Hackney Purim, unemployment up again

GOOD PARTY: Apparently this week's market on Chatsworth Road was a happy success but the big Hackney party was going on up in Stamford Hill. A lot of drinking, dancing and fancy dress for the Purim festival.

BAD PARTY: The latest Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) statistics for Hackney show 250 new claimants signing on in February (figures released on 17 March). The number of JSA claimants in Hackney is now 10,482.

The last time the number of JSA claimants broke 10,000 was in February 2010.

The latest figures show job losses in Hackney South had accelerated (172 in Jan, 178 in Feb) but slowed in Hackney North (down from 158 to 71).

Meanwhile the question remains how vulnerable will Hackney be to cuts? This week's Hackney Gazette reports Brian Debus from Hackney TUC saying 400 Hackney Council employees would lose their jobs this year and that 200 have already taken voluntary redundancy.

The borough's latest economic factsheet shows that the working population is 58% in managerial, professional, associate professional and technical occupations with just 8.5% employed as cleaners, security wardens, postal workers and couriers, hospitality workers and elementary sales.

Hackney's politicians have voiced a number of views on how dependent Hackney is on public sector jobs and the effect the cuts may have on the borough. The composition of the borough's working population may make it hard to predict what economic scenarios are good or bad for the level of unemployment in the borough.

HACKNEY BOROUGH

JSA CLAIMANT FIGURES:

2011

February: 10,482 (6.9%) - (10,482/0.069=151,913) (+250)

- January: 10,232 (6.8%) - (10,232/0.068= 150,470) (+329)

2010

December : 9,903 (6.6%) - (9,903/0.066=150,049) (-92)

November: 9,995 (6.6%) - (9,995/0.066=151,439) (+8)

October: 9,987 (6.6%) - (9,987/0.066=151,318) (+60)
September: 9,927 (6.6%) - (9,927/0.066=150,409) (+136)

August: 9,791 (6.5%) - (9,791/0.065=150,630) (+325)
July: 9,466 (6.3%) - (9466/0.063= 150,253) (+60)
June : 9,406 (6.5%) (9,406/ 0.065 = 144,707) (-210)
May: 9,616 (6.7%) (9,616/.067=143,522) (-47)
April: 9,663 (6.7%) (9,663/.067=144,223) (-183)
March: 9,846 (6.8%) (9,846/0.068=144,794) (- 198)
February: 10,044 (7%) (10,044/0.07=143,485) (+139)
January: 9,905 (6.9%) (9,905/0.069= 143,550) (+162)

2009
December: 9,743 (6.7%) (9,743/0.067=145,417) (-52)
November: 9,795 (6.8%)
October: 9,827 (6.8%)
September: 9,884 (7%)
August 9,826 (6.9%) (+276)
July: 9550 (6.7%) (+242)

June: 9,308 (6.6%) ()
May: 9,377 (6.6%) (+379)

April: 8,998 (6.3%) (+373)

March: 8,625 (6.1%) (+ 471)

February: 8,154 (5.7%) (+ 804)

January: 7,350 (5.2%)

2008

December: 7,245 (5.1%)
November - 7,013 (4.9%)

October - 6,982 (4.9%)

September - 6,942 (4.9%)

August - 6,803 (4.8%)

July - 6,454 (4.6%)

June - 6,440 (4.6%)

HACKNEY NORTH

JSA CLAIMANT COUNT

2011

Feb - 4,929 (6.4%) - (4,929/0.064=77,015) (+ 71)

Jan - 4, 858 (6.3%) - (4,858/0.063= 77,111) (+158)

2010

Dec - 4,700 (6.1%) - (4,700/0.061=77,049) (-94)

Nov - 4,794 (6.2%) - (4,794/0.062=77,323)(-5)

Oct - 4,801 (6.2%) - (4,801/0.062= 77,435)(+29)
Sept - 4,772 (6.2%) - (4,709/0.062=76,967) (+63)

August - 4,709 (6.1%) - (4,709/0.061= 77,197)(+171)

July - 4,572 (5.9%) - (4,572/0.059= 77,491)(+34)

June - 4,538 (6.0%) - (4,538/0.06= 75,633)(-99)

May - 4,637 (6.2%) - (4,637/0.062=74,790)(-90)

April - 4,727 (6.3%) - (4,727/0.063=75,031)(+391)

March - 4,336 (6.2%) - (4,336/0.062=69,935)(-114)

February - 4,450 (6.4%) - (4,450/0.064=69,531)(+48)
January - 4,402 (6.3%) - (4,402/0.063=69,873)

2009

December - 4331 (6.2%)

November - 4386 (6.3%)

October - 4365

September - 4,338

August - 4,331

July - 4206

June - 4,118

May - 4,081

HACKNEY SOUTH

JSA CLAIMANT COUNT

2011

February - 5,537 (7.8%) - (5,537/0.078=70,987) (+178)

January - 5,359 (7.6%) - (5,359/0.076= 70,513) (+172)

2010

Dec - 5,187 (7.3%) - (5,187/0.073= 71,054) (+4)

Nov - 5,183 (7.3%) - (5,183/0.0.73=71,000) (+19)

Oct - 5,164 (7.3%) - (5,164/0.073=70,739)(+24)
Sept - 5,140 (7.3%) - (5,140/0.073=70,410)(+84)

August - 5,056 (7.1%) - (5,056/0.071 = 71,211)(+185)

July - 4,871 (6.9%) - (4,871/0.069= 70,549)(+20)
June - 4,851 (7.0%) - (4,851/0.07= 69,300) (-108)

May - 4,959 (7.2%) - (4,959/0.072=68,875)

April - 4,908 (7.1%) - (4908/0.071=69,126)

March - 5,510 (7.6%) - (5,510/0.076=72,500)

February - 5,594 (7.7%) - (5,594/0.077=72,649)

January - 5503 (7.6%) - (5503/0.076)=72,407)

2009

December - 5,412 (7.5%)

November - 5,409 (7.5%)

October - 5,462

September - 5,546 (7.8%)

August - 5,495

July - 5,344

June - 5,190

May - 5,296

Democracy problem in Stamford Hill on the mend?

