The Bristow Blog

Labour MP accepts a job if Boris wins

Boris Johnson, has announced that Kate Hoey, Labour MP for Vauxhall, as the first member of his administration if he wins the Mayoral election.   This is a big blow for Ken Livingstone and the Labour Party - one of their own in all tense and purposes backing Boris for Mayor.

The well respected MP has agreed to serve as a non-executive Director advising Boris on sport and the Olympics.

This is similar to Brown's announcment that he wants a Government of 'all the talents'.   Boris stated:

"Kate has a huge and well-known commitment to sport and to London, and I am determined to bring talent from across politics and the community to a new administration."

It will be hypocrisy if she is punished by the whips of the Labour Party after Gordon Brown did exactly the same thing.

Labour lies on expenses

The latest posts on the blogs operated by the Labour leader Cllr Stephen Cowan and his predecessor as Labour leader ex Cllr Stephen Burke (the person really pulling the strings of the Labour leadership in H&F) raise a few eyebrows.  Their postings always attack the current Conservative council, but I suppose that is what opposition is all about - my hopes for constructive opposition were dashed some time ago.

Their latest line is on expenses.  They attack the leader of the council, Stephen Greenhalgh, for being the "Lead council member for recruitment" and recieving a £5,000 allowance for this position and the meetings that it involves.  What they do not point out is that this position has saved the taxpayers millions of pounds by carefully ensuring the council are frugal when employing new people - this was the mirror opposite of Labour in power who dished out jobs willy nilly whether they benefited the community or not wasting taxpayers money.  Such hypocrisy!

What's more - councillor allowances in H&F are 28th out 32 London boroughs.  The Conservatives have actually managed to reduce the total amount spent on councillor allowances in 2006/07.  The amount paid to members in allowances, travel, and subsistence last year was £828,459 - compare this to £835,654 in 2005/06, Labour's last full year in charge. 

In an ironic twist, Councillors’ Allowances were controversially first introduced in 1998 in Labour-led Hammersmith & Fulham Council, which created the nine highest-paid councillors in Britain.   

So let no one tell you that this council does not put value for money at the heart of our agenda - and that means starting with councillor allowances.  Going from the most highly paid councillors in the UK under Labour to 28th out 32 in London under the Conservatives is not bad!

Still, I'm sure it will not stop Burke and Cowan attacking the council in the hope they can return to power and the days of "snouts in trough".  Touche Burke!

Cllr Lisa Homan leaving Askew to become an MEP?

Cllr Lisa Homan, the Labour opposition spokesperson on crime and anti social behaviour, and councillor for the highly marginal Askew ward is trying to become a Member of the European Parliament.  I have joined her facebook group on the subject:  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=21836660744&ref=mf

Ambitous Cllr Homan has turned her attention away from Hammersmith & Fulham and Askew ward, and towards the South East of England.  European elections are conducted through a proportional representation scheme (quite wrongly in my view) so that people do not vote for their candidate of choice, rather a political party.  Party nominees are listed 1-10 (there are ten MEPs for the South East) and depending how many votes each party get depends on how many MEPs they get.  For example if you are listed number 1, you have an excellent chance whereas someone listed number 10 might as well forget it.

Lisa is going for the number 2 spot (as it has to be woman according to Labour rules) so stands a good chance of heading to Brussels if successfully nominated by the Labour Party.   

Residents First in York Outer

As those who know me (and who have heard me speak) will confirm, I am a Yorkshireman.  I was born and spent the early part of my life in York.  I am an avid supporter of York City FC and most of my family still live in and around the city.  I owe a great deal to the city and care passionately about it's future.

That is why when I was looking up who was standing for parliament in York, I was surprised when I came across James Alexander and his Labour campaign for the York Outer seat.  http://www.time-4-change.org.uk/

James is from Shepherds Bush and ran the disasterous Labour 2006 local election campaign here in Hammersmith & Fulham.  Labour took an electoral hammering going from 28 councillors and controlling the council to just 13 and are now a very weak opposition.

He has put together a few campaign videos.  Amusingly, there are tributes from former leader of the council Stephen Burke and Ealing, Acton & Shepherds Bush MP Andrew Slaughter.  In these videos he speaks about having learnt how to beat the Conservatives from the 2006 campaign.  But what amused me the most was his number 1 priority for York Outer - Putting Residents First - sound familiar?  It was the Conservative 2006 campaign slogan and now the council's mission statement.  He certainly did learn something from the 2006 campaign!

