it recently. I posted here because I am open to debate and criticism and want to find out what people actually want. That is the reason that I have run a blog for the last few years.



Regards


James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Produced an promoted by James Cleverly on behalf of Lewisham Conservatives both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Les
Joined 28-01-2004
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 04:44 pm:   

James,

I agree with you totally, but why not lib-dem then? Can you give some examples of conservative policies that have made a positive contribution to life in Forest Hill?

Thanks,
Les.
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 04:56 pm:   

Les,

Unfortunately we haven’t been in a position either locally or nationally to implement policies in Forest Hill.

As you will see over the next few days (as I announce policies) I have plans to help boost local shops, improve waste management and recycling, tackle youth antisocial behaviour at source and ensure that the local communities have a say in how the borough is governed.

Why not Lib Dem, I don’t want to go into this, I am keen to run a positive campaign rather than “do over” the opposition. That said I do think that you need more that a few months of living in the borough to be a credible local government leader here.


James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Produced an promoted by James Cleverly on behalf of Lewisham Conservatives both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Nate
Joined 14-01-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 06:24 pm:   

I think its good and healthy to have some local political debate on here. The turn out for local elections is always ridiculously low, perhaps a few people will be inspired to look at the credentals of the candidates and head down to the polling booth.
Ophelia
Joined 18-03-2005
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 08:34 pm:   

To be fair to James, he has posted on the Sydenham site too. And he's a long time resident of Lewisham as opposed to someone who seems to be trying to move seamlessly from being a councilllor in one borough to being a mayor in another.
Les
Joined 28-01-2004
Posted on Monday, 03 April, 2006 - 09:04 pm:   

OK James - what would you have done differently about the current situation with Forest Hill pools? (i.e. years of under maintenance followed by closure after a nasty 'surprise' of rotten roof beams)

Looking at conservative govs track record, I thought that cost-cutting in the local authorities was a key feature of the Thatcher 'no such thing as society' 1980's...

Seriously though - this issue needs sorting - what would you do?

Les.
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 09:21 am:   

Les,

There is spending money and there is wasting money.

Maintaining the fabric of the borough's facilities is spending money. Waiting until the buildings are falling down and then spending huge amounts bringing them back up to acceptable standards is wasting money.

I feel that leisure provision is important, it adds to people's health, provides youth activity, a community focal point etc. etc. These all save money in the long run. With the threat of closure hanging over Ladywell, with Downham still closed and with Wavelengths undersize I would have ensured that one of our few remaining pools was kept in good working order.

Yes I would be careful with council spending but that does not mean abandoning core facilities like the pools. You can have good local governance without spending the earth, Conservative controlled Wandsworth is graded as “Excellent” and has council tax nearly half that of Lewisham.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Roz
Joined 17-03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 01:36 pm:   

James, the last Conservative government presided over significant cuts in spending on essential infrastructure such as the Underground, and the fabric of our schools, hospitals and railways. This Labour Government has made many mistakes, but overall has made many inroads into investment in these areas. It did not set out with intent to destroy public services but had to make the most of a very poor state of affairs.
It will take years to restore the damage of the Thatcher years. Since when did the Tories have the public realm at its heart?
Please do not insult those of us old enough to remember what it was really like from that fateful day in 1979 when the rot set in.

And when I lived in Wandsworth in the 1990s, I recall stinking rubbish piling up everywhere as
Roz
Joined 17-03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 01:40 pm:   

I've started so I'll finish! In 1989-90 Wandsworth was knee deep in uncollected rubbish - please don't pretend Tory boroughs are any better at managing their finances than those of any other political persuasion.
Les
Joined 28-01-2004
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 01:45 pm:   

James, I agree with you that provision of public facilities is very important. Perhaps you could make some specific commitments about the future of FH pools, if you were to win the election?
Ophelia
Joined 18-03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 02:03 pm:   

Well said Roz!
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 02:17 pm:   

Quite honestly I think Elected Mayor of Lewisham is a waste of money but I will continue my proud record of voting in every election since 1970.
Go on everyone exercise your franchise. You know it makes sense
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 05:52 pm:   

Roz,

You seem to have a rather selective memory, the few years leading up to 1979 were no bed of roses either.