It is hard to tell how significant this may be but an election is due to take place for a parent governor at the Yesodey Hatorah Senior School for girls.

Here's an extract from If you tickle us we will laugh:

.... News reaches me that, to the consternation of those who dictate our way of life, Yesodei Hatorah Secondary School will be holding elections for a Parent Governor.

And if that isn’t enough, apparently a species of the fairer sex has had the temerity to stand for the position. I mean, what is the world coming to if a woman can try and elicit votes from parents which include men (though one wouldn’t think so when attending open days, parent evenings, graduation ceremonies or any other school activity except if it includes a visit by the PM or a few police officers when the men all miraculously appear)?

How, we all ask, has it come to this? Where have we gone wrong? Is this the result of a (non-existent) fair admissions policy? Is it the influence of having, G-d forbid, parents with tops which indicate a shape beneath and skirts which hint at legs ambulating within?

Some of the school's decisions about admissions were recently overruled after being appealed by parents.

Geoffrey Alderman, a commentator on the community, took an interest in the issue. Meanwhile the school's principal (I think), Rabbi Abraham Pinter, provided some comment on the situation, as did the learning trust.

Some of the issues about democracy and the Ultra Orthodox Jewish community have been discussed on Blood and Property before - they also surfaced in the last council meeting when Labour councillors more than implied that the political representatives for the community (the Conservative Party) were not doing an effective job (The suggestion was that the long-running dispute about loft extensions had over-ridden issues concerning the poorest members of the Ultra Orthodox Jewish community who have failed to use the benefits to which they are entitled.)

If anyone was at this event: http://www.thejc.com/community/local-news/40616/hackney-councillors-support-local-limmud this evening (Sunday) it would be great to find out what was said.

Apparently "Liberal Democrat Ian Sharer and Conservative Simche Steinberger will be part of a panel discussion on how their Jewish values led them into politics."

Fighting evil powers at work in Hackney

Apart from Glamorous Gardener's terrifying cake party there wasn't much Halloween stuff going on in Hackney blogs.

But Mayor Pipe's description of the coalition government prompted the resurrection of a survey of Hackney politicians carried out last year.

The Mayor, one of the contributors to "Do Hackney politicians believe in ghosts?", said: "I am happy to confirm that I have never felt the need to attribute any event to ‘supernatural’ causes. Whilst I accept that people are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they like – as long as this causes no harm to others..."

On Wednesday night Mayor Pipe said the government's cuts were "extremely divisive, some may even say evil". Evil appears to mean anything that harms others or something "producing or threatening sorrow, distress, injury..."

Anyway, it looked like Pipe had found people who held beliefs that were evil - a concept often employed to dehumanise somebody before a merciless attack.

But while the language was strong, Pipe quickly re-humanised all close-to-hand Conservatives claiming that Boris Johnson had something like a conscience (Pipe's 'social cleansing' phrase mysteriously pre-dated Johnson's more public use of a similar phrase - the two seem to get on well at the moment) he then re-humanised the Conservative councillors present at the meeting: "I can't see the people opposite as the representatives of this government. I could stand here and attempt to savage the people opposite for whatever reason they had for standing under the party colours they chose to..." (but I won't).

However it wasn't long before he and a number of other Labour politicians were gritting their teeth as Conservative councillors returned passionately to their loft extensions - an issue which apparently only affects the rich home-owning members of the ultra-orthodox Jewish community - but has consumed hours and hours of council time. Cuts or no cuts, some things don't change!

Reply to Andrew Boff

I posted an article last night which criticised the Hackney Conservative Party for pandering to the needs of the Ultra Orthodox Jewish Community.

Andrew Boff, the Conservative Party's mayoral candidate in Hackney and a member of the London Assembly, replied in the comments section - I'm writing this reply to him as a post because it's easier and people are more likely to read it.

Andrew's first question:

In the article I wrote: "The ideologies of both parties (Lib Dems and Conservatives) can appear submissive to an Ultra Orthodox Jewish agenda."

Andrew Boff asked: "
Is that the agenda in the Protocol of the Elders of Zion or another one?
"

Blood and Property reply: Apparently the "Protocols of the Elders Zion" were a set of ideas stolen from French literature then falsely presented as a transcript of a secret meeting of Jewish elders. And this story ended up being believed by the likes of Henry Ford and Winston Churchill. (I hope that’s correct I got it from David Aaronovitch's Voodoo Histories).

How does this compare to the “Ultra Orthodox Jewish agenda” that I’m talking about? The agenda I’m talking about is not a secret so I don't think there is much to compare. There is one main issue on it - lobbying to change the borough’s planning rules to allow loft extensions to accommodate large families.

You can read about it here and it is discussed by prominent members of the Jewish community here. It is also reported in the Jewish Chronicle here (Which said: "Ita Symons, chief executive of Agudas Israel Housing Association, which works with the strictly Orthodox population in north London, said Haringey's move was "a real victory for the community. It sets an excellent precedent." She hoped Hackney Council would move similarly to ease the housing problems of local Jewish families.") and there is an interesting piece here, also in the Jewish Chronicle, about the tendency of the Ultra Orthodox Jewish Community to put its own interests above those of neighbouring communities.

I don’t think there’s any controversy in noting that this loft extension policy issue was the main policy objective of the Hackney Conservative group. And is it surprising when the Hackney Conservative group was composed of nine councillors, six them from the Ultra Orthodox Community?

I think Andrew is suggesting that my comments and criticisms are aimed at the Charedi community and might, therefore, be racist. But my criticisms are aimed at the Conservative Party. I think most normal people put their families, communities, religions and ideologies (if they have them), above political parties. So why would an individual temper his or her use of a political party if it is helping with these more important goals?

Andrew's second point:

I wrote: "Now the ideological inconsistencies look a bit raw as the community worst affected by the Con-Lib coalition's policies is the Ultra Orthodox Jewish one."

Andrew Boff asked: "
How so?"