Check out his pledge at 4.26:

">

Where is Stephen Cowan?

This is the question asked by a few people earlier this week.  Cllr Cowan, the leader of the Labour opposition, has been absent from the Town Hall and in meetings over the past few months.  There has also been mutterings amongst Labour councillors, as us Tories watch on with amusement.

Well the truth is that he has been in United States helping Barack Obama.  There is nothing wrong with that.  However he has told precious few people - even colleagues in his own group which has left a bitter taste in mouths of some.

While he is in the United States (with thousands of other activists) following Obama he is not here in Hammersmith & Fulham providing opposition or working with us to provide better services.  He has been silent on all the major issues affecting our borough over the past few weeks.

Nevertheless, he could be passing on his own unique brand of electoral success to our friend Obama who failed to win in the New Hampshire primary despite polls suggesting he would walk it.  Cllr Cowan survived by just nine votes in the previously safe Labour seat of Hammersmith Broadway - http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Council_and_Democracy/Democracy_and_Elections/Electoral_Services_Voting/Previous_election_results/57275_Hammersmith_Broadway_ward_results.asp

Labour councillors ask for higher pay and more perks

When I first got involved in local politics in Hammersmith & Fulham, the local Conservatives were opposing the creation of the nine highest paid councillors in the country in the then Labour controlled Hammersmith & Fulham.  The phrase "snouts in the trough" was banded about as Labour awarded themselves more and more money.

Labour have learnt nothing from that experience.  A major report, commissioned by the Government, overseen by Labour supporters and to be handed to Local Government Minister Hazel Blears on today, is to recommend massive increases in payments to councillors. 

Plans include a dismantling of rules introduced in the 1980s to protect local taxpayers from ‘loony left’ councils and ‘jobs for the boys’ corruption:

• Higher salaries for all councillors is demanded – including parish councillors.
• Golden goodbyes - cash handouts will be given to those “who lose office through the action of the electorate”.
• State funding for local political parties, tied to meeting state diversity and equality targets. Term limits will also push out popular councillors because they are too ‘old’.
• Pensions for all councillors, whilst ordinary pensioners struggle to pay their bills.
• Propaganda on the rates – via a new ‘Communications Allowance’ for councillors.
• State benefits and dole - letting councillors keep their town hall salaries and still claim benefits.
• Jobs for the boys - weakening controls on council officers who are also councillors. 
• Abolishing by-elections, because local democracy is too inconvenient for the electorally-challenged Labour Party.
• Requirements to turn up to meetings to vote will be scrapped, but councillors will still be paid in full.

The most shocking of these in my mind are the proposals to abolish by-elections (depriving the electorate of representation and making a ruling on council peformance), letting existing councillors put forward propaganda through a 'communications allowance', and removing the requirement that councillors should turn up and do their job.  How have sensible people come up with such rubbish?  These proposals are absolutely outrageous and fly in the face of democracy and accountablilty.  This is all taxpayers money.  No wonder council tax is increasing at such rates (except in Hammersmith & Fulham).

The cynic in me is thinking that these proposals have come about due to Labour's own financial problems.  Under rules passed by the Labour Party in 2006, all Labour councillors must now make direct debit payments from councillor pay packets to Labour Party funds; the higher the salary, the more money for Labour.

The full report can be found - http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/583990

Labour try to hijack the fireworks celebrations

A poor show I thought at the weekend from the local Labour Party who decided to use the annual Fireworks/Bonfire event in Ravenscourt Park as an opportunity to hand out party political leaflets.  This is the second year running they have done this.

As a result thousands of leaflets were strewn over Ravenscourt Park and surrounding streets.  Labour activists made no effort to clean up after themselves as is standard practice at tube station action days by the two political parties.  There is a case for asking them to contribute to the clear up costs - we will be cracking down on private companies who do this sort of thing so why not a political party?

Moreover, the fireworks event should be an opportunity for the community to come together and enjoy a show away from party politics.  The Conservative Party could have mustered activists and made the same effort.  However, people do not come to a community event to bombarded by politicians and party political leaflets.  It went down badly last year and I had hoped they had learnt from this.  This was a poor call by the local Labour Party. 