I don’t know what Wandsworth was like in 1979 but it is worth bearing in mind the Conservative only took overall control in 1978 so the piles of rubbish may well have been a legacy of the previous administration. But now (18 years later) under the Conservatives it is the best council in London and has the lowest council tax.

The current government is spending money like it is going out of fashion yet we still have wards being closed and hospital staff being made redundant, crime figures soaring, prisons overflowing, etc. etc. etc.

Looking backwards and blaming everything on Margret Thatcher does not solve the problems of today. The current government has had 8 years, a huge majority and a benign economic environment to sort things out, if things are still wrong it is a little bit blinkered to still be blaming the Conservative government of a decade ago.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 05:56 pm:   

Lez,

I would refurbish the pools and reopen them at the earliest opportunity, I would also halt the closure of Ladywell pool in the mean time.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, 04 April, 2006 - 05:59 pm:   

Brian,

You make a good point and a lot of people agree with you, which is why I will hold a referendum giving people the choice of keeping the current system or abolishing the post of executive Mayor and go back to the committee system.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Andy
Joined 23-02-2005
Posted on Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 - 08:46 am:   

It is possibly misleading to compare Wandsworth and Lewisham. The demographics are very different.
Cllrdavidwhiting
Joined 07-12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, 05 April, 2006 - 11:38 pm:   

I would like to comment on a few points which have been raised in this thread.

Before doing so, however, a word of appreciation to our webmaster for hosting it. A forum for serious debate on the political issues will, I am sure, be widely welcomed in Forest Hill. Moreover, though James and I hold different views on the best way forward for Lewisham (and indeed the country), I respect his commitment to serious discussion of real issues.

Wandsworth
Wandsworth always comes up in these discussions on the basis of its combination of good services and low council tax. Wandsworth is a very special case. It benefited from much special support during the Thatcher years (it wasn't Mrs Thatcher's style to have Tory authorities under financial pressure on her own doorstep - was Wandsworth 'one of us'? Yes it most emphatically was!). Wandsworth also sold of much of its Council housing before restrictions were introduced (under a Conservative government) on the use of receipts from Council house sales. Wandsworth is, furthermore, responsible for an area of London which has seen even greater social change than the rest of the capital, and exceptionally strong upward movement in property prices. Therefore, whenever Wandsworth has sold off land or buildings, it has been at a good price. As a result of these three factors, Wandsworth was able to clear almost all of its debt, so eliminating most annual interest charges and capital repayments. Without these factors (plus a reasonably high level of parking income), Wandsworth's Council tax levels would be not dissimilar to Lewisham's. I would not read anything from Wandsworth's performance as an indication of how a Conservative administration would perform in Lewisham. On average across London, Conservative councils have much higher tax rates than Wandsworth, and, I'm told, higher rates on average than London Labour authorities. If all Conservative authorities were wonderful, Wandsworth wouldn't be mentioned quite so much or so exclusively.

Cuts under the last Conservative government
In 1979, investment in fixed public capital formation (hospitals, schools and roads to you and me) was over 8% of Gross Domestic Product. By 1997, it had fallen to less than 1% of GDP. The result was a legacy of poor school and hospital buildings, neglected roads and transport systems, and run down council housing. It really is not good enough for James to say that this is ancient history. The total shortfall of investment probably amounts to more than a full year's national output, and will still take years to put right. Further, the bizarre restrictions on local authority spending under the Conservative governments meant that local authorities were not even able to take the sensible long term approach to managing their assets. Everyone knows that the earlier a repair is done the cheaper it will be. Very stringent capital controls prevented local authorities pursuing sensible maintenance strategies. It is Labour Governments who have introduced prudential borrowing regimes and given local authorities more freedom to undertake sensible capital programmes.

I think that is enough posting for now. I will deal with some other issues later.
Loneranger
Joined 29-10-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 10:08 am:   

Not being party aligned may I interject.

The last time I checked Lewisham Council raised £68M through council tax but paid £65M in interest and repayments on a debt of £485M. I'm unclear how the council can claim it spends any money other than that supplied by national government.