Blood and Property: In Hackney, the coalition government’s decision to cap housing benefit has specifically hit the Ultra Orthodox Jewish community hardest (13% of Hackney benefit cut victims will be Ultra Orthodox Jewish). According to a council document, 213 of Hackney's 1,642 housing benefit claimants - whose rents will no longer be fully covered by benefits if government proposals go through - will be ultra orthodox Jewish (Charedi). The next largest group to be affected by the cuts is white British with 92 claims affected.

Generally the victims of cuts made by the coalition government are discussed in terms of their wealth, location, or age. Not this one, its impact is described in terms of ethnic/cultural identity.

The “ideological inconsistency” being that the Charedi vote was closely associated with the support the Conservative Party seemed to be giving in relation to its housing needs. The friendly support came at a local level and doesn't appear to have had much to do with the aims of the national party.

Some of the ideological inconsistencies are permanent fixtures for any political party dealing with religious communities. Should a member of the Conservative Party – or any party - promote a theocracy above a democracy?

In this old story (Democracy problem in Stamford Hill) the issue of democracy and the Charedi Community was discussed. I'm sure, but I think Andrew would see this kind of story as dangerous and potentially racist because it suggests that democracy is not top of the agenda for Ultra Orthodox Jewish politicians. But I spoke to Ultra Orthodox Jewish councillors from both parties and none of them contradicted the view that Ultra Orthodox politicians avoid standing against each other - which makes democracy a bit of a problem for their constituents - they rarely get a choice. Again, no big secret, just something to try and understand.

Hackney Vs Tower Hamlets - which model works?

In a few hours the Labour Party in Tower Hamlets will choose its mayoral candidate. Whoever wins will probably become the borough's elected Mayor.

Hackney's mayor, Jules Pipe, has his critics but at least these usually focus on his policies. In Tower Hamlets it is only about the latest scandal (And for that you couldn't get much more graphic than this investigation by Andrew Gilligan - posted on his blog yesterday)

The difference seems to be that, in Hackney, the Labour Party still suffers the scars of its factional implosions and its damaging vote rigging scandals. The result has been a shunning of "communal" or race politics by the current Labour administration.

Last year Jules Pipe told Blood and Property: "It is unhealthy for democracy if people vote for candidates from their own community for that reason alone and not on merit. It is also unhealthy for community cohesion – whilst there are specific communities within Hackney, we are all part of one wider civic community."

Andrew Boff, Conservative Mayoral candidate for Hackney, seemed to think that everyone was over reacting, particularly to what was going on in Tower Hamlets. Blood and Property asked him several questions about what his party was doing in Hackney, he ended up talking about Tower Hamlets.

In an interview with Blood and Property Boff answered questions 3, 4 and 5 together saying they were "distasteful". The questions were:

3. How would you respond to the criticism that the Conservative Party in Hackney is a vehicle for an (ultra) orthodox Jewish political agenda rather than anything to do with the Conservative Party? (Must read for Hackney Politics)

4. Do you agree that (ultra) orthodox Jewish councillors rarely stand against each other in elections? Do you think it would matter if there was some kind of agreement within the Orthodox Jewish community for candidates not to stand against each other? Have you spoken to your Orthodox Jewish councillors about this issue? (Democracy Problem in Stamford Hill)

5. Last year Mayor Pipe accused Councillor Steinberger of putting the planning needs of the Orthodox Jewish community above the financial needs of the rest of the borough? (23,000 residents used as a bargaining chip, mayor claims) - are you concerned that this kind of prioritisation may be taking place with 2/3 of your councillors coming from the Charedi community?

ANDREW BOFF: Who is the criticism from? Nobody has said this to me. I'm not really one for conspiracy theories especially when it's directed against one section of the community. It's rather sinister. I've recently spoken out against the dangerous islamaphobic nonsense that Channel 4 and Jim Fitzpatrick MP have spread about the London Muslim Centre and these appear of the same ilk and I find them rather distasteful. Still, if I have to answer such questions - of the Conservative candidates in Hackney 11% are Orthodox Jewish 18% have a Caribbean/ African heritage, 4% are Turkish/Kurdish, 4% Polish and 2% Asian. The Conservative Party is a "vehicle" for all of us."

In Hackney the political opposition - the Conservatives and Lib Dems - are both linked to the borough's Ultra Orthodox Jewish community. The ideologies of both parties can appear submissive to an Ultra Orthodox Jewish agenda. Now the ideological inconsistencies look a bit raw as the community worst affected by the Con-Lib coalition's policies is the Ultra Orthodox Jewish one.

Meg Hillier, who was elected in 2005 after Hackney's darkest years, believes that ethnic groups in places like Hackney can be selfish - that that's how multiculturalism works. In the run up to this year's elections she spoke to Blood and Property:

Blood and Property: Do you expect communities to be self-interested for a multicultural system to work?

Meg Hillier: We have a party system in this country and people will look at what policies work for them. People don’t necessarily vote down ethnic lines. They wouldn’t necessarily vote for a Vietnamese councillor because they are Vietnamese or for a Turkish councillor because they were Turkish or African councillor because they were African. People tend to vote more for the party of their choice and I think that’s healthy.

Blood and Property: Does it matter if you have large, politically active communities, that do act with a certain level of self interest – or promote issues that affect this community?

Meg Hillier: That’s what politics is about.

Could Columnist face lynch mob over Stamford Hill rant?

This article in the Independent appears to have started a war of words about racism and anti-semitism. This article in the Independent describes who has joined in.

Christina Patterson, who wrote the offending piece, said things like: "When I moved to Stamford Hill, 12 years ago, I didn't realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Klu Klux Klan convention."

The second article said: "Jewish columnists rounded on Patterson in unison with Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, accusing her of "unrelenting unadulterated anti-Jewish bigotry". Miriam Shaviv, one of the paper's most prolific columnists, waded in with her own response to the article which she said was "one of the ugliest, most vile pieces ever published in the British press."

Meanwhile, the Jewish chronicle's own columnists aren't always positive about the ultra-orthodox community: "Must read for Hackney politics" or this debate between Geoffrey Alderman and Abraham Pinter.