This has the finger prints of Andrew Slaughter MP all over it.  Again he decides to focus in Hammersmith & Fulham despite the fact most of his constituency is on the Ealing side of the border.  Ravenscourt Park is not even in his constituency.  Incredibly poor judgement by a man almost consumed by personal animosity to the council.

Labour "dirty tricks" against black Tory

A "dirty tricks" campaign by the Labour Party against the Conservative candidate in Hammersmith - Shaun Bailey - has been exposed on the website 'Black Information Link' - an independent website for black communities.  See here - http://www.blink.org.uk/pdescription.asp?key=15438&grp=66&cat=221

Tha article states that the Labour Party have produced a "dodgy dossier" that tries to smear Shaun Bailey.  The dossier tries to to dig dirt on Shaun and the charity he founded "My Generation" which works with young people in inner city London.  Shaun was born and raised in North Kensington and has tried to positively influence the community in which he grew up.  The Labour Party try to claim that the local Conservatives has no support in these communities.  The selection of Shaun has really worried the local Labour Party.

To undergo this sort of muck racking exercise is very low.  The former Labour leader of the council Stephen Burke has tried to smear Shaun on his blog in the past.  We should be beyond this personal dirty politics which puts voters off.

I rather agree with Shaun - instead of trying to call him names and mis-represent his views, the local Labour Party should engage in an open debate about the issues that matter to local Hammersmith residents. 

How the Labour Party is funded

I read an article last night on ConservativeHome about how the Trade Unions fund the Labour Party - see the bottom of the post for a link to the article. The author is right.  I can not understand why people are not more concerned about this.  To be honest, I think it is just that people do not know about it.

Gordon Brown revealed at the Trade Union Congress (TUC) conference that the Government will be giving a further £2.8 million to the Unions as part of the 'Union Modernisation Fund'.  This increases the pot to £10 million.  It was also revealed at the conference that the Unions will 'donate' £9 million to their comrades in the Labour Party this year and also give a further £8 million in affliation fees - £17 million in total.

We have the perverse situation where a Labour Government gives taxpayers money to the Unions so that they can ' improve communication with their members'.  In turn the Unions give money to the Labour Party which they spend in order to campaign for the re-election of a Labour Government.

Perhaps the Unions would be better placed spending the money they donate to the Labour Party on communicating with their members instead of wasting taxpayers money?  Sounds like beer and sandwiches are back on the menu!

In Hammersmith & Fulham, the local Labour Party have recieved £28,000 in donations from Trade Unions in the past couple of years.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/09/the-unions-give.html - 

The BBC join Labour playing 'race' politics

Plenty has been said on other blogs about the comical way that Boris Johnson has been attacked by Ken Livingstone, the Labour Party, and the race relations industry because of a satirical article he wrote in 2002 about why Blair loved travelling abroad.  It was extremely silly and almost no one will take this seriously after reading his article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/01/10/do1002.xml 

Why was it not an issue five years ago?

What is of greater regret is the way that Doreen Lawrence has weighed into this debate.  She is a very strong woman who has carried herself with a great deal of dignity following the tragic death of her son.  I hope she does not let herself be used by the Labour Party or others as a way of attacking Boris.

However, I nearly chocked on my coffee when I read this news item from the BBC:

Labour MPs spurns Boris mayor bid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6931359.stm

The article quotes black London Labour MPs Diane Abbott and Dawn Butler who say Boris is a racist:

Dawn Butler:

"No one with such views can be the mayor of a city with the largest black population in Britain"

Diane Abbott:

"David Cameron is fooling himself if he thinks that Boris Johnson's 1950 attitudes to race will be acceptable to Londoners, both black and white."

The BBC should be ashamed for even reporting this.  Labour MPs not backing a Conservative candidate's bid for London mayor is hardly a story is it?

What is behind all of this is that Labour are worried.  Boris could and should cause a few problems for Livingstone at the next London Mayoral contest.  However, it is both sad and tragic it is being dragged down to the level of the gutter.  Ken has associated himself with some pretty dodgy people with extremist views.  He has also made crude and offensive comments.  I would however be doing a great wrong if I was to accuse Ken of being a racist or an anti semite through misappropriating his comments or associating his views with individuals he has shared a platform with.

Boris is no racist and anyone who would suggest otherwise deserves to be treated with contempt.