The following is the 2006/7 Band D council tax for Lewisham and neighbouring boroughs.
£1129.95 Lambeth
£1132.75 Southwark
£1222.45 Greenwich
£1256.31 Lewisham

Re spending on hospitals, schools etc isn't most of it through PFI's and isn't that borrowed money that in the long term has to be repaid?

Will the £200M to be spent on schools in Lewisham be seen in the accounts as an additional debt?

According to the Audit Commission 'affordable' hosuing has become less affordable in the past few years and possibly explains the 25% shared ownership deals recently announced. The Audit Commission also state new homes being built are at their lowest levels since world war 2.

Lewisham's waiting list has risen from 15,000 to over 17,000 in the past few years and the number of people homeless/temporary accomodation has also increased.

In Lewisham new social housing is being built but existing social housing has been demolished or sold off, so its not clear if there has actually been an increase in social housing provision.

One of the things that dissapoints me about Lewisham are the constant delays with no clear explaination and no one willing to take responsibility.

Ok, waffle over.
Simon
Joined 18-07-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 11:47 am:   

James,

What was/is your stance on the Iraq War? I know not strictly SE23 but it is a bit of a point of principle.

Thanks.
Hilltopgeneral
Joined 24-03-2004
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 12:22 pm:   

The thing that most depresses me about Lewisham is the total poverty of imagination, lack of vision and failure of leadership. What are they actually DOING for the borough and more specifically for our area? Seem to remember a load of waffle a few years ago about some sort of strategy for Forest Hill but am less than surprised to see that nothing has been done.
.
Forest Hill town centre, with the exisitng asset of Havelock Walk, must be ripe for the same sort of imaginative regeneration as Bellenden Road. I understand that Nunhead may be next up for similar treatment, which is aimed at private sector areas rather than concentrations of public housing, apparently.
.
But we're a bit of a middle class area and are obviously expected to look after ourselves, while (our) resources are diverted elsewhere.
.
Let's forget the fact that it's planning designations that keep derelict premises under retail use when we have about twice as many shop units as we need.
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 12:54 pm:   

Hill Top
Perhaps you and I should form the
FHIP , Oh but I expect Mr Cameron would call us fruit cakes ( actually my favourite cake )and many other things beside.
These boroughs are far too big . I think Lewisham has about 290,000 plus . What connection have we to Deptford and god forbid that awfull Millwall parading as a footy club.
Yes Forest Hill Independence Party. UDI is called for.
Dotcom
Joined 21-04-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 01:44 pm:   

What's your point about Millwall Brian?

Keep eating the cake.
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 01:53 pm:   

My point is that it is not my team and I was very anoyed a few years ago when our esteemed council sponsored them . Thankfully that has stopped.
Maybe people in the North or even central part of the boro support Millwall , but surely people in more refined Forest Hill and Upper Sydenham give their dignified allegiance to Palace. A more Royal Club.
Max
Joined 25-10-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 02:17 pm:   

The Council might well have stopped sponsoring Millwall, but didn't stop the grant that it pays towards New Local Government Network, the "independent" think thank that has on its board our current outgoing Mayor and our Chief Executive and has as a major corporate sponsor the consultancy firm Capita, whose head recently resigned over a £1 million "loan" to the Labour Party.
Does anybody knows the amount that Lewisham Council pays to NLGN?
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 03:18 pm:   

Max
No I did not. I suggest this is raised at the highest level.
Also one wonders why they were ever permitted to sponsor Millwall.
Councillorsusanwise
Joined 20-03-2005
Posted on Thursday, 06 April, 2006 - 10:58 pm:   