No doubt this is a sensationalist point, but should Patterson worry for her own safety? The community's critics haven't always had an easy ride: like this Rabbi who was chased out of Stamford Hill by a 200-strong lynch mob in 2008 (as reported in the Jewish Chronicle)

13% of Hackney's benefit cut victims will be ultra orthodox jewish

According to a council document, 213 of Hackney's 1,642 housing benefit claimants - whose rents will no longer be fully covered by benefits if government proposals go through - will be ultra orthodox Jewish (Charedi).

The next largest group to be affected by the cuts is white British with 92 claims affected.

The figures come from this document: (CDM_n2525299_v1_Item_5_-Housing_reform_briefing_paper_for_LiH, item 5. PDF 186 KB taken from the Living in Hackney Scrutiny Commission)

The extent of the Charedi community's dependence on large family homes is demonstrated by this statistic: in April 2009, when benefits payments were capped at five bedrooms (£550), 32 housing benefit claims were affected in Hackney. In other words 32 households that were claiming housing benefit were paying more than £550 per week in rent.

According to Hackney Council, 30 of those claims, or 94%, were from the Charedi community.

After the changes some of these claims fell short of their weekly rent by as much as £300 per week. Despite this the council reports that no applications were made for the extra help that was available to meet these changes.

The council said: "Analysis of these customers showed that 94% are from the Charedi Jewish community. No claims for a Discretionary Housing Payment were received from these claimants and none presented to the Housing Options and Advice Service."

Each of these claims is likely to involve large homes and large families and so the number of people affected by the changes could be much larger than the number of claims.

The wards worst affected are:

New River: 239 housing benefit claimants who are paying rent above the new caps (formerly a Conservative ward now just one Conservative councillor)

Springfield: 227 affected (Now represented by two Conservative councillors and one Labour)
Cazenove: 210 affected (Now represented by three Lib Dems)
Lordship: 164 affected (Now represented by one Conservative and two Labour)

This means that the majority of the councillors representing these wards come from the parties which imposed the cuts: 3 X Lib Dem and 4 X Conservative. This also happens to be all the Lib Dem and Conservative councillors with seats in Hackney Council.

The other wards are all represented by Labour councillors:
Leabridge has 112 housing benefit claimants who are paying rent above the new caps
Dalston: 84
Wick: 80
Chatham: 77
Hackney Downs: 71
Kings Park: 65
Hackney Central: 39
Stoke Newington Central: 35
Brownswood: 32
Clissold: 29
Hoxton: 29
DeBeauvoir: 28
Haggerston: 27
Queensbridge: 22
Victoria: 20

A link to Blood and Property report on the commons debate - led by Meg Hillier - on this issue which took place in the House of Commons on Monday.

Cuts: "Devastating impact" on Hackney's ultra orthodox Jewish community

On Tuesday (13 July) Meg Hillier initiated a debate on the government's caps and cuts to housing benefits. In it she said that large numbers of Hackney residents might have to move to boroughs like Barking and Dagenham for cheaper housing.

"DEVASTATING IMPACT" ON ULTRA ORTHODOX COMMUNITY:
In her opening speech she said:"I need to touch on a problem in the north of Hackney... where orthodox Jewish families will be severely hit. Such families typically have more than four children, and many of them live in the private rented sector, so the limit on benefit will have a devastating impact. The council and social landlords in Hackney will be unable to take the strain, so I need answers from the Minister on how councils will be supported in dealing with that."

Changes in housing benefits could be particularly painful in this community. Firstly, the options to move are limited as their religion says they should live within walking distance of a synagogue.

Secondly, Hackney's ultra orthodox Jewish community has been the life blood of the borough's Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition.

Now the ultra orthodox community's poorest are stuck with being represented by Labour politicians who may feel less obliged to act on their behalf - or by their own leaders who support the parties that are initiating the cuts.

IGNORANCE ABOUT "MOST VICIOUS MEASURE":

In the debate Meg said: "Perhaps the most vicious measure is the cutting of benefits by 10% after a claimant has been unemployed for 12 months. What possible rationale can there be for punishing the victims of the recession?"

According to a post on Liberal Conspiracy yesterday: "How Hackney Cuts" Hackney folk prefer to stick their heads in the sand rather than face the reality of these cuts. Could more be done by the council to highlight the seriousness of this situation for some residents - may be something more realistic than Hackney Today's most recent "Summer of Fun" front page splash.

HACKNEY'S HIGH FLYING POLITICIANS:

In her speech Meg Hillier mentions Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe in a new role as joint spokesman for London with London Mayor Boris Johnson.

"The Conservative Mayor of London and the Labour chair of London Councils (Jules Pipe) have joined together - in the spirit of coalition government, I suppose - and have written to the Government to point out the error that they have made... On this occasion, I agree with Boris, which is not something that I expect to say regularly. At least we have some voice for London through him and through Mayor Jules Pipe, who chairs London Councils."

Meg will have her eye on a role in the shadow cabinet and another eye on who will win the leadership battle. Diane is fighting for Labour leadership. Jules is a spokesman for London.

FOR THE CYNICS:

A remark that might haunt Meg: "It is rare to have a Minister who is an expert. Governments often seem to conspire to put people in office who do not know much about their subject, but in this case we have a Minister who knows what he is talking about and can make a difference."

MPs from Labour and other parties were lining up to speak on the issue and praised Meg Hillier's success in securing the debating time. It will have distracted attention from her attempts to defend ID cards (for which she was a minister) two days previously apparently calling for changes that would have only affected one 'transgendered' person in whole of the UK.