A few things-I am a lifelong Arsenal supporter who has now lived here longer than I did in North London, mainly because I love the area, but I see nothing wrong with Lewisham supporting Millwall, and, no, I am not related to Dennis Wise. As to Bellenden Road, I much prefer what we in Lewisham are doing in Honor Oak Park, which is similar to what Southwark is following in Northcross Street i.e. returning unused shops, and the empty flats above, into much needed accommodation at affordable rents. As to Loneranger's comments re the demolition and selling off of social housing; the demolition is happening in tandem with new build in the same area with residents being decanted during the process, and returning to new modern properties which are replacing the old and unsuitable ones rightly demolished.As an authority,we have inherited the Right to Buy option from the Conservatives, however the maximum discount was greatly reduced from £38K to £16K two years ago by a Labour Government, so numbers of RTB sales are falling. It may be of interest to Loneranger, who, despite being "non-party aligned" and a fountain of local authority information-how does he/she obtain it?-that Lewisham had a much higher number of social housing built, and started, in the last 12 months compared to Lambeth and Southwark. The latter, coincidentally, had a really high number of private dwellings started and built compared to Lewisham.
Hilltopgeneral
Joined 24-03-2004
Posted on Friday, 07 April, 2006 - 09:59 am:   

Well, QED. I quite agree that surplus retail property should be converted to affordable residential use, but there are two important points to consider:
.
1) With a bit of regeneration it is just possible that they need no longer be surplus. To some extent conversion can be the easy option and an admission of defeat.
.
2) Planning has been very weak in the case of Honor Oak Park. The design of the "house" fronts to replace the shopfronts is very poor and has had no decent architectural input at all. It looks quite awful - slummy and rinky dink.
.
I fully support empty property being brought back into use but it can't just be at any cost.
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Friday, 07 April, 2006 - 10:55 am:   

Hilltopgeneral.

The phrase that you use “poverty of imagination” hits the nail on the head, I might even pinch it.

Whenever there is a problem or an issue in Lewisham (or nationally for that matter) all you hear is more regulation and greater investment. Throwing money at every problem is a lazy and inefficient way of governing, it looks good and makes it sound as if you are doing something but ultimately it is doomed in the long term.

If the timing chain in an engine is worn, putting more petrol in the tank won’t fix it.

I applaud the financial investment into Lewisham, particularly in the education sector, but it needs to be matched with an investment of thought and imagination. We almost never hear ideas that would actually change things for the better, any new ways of looking at social exclusion, local shops in decline, teenage inactivity, crime etc.

I don’t think that the Mayoral candidates should be talking about doing the same but better, I want to radically change the way that the council does things and I will be announcing my plans for local champions later today. These will bring the various parts of the borough and the council itself much closer together.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Friday, 07 April, 2006 - 10:56 am:   

Loanranger

Lewisham needs to sort its finances out, Cllr Dave Whiting ran through what Wandsworth did to get itself back on track financially and the results are clear to see, council tax half that of Lewisham and better local services. The increase in property prices has been brought about because Wandsworth council has made the area a desirable place to live, this inward investment has freed them financially. Even with this Labour government’s blatant favouritism, penalising Conservative councils and spending the money in Labour heartlands, Conservative councils cost £81 per year per band D property less than Labour and £88 less than the Lib Dems. Yes Wandsworth is a beacon of good government but Conservative councils dominate the top of the local government performance tables.

Too many of Lewisham council’s activities are limited by political blinkers. We need more homes in Lewisham and we need to make sure that the people who need them can afford the rent or the mortgage. Yet it is incredibly difficult for private landlords to take in social tenants.

London is never going to be a cheap place to live so we need to generate enough wealth at every level of society for people to be able to afford to live here. Labour councils hate the right to buy because it scuppers Herbert Morrison’s plan to “Build the Tories out of London”, they love high-density, low cost, council owned housing because they see it as a way to flood an area with Labour voters. Any wonder that there are no plans to develop the economies in the Labour heartlands of the North West and North East? No, Prescott would rather fill in all the green spaces in Conservative Kent with high-rise flats.

Taking away the right to buy limits social mobility, keeps people dependent on the state and in the pocket of the Labour party. Giving them financial freedom and a chance to share in the proceeds of property inflation, rather than being left behind by it, is the morally courageous thing to do.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Friday, 07 April, 2006 - 10:56 am:   

Simon,

The war in Iraq is a tough one. I have to declare an interest, as an officer in the TA there was always a real chance that I would be called up if a conflict arose. I also have a number of friends (including two of my children’s godfathers) who are in the Army and whose lives might be put at risk in the event of a war. This made my decision a personal one as well as a strategic/moral one. Indeed all three of us were called up, they went to Iraq, I ended up in Luton (long story for another time).