SOME HACKNEY RELATED QUOTES FROM THE DEBATE:
Meg Hillier: "Of the nearly 40,000 people in Hackney currently in receipt of housing benefit, just over 9,000 live in the private rented sector. Two thirds are in receipt of benefit, but one third are working tenants, many of whom would like to continue to work but, as a result of the proposals, will find a serious shortfall between their rent and the benefit provided for it, and will have very little income to make up the difference. In the three bands for the broad rental market areas that operate in my constituency-inner east, inner north and London central-all properties with more than two bedrooms are above the Government's proposed cap. That is ludicrous. It means that those in Hackney living in a two, three or four-bedroom property-or a larger property-will have nowhere to go. They could go out of Hackney, but there are not many boroughs they could go to. I am not entirely clear how the Government propose to ensure that people can stay living in London-and, crucially, working in London and supporting its economy-because many people need that benefit to subsidise their rent so that they are able to live locally to their jobs.

Meg Hillier: "1,642 claimants will be affected by the bedroom size proposals in my borough alone, which is devastating. Shelter has kindly done some research that shows that the average three-bedroom household in inner-east London, which is a band in my constituency, will need to find an additional £35 a week to keep a roof over their heads. I do not know how people on the minimum wage or benefits can do that. For example, how will a pensioner surviving on £98 a week find that additional £35? Perhaps they would not be in a three-bedroom property, but they would still have to find some extra money. How will someone on the minimum wage-£218 a week-find that additional money?"

ANSWERS CAME FROM STEVE WEBB, LIB DEM, MINISTER OF STATE FOR PENSIONS:

Timing: "The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked about timing. It is important that I place it on the record that I need to make some corrections. Nothing happens this autumn; nothing will change until next April. We have to put regulations through the Social Security Advisory Committee, so there will be a process of consultation on the regulations. The regulations will be laid before Parliament in October or November. There will then be a further six months before anything changes. As she rightly said, those are the changes that will go through secondary legislation. Some of the longer-term changes will require primary legislation, so there will be a further process of scrutiny and consultation."

Will Jules Pipe have to back-track on ultra-orthodox planning rules?

According to the Jewish Chronicle, Tottenham Labour MP David Lammy is doing his best to win support from the ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

In an article published yesterday the JC said: "Despite the slim chance of an upset, both Labour and the Tories are going out of their way to court the Charedi community in south Tottenham."

In Haringey the pursuit of the Charedi community's vote appears to have been behind the recent planning victory for Ultra Orthodox Jewish families living in Haringey.

When this was reported the community said it was also setting its sights on persuading neighbouring Hackney to change its rules too.

But in Hackney the Labour administration has fought-off planning exemptions for large families and Mayor Pipe has accused ultra-orthodox Jewish Consevative councillors of pursuing that agenda at the expense of the rest of the borough. ( 23,000 Hackney tenants used as bargaining chip)

So what were the reasons why Hackney didn't want to go down that road? If the Hackney Labour Party sticks to its position will it be condemning what's happened in Tottenham? Hopefully Jules Pipe will say, before the election, if he thinks his Tottenham/Haringey colleagues have taken a wrong turn.

According to the Labour-supporting, ultra-orthodox Abraham Pinter, the whole battle will centre around the Seven Sisters ward in Haringey where the Conservatives think they can win as they field an ultra-orthodox candidate against a Labour candidate who is Jewish, but not ultra-orthodox.

The pressure is already being applied on Hackney Council but Jewish Historian Geoffrey Alderman says the ultra-orthodox Jewish community should be careful with its new-found power. In a piece called Hacking off Hackney voters he said: "Jewish "communalism" is a major trigger of anti-Jewish prejudice. It may look clever but its victories, purchased at a high price, are invariably short-lived." Although would a back-lash be expected if concessions were made to any other religious or cultural group? Geoffrey Alderman interview here: Stop worrying and learn to love race politics

However Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South, says that this is exactly how mulitculturalism works. In an interview Blood and Property asked: "Does it matter if you have large, politically active communities, that do act with a certain level of self interest – or promote issues that affect this community?"

Meg Hillier said: "That’s what politics is about."

Abraham Pinter responds to Geoffrey Alderman

Abraham Pinter has responded to points raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics. In the piece Alderman says that Hackney politics are driven by religion and ethnicity, not class, as elsewhere in the UK.

Pinter says that Alderman is looking at the Hackney Jewish community as an outsider and is both out of date and out of touch.

COMMUNAL VOTING:

Perhaps the most contentious issue is whether the ultra-orthodox Jewish community only votes for candidates from within its own community.

Pinter does not agree that this issue is described correctly by Alderman and says that both of their views will be put to the test on May 6th in the Seven Sisters ward in Haringey.

Pinter said that the Conservative party had come close to defeating Labour in the ward last year. He believes that this was due to 90% of ultra-orthodox Jewish voters supporting the Conservative Party which happened to be the only party fielding an ultra-orthodox candidate. He also said that this, combined with growth in the ultra-orthodox community over that short period, should point to a success for the Conservatives.

But he said that Labour would retain the seat because of the work done by the party to improve relations with the community – particularly over planning issues.

“The Labour Party took seriously what happened and they’ve taken steps to recognise the needs of the community.”

He said: “It is a test but I am confident. We know what goes on in the community because we are a school and we get a lot of feed back.”

If Labour retains the seat it would, he believes, disprove some of Alderman's claims. The victory would be achieved despite the Labour party having no representative from within the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, while the Conservatives do.

However he did acknowledge that it is common within the community to vote for a recognisable name, but he said that if a non-Charedi candidate could prove that he or she had the community’s interests at heart, they would be supported. He said that the Labour Party in Haringey had achieved this.

THE ROLE OF WOMEN:

Pinter said that Alderman was out of touch on the role of women in the community. One of the organisation that Alderman talks about is Agudas Israel and Pinter points out that its chief executive of Agudas Israel Housing Association is Ita Symons.

He said that Symons was one of the most powerful people in the community. As a Labour supporter he said he didn't think the accolade of the Jewish community's Margaret Thatcher was a compliment, but said that the comparison had been made.

Pinter also pointed to Interlink which he said may now be a more powerful organisation: “Interlink is one of the most powerful organisations in the community and it is politically run by women. He pointed to a recent article in the Jewish Chronicle: Come on, women, lets get equal."