When the Prime Minister stands up in the House of Commons and says that he has clear and compelling evidence that Iraq presents a real and immediate threat to the UK and Her interests you are in a difficult position. As sceptical as I am about Blair there are some issue so big that you have to put party political issues to one side and support the head of Government, going to war is one of those issues

So would I have voted for the war? Yes, but I would have pushed for a much stronger post conflict regeneration and exit plan. But knowing what I know now about the lack of WMD, the distorted dossiers, misrepresented intelligence reports, etc. etc. etc. No I would not.

We now need to look for an exit strategy. That means looking for someone to hand over to, either Iraqis themselves or the Iraqis supported by the UN perhaps. While I feel that our troops are doing a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances we are too easily painted as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Our troops are also at breaking point and we desperately need to downscale our military commitments.

Sorry for the long answer but I feel that this is a very important issue.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Loneranger
Joined 29-10-2005
Posted on Saturday, 08 April, 2006 - 12:10 pm:   

Susan Wise:
Council Tax, debt, PFI's, funding, meeting decent housing targets with only 1 star will be issues that will face whoever is elected in May from whatever party.

Lewisham has a directly elected Mayor and it worries me the way I have seen it operate over the past 4 years. I am concerned that stubbornness has been the basis for some of the Mayor's decisions.

As to where I obtain my information as 'Punch' recently said "That's for me to know and for you to try and find out." ;-)

Having read over a 100 years of council minutes could be a clue.
Ophelia
Joined 18-03-2005
Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 03:26 pm:   

It's a tough call as to the excitment of it all isn't it? There's clearly not enough entertainment in SE23. William Hague used to read Hansard as a kid and Loneranger's read over a 100 years of council minutes! Maybe he/she has a future as leader of the Conservatives?
Simon
Joined 18-07-2005
Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 04:07 pm:   

James,
Thanks for your answer. Unfortunately, the stock 'if we knew then what we know now' argument just won't wash. It was clear before the attempt at a second resolution that the intelligence was flimsy to say the least. Had Hans Blix been given more time, he doubtless would have concluded that there were no WMD, much to the chagrin of our friends in Washington. I think the lack of opposition from the Conservatives at the time makes them as culpable as the government. Presenting a united front in a time of war is all very well when there are clear humanitarian or national interest issues at stake, but to do so when the only reasons to go to war are entirely political is surely a dereliction of the duty of the "Official Opposition". I know the military have a difficult job to do but lets not lose sight of why those 100 or so soldiers have lost their lives.
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 05:25 pm:   

Simon,

All decisions to go to war are political. There are plenty of humanitarian catastrophes that we, as a nation, have chosen to ignore and with or geographic position we are unlikely to have to defend our physical borders any time soon.

To a large degree you are right, hindsight is a wonderful thing but as I said I am not a natural hawk, I have too many friends who might lose their lives to support a war on a whim. But being in opposition put IDS and the Conservatives in a very difficult position. If we had opposed the action (having called for Sadam to be removed for a decade) we would have justifiably been accused of playing politics with the issue.

We were all aware that the intelligence was thin, trust me it always is. Compilers of intelligence reports always cover their own backsides with caveats, limitation statements and disclaimers. It is the job of the decision makers to decide what to use and what to ignore, this is why it is particularly distasteful for Tony Blair to claim that the intelligence reports compelled him to got to war.

As for the timing of the conflict and Hans Blix demands for more time, military planners were caught between a rck and a hard place. Fighting in the desert over the summer is not an option, therefore giving six weeks to win the land war before the beginning of June (when it starts getting very hot) gives you a date of mid March. Any delay, even a few weeks, would have given Sadam and extra 5-6 months, which could have been enough for him to complete a weapons program, if he was working on one. The Iraqi regime was obstructive and evasive towards the inspectors making many people ask “If they have nothing to hide why are they trying so hard to hide it?”

The “lets wait and see” argument always looks compelling after the event but that is what the international community said about Rwanda and Bosnia.

I completely understand that you feel that the war was unnecessary and unjust, I don’t fully agree but I do understand. I completely reject your claim that the Conservatives are as culpable as Blair. We didn’t hide our reasons for going to war, we didn’t send our troops in under equipped, we didn’t blame MI6 for our own mistakes and we didn’t tamper with the intelligence reports, these were all done by Tony Blair’s little cabal.