He said that Bella Sharer standing in the Brownswood ward in Hackney would only be a novelty if she won. He said it was common practice for wives to stand as paper candidates in seats they have no chance of winning. Unlike Ian Sharer, he does not believe the Lib Dems have much chance in Brownswood.

IS THIS A RACIST COMMUNITY?

One of the issues raised by Geoffrey Alderman in Stop worrying and learn to love race politics referred to an article written in the Jewish Tribune back in 1978. Alderman said that the article had demonstrated a set of anti-black attitudes that still exist in the community, but which are not published because of the reaction from beyond the community.

But Pinter said the author of the article had been an older member of the community and that the sentiment had been that Jews should not fight battles on behalf of the black community – or they all faced the risks of a backlash.

He said that there were a number of the problems with making an argument like Alderman’s.

Pinter pointed to his own attitudes at the time: “The way I grew up, when I was an 18-year-old - 45 years ago - when I saw a successful black person, I always felt myself to have positive views, as in "isn’t it wonderful that a black person can do well here" now I think that this view might be racist because it is patronising. But that’s the way it was back then."

He said that views of society at large had changed and they had also changed in Hackney's ultra orthodox Jewish community.

He said: "I think it's worth mentioning that the Hamodia is now the main newspaper read by the community and not the Jewish Tribune, but as I said Alderman is an Historian."

Stop worrying and learn to love race politics

Ethnicity and religion drive Hackney politics, not class, says Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a leading academic on British elections and modern British Jewry.

Alderman, a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle and writer for the Guardian and the Times (profile) tells Blood and Property that politicians are deluding themselves if they don't accept that people vote along ethnic lines.

GEOFFREY ALDERMAN: I went to Northwold Road school and then the Grocer’s Company's School Hackney Downs, which, in its time was the best state school in the country. From there I went to Oxford. I am the official historian of Hackney Downs school and when I went to the school it was so Jewish that it closed on the Jewish holidays, there was no point in keeping it open. The few Christian boys there wanted to know when the Jewish holidays were so they could find out when the school would be shut.

I’m not sure if the Jewish community is larger or smaller than it was, probably larger now. My grandfather moved from Spitalfields to Hackney circa 1937 and rented the property my parents later bought in Walsingham Road. The Jewish community I grew up in in the 1950s and 60s was traditional but, on the whole, not a strictly practising Jewish community. The black hat Jews of Stamford Hill today were in a tiny minority then and they were exotic oddities.

The area began to change character in the 1960s after the Hungarian uprising which the Soviets brutally repressed. The Hassidic Jews survived the holocaust in Hungary and began to move into Hackney in the 1960s. Now they form the majority of Jews there.

But as a youngster I never saw many Hassidic Jews, may be one or two, now they form the majority of Hackney Jewry and demographically they are the fastest growing section of British Jewry. In Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington you will find families of of 11, 12, 13. This has been one of the pressures for planning permission.

In Modern British Jewry I deal with the political organisation of the Orthodox Jews in Hackney. When I was doing the research in the late 70s and early 80s it was already evident to me that the growing ultra-orthodox community (acted) through Agudas Israel, an organisation which functions as a mini-welfare state, and which publishes a weekly paper, the Jewish Tribune, .

A very important part in this community has been played by Joe Lobenstein, four times Mayor of Hackney. In my book The Jewish Community in British Politics I mention him and the pioneering work he was doing especially in reviving Conservative politics amongst Jews in Hackney.

But he, I believe, was getting ultra-orthodox Jews to vote for him because he was Jewish, not because of the party he was in. This tendency was definitely being observed by me in the late 1970s – Jews voting for Jewish candidates irrespective of their party politics.

One might ask, is this democracy? Well of course it is. These Jews are British, they pay taxes and they vote. Who are you or I to tell them how to vote? If they want to vote in a particular way then that is their right, whether you celebrate it or despise it.

May I make a general point here? I don’t think we in England, or London have yet got used to the idea of an ethnic political system. In the US, ethnic politics is so conventional they don’t bat an eyelid. There’s the Jewish vote, the Irish vote, the Italian vote. They are used to an ethnic based politics. We are not.

When I started investigating it in the 1970s everyone was talking about class and how you had to understand class. Class - it was said - was the basis of the British political system, everything else was embellishment. But I saw something else in Hackney and it was more like the situation in the US, where socio-economic class is less important and ethnicity and religion are - often - much more important.

In the book I also refer to the fact that Agudas Israel was already beginning to acquire a level of sophistication. In another book I published in the 1980s on London Jewry, I also noted how Agudas Israel had taken the trouble to rebrand itself to get resources for its community as Hackney descended into a battleground between competing ethnic factions.

It had previously described itself as Jewish rather than as representing an ethnic minority. Previously the Jews of Hackney had projected themselves as British people. Agudas Israel was sensitive to the rise in ethnic politics and said: “We’re not part of the working class, we’re an ethnic minority and we're discriminated against. We need resources."

Agudas Israel went along to the Ken Livingstone-led Labour faction that then controlled the Greater London Council. This faction paid attention. Agudas Yisroel played the game brilliantly.

I am fascinated by the relationship between the left-wing Diane Abbott and this community. On the face of it they have nothing in common. She stands for things such as democracy, free speech and women's rights. These are anathema amongst the chassidim of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill. One has only to read the anti-feminist and anti-black rhetoric put out by the Jewish Tribune to see that this is so. As for the gays, the Tribune wouldn't even dare mention the term.

I recall that in 1978 there was terrible scandal when the Yiddish Tribune ran a piece criticising Greville Janner for defending black people in Parliament. The publishers didn’t realise that other people might speak Yiddish and the following week the West Indian World translated this appalling editorial. That doesn’t happen any more, but not because the views have changed but because the Jewish Tribune knows other people can understand Yiddish."

How many Jewish councillors are women? None. Why? Because the type of orthodoxy in Stamford Hill allocates a certain role to women: to get married, have as many children as possible and to maintain a Kosher home. And in the home it is the woman who is the boss, not the man.

How many female Orthodox Jewish school governors are there? Only the minimum required by law. However they can be teachers and head teachers but they cannot be in a position of political leadership. And as far as this community is concerned there is no such thing as a female Rabbi. Outside the home it is a male dominated society. It is ruled by Rabbis, it is a theocracy. (Alderman said that this might be changing as Bella Sharer, wife of Ian Sharer, leader of the Lib Dems in Hackney, is standing in the May 6 elections.)


Every article, every advertisement in the Jewish Tribune is approved by a Rabbinical censor. If you are defamed by the Jewish Tribune you can’t go to the PCC, it is one of only a handful of UK papers that is not a member.

That said, the community is generally disinterested in wealth and its members do tend to help each other when help is needed. The men "learn" Talmud all the day and it is the women who go to work. Interestingly, this community has no problem in principle with women working and there are some very wealthy women in the community.

Whether you or I like the community is irrelevant. The community is very well organised, very hospitable and very successful. Its members may dress in ways we find peculiar, but you won't find its youngsters involved in gun and knife crime that is, alas, so rampant now in the Hackney I once knew.

A must read for Hackney politics

The Jewish Chronicle published this piece yesterday: Hacking off Hackney voters.

It sheds light on a debate that Hackney politicians tend to avoid: Do ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors put the interests of their community ahead of the rest of the borough?

Last week its author Geoffrey Alderman wrote this critique of ultra-orthodox Jewish politics: Religion or mere self interest? Last week Blood and Property asked him to comment on the relationship between ultra orthodox Jewish councillors and the Conservative Party.

In Hackney there are nine ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors, six of them in the Conservative Party.

Alderman said: "All I would say is that the ultra-orthodox communities in Hackney are much less interested in party dogma than in what the parties can do for them. That's not to say that they aren't interested in dogma, rather that it's a secondary consideration."

Planning restrictions have been the community's main concern as they prevent large families from extending their homes. This issue also consumes a lot of the energy of Hackney's Conservative Party.

The issue is likely to heat up again after a planning victory for Ultra Orthodox Jewish families living in Haringey. One commentator told the Jewish Chronicle "It sets an excellent precedent" adding that she hoped Hackney Council would do something similar.

Professor Alderman refers to Blood and Property's interview with Jules Pipe and a stand-off the Mayor had with Cllr Sime Steinberger over exactly this issue (links in the interview).

Alderman also noted Pipes comments about communal voting. The mayor told Blood and Property: "... personally I think communalism is very unhealthy. People should be looking at the manifestoes and candidates of the different parties and voting for the ones who seem to have the best ideas, qualities and relevant experience. It is unhealthy for democracy if people vote for candidates from their own community for that reason alone and not on merit. It is also unhealthy for community cohesion – whilst there are specific communities within Hackney, we are all part of one wider civic community."

This seems to clash slightly with MP Meg Hillier's views on the issue. In her interview with Blood and Property, she said that self interested communities is what politics is about.

"Blood and Property: Do you expect communities to be self-interested for a multicultural system to work?

Meg Hillier: We have a party system in this country and people will look at what policies work for them. People don’t necessarily vote down ethnic lines. They wouldn’t necessarily vote for a Vietnamese councillor because they are Vietnamese or for a Turkish councillor because they were Turkish or African councillor because they were African. People tend to vote more for the party of their choice and I think that’s healthy.

Blood and Property: And if they weren’t doing that, would you say it was unhealthy?

Meg Hillier: Lots of people vote for parties, but of course a lot of people don’t have parties, they float, and there are many factors in their decisions. There are lots of people who will vote for the same party, not necessarily mine, for years and years. Others vote for one party one year and another the next and they have different reasons for voting. Rarely is it a personality decision. My view is that there is very little personality voting and it is more on the big issues and wider concerns.

Blood and Property: Does it matter if you have large, politically active communities, that do act with a certain level of self interest – or promote issues that affect this community?

Meg Hillier: That’s what politics is about."

Geoffrey Alderman concluded his piece in the Jewish Chronicle with this warning: "Jewish "communalism" is a major trigger of anti-Jewish prejudice. It may look clever but its victories, purchased at a high price, are invariably short-lived."

FOR REFERENCE:
Last week Blood and Property interviewed Geoffrey Alderman (I have yet to write it up). He lived in Clapton (Walsingham Road) from 1946 to 1973 and was educated at Hackney Downs School (He is the school's official historian) before going to Oxford. Alderman now holds several academic posts in the UK and the USA. Try geoffreyalderman.com or his reference in Wikipedia which includes controversies he has sparked over Islam, Palestine and Harold Pinter.

On page 364 of his book Modern British Jewry (1992), Alderman writes: "The UOHC and kindred ultra-orthodox communities have also grown in size. The most visible manifestation of this expansion has been the post immigration, particularly from Communist eastern Europe, of adherents of various pietistic (and, some would say, excessively narrow-minded and anti-intellectual) chassidic sects, each following a particular rabbinical dynasty, all reconisable by a very distinctive style of dress... and each family doing its very best to bring into the world as many children as possible."

Until relatively recently, in Hackney and the UK in general, the distinctively dressed ultra orthodox Jew was a rarity. In Modern British Jewry, Alderman noted how most Jewish historians paid them little attention: "Who, at the time of Sir Israel Brodie's retirement (1965), would have predicted that Lubavitch chassidim would have found employment within the United Synagogue, or that "Lubes" would have featured, as they clearly must, among the opinion-formers of British Jewry?"

Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney, answers Blood and Property questions

Blood and Property: What would happen to Hackney if the Conservatives win the next election? How much less money would the borough receive?


Jules Pipe: Whoever wins the general election, the next public sector spending round will be tight. From the noises Conservative shadow cabinet ministers have been making, I think that it’s clear it will be far worse under the Conservatives. The experience of the 1980s and 90s suggest that the Conservatives have a great capacity for taking decisions that are particularly tough on communities such as Hackney. Over the last 4 years of the last Tory government there was a 7% cut in real terms in local government spending, but in Hackney it was worse with a real terms cut of more than 20% which saw absolute cash reductions in total grant.