I don’t imagine that we will ever agree over this issue but the easy option would have been for the Conservatives to oppose the war and try to embarrass the government, we chose the harder option. It would have made no difference anyway as there is no requirement for the government to seek parliamentary permission to go to war, if you want that you will have to vote Conservative to get it.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Councillorsusanwise
Joined 20-03-2005
Posted on Monday, 10 April, 2006 - 08:32 pm:   

1-I don't agree with Hilltopgeneral's description of the empty homes brought back into use at Honor Oak Park Road as awful and slummy. I believe Lewisham's planning department did a good job here with shops that have had many chances with successive retailers over many years.Yet those retailers have all failed because they either did not sell what local shoppers wanted to buy, or because local shoppers chose not to shop there. Homes that give much needed accommodation to Lewisham residents are much more preferable than abandoned and empty shops. And what does "rinky dink" mean?
2-I also don't agree with Loneranger's negative comments re Lewisham and the elected mayoral system. I believe that it has proved a great success in this borough. As to confessing to reading 100 years of council minutes, I can see that you are obviously older than you look.
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 07:55 am:   

I think the directly elected mayor is a waste of money. Only my humble opinion.
I am not sure that I have noticed the houses on HOR refered to but I think people living on top of the hill have high standards.
Why oh why are we back to the Iraq conflict and anti Americanism again on this local web site.
These anti americans have a short memory or more likely lack of history knowledge.
Let us get back to local issues please
Simon
Joined 18-07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 09:23 am:   

Brian,

I'm not anti-American but I am against the attitude of the current administration and the lapdog attitude of Blair. There is a difference as I suspect you well know. I'd suggest I know my history a lot better than some in the US who criticize the French, without who's help they would not have won the War of Independence.

The Iraq war is a touchstone issue for a lot of people and will shape the way I vote in May and as such I think this is an entirely appropriate forum. In fact, although I don't agree with James I applaud the fact that he's willing to put the time and effort to answer my questions.
Ophelia
Joined 18-03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 09:36 am:   

I don't think Lewisham Council can vote on going to war. How about voting on local issues Simon?
Hilltopgeneral
Joined 24-03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 10:11 am:   

1. Ms Wise, you betray your tenuous grasp on the matter from the outset. There is no such place as Honor Oak Park Road.
.
If your enthusiasm for the laudable end of the conversion blinds you to the aesthetic disaster of the means, then perhaps that goes a long way to explaining Lewisham's very poor record of stewardship of the local built environment. By rinky-dink I mean amateurish, shabby, poor quality. My personal view is that people are entitled not just to a roof over of their heads but to genuinely decent housing, not being lodged in redundant commercial units converted so meanly and cheaply; at the absolute minimum cost and with even less flair and imagination. The cheapness is almost an insult, both to the residents and to those of us whose area you would spoil.
.
People live in converted shops all over London but this is the first place I have seen the streetscape so despoiled in the process. It would appear that seeing as Lewisham deem this A Good Thing, then more of the same is all we can probably hope for Forest Hill town centre?
.
PS - your English seems little better than your aesthetic judgement or concern for the area - "much more preferable"?
.
You might care to reflect on the days when Pimlico and Notting Hill were slums; there is a parallel with your thinking on the provision of accommodation versus the aesthetic consequences.
.
Perhaps we can look forward to you pursuing your thinking with renewed vigour and imagination and seeing how many families we could squeeze into the old McDonalds? You already have the partition round the kiddies area; perhaps that would make a good studio flat for a young mum? Surely it's time to colonise the upper tier of seating in the Capitol? Just throw up a bit of plasterboard to separate it from the pub...
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 10:55 am:   

I must go and observe first hand.
I think you may be a trifle unfair to Susan
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 11:10 am:   

Simon
I like I am sure the rest of the educated contributers is aware of the events of the late
1770's.
May I say typical French being opportunist.It is highly likely that independence would have been secured if not then in the next 20 or so years.
Ever since then the help has been one way the gratitude seems to be very lacking.
Anyway we can have our own private history and geo political discussions another time. Let us keep local.
Simon
Joined 18-07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 11:12 am:   

Ophelia,

If I'm going to vote for someone to represent me, I want to know where they stand on all sorts of issues. Just because the mayor can't have any influence on an area of policy, it doesn't mean that knowing his or her views isn't instructive.
Hilltopgeneral
Joined 24-03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 11:46 am:   

If it's totally outside their remit, what does it matter?
It's of little more relevance than their views on abortion, their taste in music or the colour of their socks.
Enough already with I-raq! Too late now, water under the bridge, etc. All that can now be done is to make the best of a bad job, but this has NOTHING to do with local government and NOTHING to do with Forest Hill. Take it up with Dowd, for God's sake man.
Simon
Joined 18-07-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 12:15 pm:   

Hilltop: Just trying to respond to some other posters comments, in particular the accusation of anti-americanism. All I really wanted was a response from James on the issue so I can make an informed choice. Most of the other issues I'm interested in have been covered here and elsewhere.

Brian: Do I detect some anit-French sentiment there. What good for the goose....

Let that be an end to this madness!
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 11 April, 2006 - 12:26 pm:   

Yes I agree Simon
There is no way any councillor at the local level
has the slighest input to foreign matters.
I agree one should vote on local issues only and the credability of each candidate
Loneranger
Joined 29-10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 01:14 pm:   

Ophelia:
With the closure of Forest Hill Pools the excitement of swimming under a roof that may collapse at any moment has been removed. This means I've had to take up alternative Xtreme activities.
Loneranger
Joined 29-10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, 12 April, 2006 - 09:14 pm:   

Susan:
Your opinion of the success of the Mayoral system over the past 4 years may be coloured by you having been chosen by the Mayor to be a member of his Cabinet?

The Mayor was elected in 2002 with a mandate that Downham pool "will open in 2004". To do so building needed to begin in 2002 but the Mayor did not choose a preferred bidder till June 2003.
(Cabinet minutes 2004).

I believed the Mayor when in February 2004 he described the new school at the Playtower Site. Evidence to the Education Scrutiny Committee shows the open market sale of the police station at Ladywell was known to the council in December 2003. Therefore to me the mayor's expression of surprise and anger in March 2004 now looks like a diversion.
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Thursday, 13 April, 2006 - 12:18 pm:   

I feel sorry for Tories and Lib Dems as we live in a one party borough. Absolute power corrupts.
If all people in receipt of benifit were barred from voting probably a more interesting outcome.
Councillorsusanwise
Joined 20-03-2005
Posted on Friday, 14 April, 2006 - 06:09 pm:   

1-Hilltopgeneral, perhaps your unwarranted personal attack on me is because my previous posting disagreed with your views. And you also have the advantage over me here in that you can do it under cover of a pseudonym. And now,perhaps to further disappoint, or inflame, you, the addition of "Road" at the end of "Honor Oak Park" was a genuine error. However, it is good to see that we agree on at least one issue-that people are entitled to decent housing-which is what Lewisham Council will provide as social housing via the tenant led investment vehicle options that they chose.And, please remember that the Deputy Prime Minister has offered no fourth option to local authorities in order for them to achieve this.
2-Loneranger, I voted for an elected mayoral sytem in Lewisham in the Borough's referendum on the issue because I believed, and still do, that this system is the way forward for local government and it has proved to be so. That I was chosen to be a member of the mayor's cabinet has been both an honour and a privilege for me, and has given me the opportunity to serve the residents of Lewisham at the highest level.
Loneranger
Joined 29-10-2005
Posted on Monday, 17 April, 2006 - 02:59 am:   

Susan:
Clearly you do not see what has happened over the past 4 years. I am on the outside but it seems as though a number of senior officers have aligned themselves to the current mayor. They appear to have forgotten their responsibilities to the council as a whole. When a new mayor is elected some of those senior officers may have to consider their position within the council.
--------
Meanwhile I found the following in a recent report by The Young Foundation which partly looked at the changing roles of councillors and questioned Lewisham councillors:-

Councillors’ perspectives: the problems they identified
• Disempowered, demotivated
• Loss of old system
• Powerless
• Lack of respect
• Little understanding of roles
• Alienated from LSP (and Mayor)
• Area forums not responsive
• Services do not meet local needs
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Monday, 17 April, 2006 - 12:54 pm:   

UDI for SE 23 only option . Town Hall a waste of money.
Ophelia
Joined 18-03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, 19 April, 2006 - 02:06 pm:   

Is it true that both the conservative and lib dem mayoral candidates are standing as councillors elsewhere in the borough too? Shows a certain lack of confidence don't you think?
Max
Joined 25-10-2005
Posted on Wednesday, 19 April, 2006 - 02:34 pm:   

It could even show that Steve Bullock doesn't consider a seat at Council worth his effort.
It also seems that the rest of the New Labour Party is not interested in running for Council either.
Looking at the electoral literature of Lewisham's New Labour one can find only one candidate, that's Steve Bullock running for Mayor.
All other people mentioned are only "action team" members.
Brian
Joined 18-04-2005
Posted on Wednesday, 19 April, 2006 - 06:34 pm:   

Ophelia
All it goes to show is we live in a one party state as far as Lewisham is concerned.
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Thursday, 20 April, 2006 - 10:55 am:   

Brian,

At local level Labour has had things their own way for a very long time but please remember that two out of Lewisham’s three parliamentary seats were Conservative until 1992.

The big (only?) advantage of the Mayoral system is that people tend to vote for the person and can produce results against the prevailing political wind.

Of the 12 directly elected local mayors around the country, half are not Labour, despite the system being most popular in strong Labour councils.

The most recent result was a win for a Conservative Mayor in the Lib Dem heartland of Torbay. Because voter turnout in local elections is low big changes can happen.

The Conservatives came second here 2002 at the height of the IDS infighting. Our polling shows that we are in a much stronger position now and that the Labour vote is falling.

You have the chance to bring about a significant change both for Forest Hill and Lewisham as a whole. If you want change, vote for me on the 4th of May. You might be pleasantly surprised.

James
Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Roz
Joined 17-03-2005
Posted on Saturday, 29 April, 2006 - 01:06 pm:   

Have to say James, I will never in my life vote Conservative, but your website is rather good and your articles make interesting reading , and you have responded carefully and thoughtfully to the questions posed on this site. It would have been good to have something original and creative from the other candidates instead of the bland predictable factory produced manifestos that get churned out. Its also nice to actually find out what makes someone tick. After all, we are voting to appoint someone to a £70k a year job. You get my vote for presentation and originality, if not for Mayor!
James
Joined 03-04-2006
Posted on Monday, 01 May, 2006 - 09:38 pm:   

Oh go on Roz surprise yourself.

OK if you can't bring yourself to vote for me at least tell your friends that I'm not an ogre.

James

Conservative Candidate for Mayor of Lewisham

www.jamescleverly4lewisham.com
www.jamescleverly.blogspot.com

Promoted by Brian Chipps on behalf of James Cleverly both at 244 Brownhill Road, London, SE6 1AU
Hilltopgeneral
Joined 24-03-2004
Posted on Monday, 01 May, 2006 - 10:14 pm:   

Well, I won't be voting for the incumbent anonymity... as he doesn't seem to have done anything. Well, apart from close our pool, that is. Will "Dave" be able to persuade me to get over my reservations about voting Conservative?? Unlike Roz, I'll never say "never", but it doesn't come naturally. The good thing is though that we get a second choice... and Mayor B"u"llock hasn't really endeared himself sufficiently to merit it. Hopefully recent events will have stimulated some though and we will have some real competition and democracy this time, and not "vote for the donkey, if it's wearing the red rosette".
Loneranger
Joined 29-10-2005
Posted on Tuesday, 02 May, 2006 - 03:37 am:   

While doing some research I came across the a website by Jad Adams, a resident of Forest Hill and former Lewisham Labour councillor.

The article headed 'MY LOYALTY...'on the following link may be of interest?

http://www.jadadams.co.uk/4630.html


Local forums in nearby areas: SE13.com | SE14.com | SE20.com | SE22.com | SE24.com | SE25.com | SE27.com