Over recent years, Hackney has made huge efficiency savings that have been recycled into covering cost inflation (pay and prices), demand-led service growth (eg adult community services), service improvements (eg street cleaning, recycling), and capital projects (eg Lido, Clapton Library, schools) so avoiding borrowing, cuts, and having to transfer additional costs onto the taxpayer – allowing us to freeze council tax. Naturally, if reductions were made in funding, backfilling such shortfalls in grant would have the first call on funds generated by future efficiency savings.

The progress made so far with medium term planning forecasts for the end of 2011/12 to 2013/14 show prudent, cautious assessments of current and future spending pressures. These regular assessments will of course continue, and continue to be revised as the situation becomes clearer in time.


Blood and Property: Do you think that the main opposition in Hackney is the Conservative Party or the Orthodox Jewish councillors who make up its majority?


Jules Pipe: The Conservative Party. As well as in Hackney North, they are also the main electoral challenger in the mayoral and both parliamentary contests, as well as council seats in Hackney South.


Blood and Property: You had a run-in with Councillor Steinberger last year over his actions as head of scrutiny, do you believe that he put the planning needs of his community above the financial needs of the rest of the borough? (Reference: 23,000 Hackney tenants used as bargaining chip)


Jules Pipe: I believe that it was the adopted principle of the entire Hackney Conservative group to oppose the Council’s clarification of planning policy regarding residential extensions. In my opinion, in attempting to negotiate the removal of the item from the Cabinet agenda in return for his acquiescence to allowing an urgent item that lowered council housing rents, he put furthering his group’s political position above operating correctly as Chair of Overview and Scrutiny. I believe that Cllr Steinberger has offered a different explanation of events.


Blood and Property: How do you react to claims by some members of the OJ community that the Labour Party in Hackney is anti semitic?


Jules Pipe: I would refute such claims entirely, whether this is a reference to the political party in the borough, or the Council’s political administration.


Blood and Property: Do you think it is odd that Orthodox Jewish councillors so rarely stand against each other - would it matter if there was some kind of agreement within the community not to do this? (Reference: Democracy problem in Stamford Hill)


Jules Pipe: As you have acknowledged, it is not completely unknown for members of the Orthodox Jewish community to stand against one another. Hackney Labour wants all political parties in the borough to be representative of all of Hackney's diverse communities. We have reached out to the Orthodox Jewish community (as we do to all communities) and that's why Cllr Joseph Stauber joined us.

It's a matter for the individuals and communities concerned whether they stand as candidates and how they vote, but personally I think communalism is very unhealthy. People should be looking at the manifestoes and candidates of the different parties and voting for the ones who seem to have the best ideas, qualities and relevant experience. It is unhealthy for democracy if people vote for candidates from their own community for that reason alone and not on merit. It is also unhealthy for community cohesion – whilst there are specific communities within Hackney, we are all part of one wider civic community.

However, it should be noted that the maths of recent borough election results suggests that the Orthodox Jewish community in Stamford Hill must have been perfectly happy to vote for Muslim candidates (and vice versa) and I think that is very healthy and says something very positive about community cohesion in Hackney.


Blood and Property: How important do you think religion and an understanding of religion might be in Hackney. Do you think that it will become more or less of an important factor in Hackney politics in the future? (Reference: Hackney Christians: Money, power, demonic possession) and the orthodox jewish community is said to be growing fast and has specific requirements.


Jules Pipe: As I’ve said before, this is a proudly diverse borough and a place where government surveys have consistently found that residents are of the view that people of different backgrounds in Hackney get on well together. I don’t think it’s up to local politicians to talk about religion in any other context than that we welcome the diverse mix that people of all backgrounds bring to Hackney and the contribution they make to life here. Of course, the elected members of a council should reflect the population it serves, and so in that respect I’d welcome more people of different backgrounds standing to become local councillors. Hackney has a pretty good record on this, but there’s always room for improvement everywhere – here, in parliament, and in council chambers across the country.


Blood and Property: Do you think it is healthy that so many of the boroughs schools are now academies - and does it matter that these schools are not subject to the freedom of information act? - (Reference: Hackney academies: too good to be true?)


Jules Pipe: My priority and that of local parents is that the standard of education for Hackney school pupils keeps on improving, and that they can access better training and jobs than a number of years ago.

In Hackney, we have a range of secondary schools, Voluntary Aided, Community and Academies. The fifth new Academy will open in September 2010. The five mixed, non-denominational, non-selective academies will provide 1,800 new secondary school places in the borough. Mossbourne Academy, rated by Ofsted as 'outstanding in every respect', was the first to enter pupils for GCSEs in 2009 and saw 84% of pupils gain five or more good grades. Nearly all of our secondary schools are now graded as good or outstanding by Ofsted and the significant improvement of results from our existing schools, together with the first set of GCSE results from Mossbourne Academy, have all contributed to Hackney's outstanding GCSE results of 2009, which are now above the national average for the first time ever.

I’m puzzled by the accusation that this rise in results should be the result of the disproportionate use of equivalent vocational qualifications at Academies. Not only am I sure Mossbourne would be willing to provide evidence to the contrary, it is the first and only Academy to contribute results to the aggregate figure. Furthermore, Mossbourne results contributed to the aggregate for the first time this year – the previous year-on-year increases in results have relied entirely on Hackney’s existing VA and community schools.

The Freedom of Information of Act should indeed apply to Academies. They are not currently subject to the FoI Act, however, under section 5 the Secretary of State has the power to designate as a public authority a body that appears to exercise functions of a public nature, or that provide public authority services under contract. A consultation last year considered to which bodies this should apply. Academies are now being proposed for inclusion, along with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service, and UCAS. The Ministry of Justice has consulted with these organisations about their potential inclusion and is considering their responses.


Blood and Property: Although crime in Hackney has fallen, other boroughs complain that Hackney has more policemen. On top of that, Hackney seems to be able to rely on outside agencies like Operation Trident. Do you know how much support Hackney's police get in fighting crime and whether this might no longer be available either if the conservatives win or if the government has to cut police budgets? References: Hackney has too many cops say Waltham Forest and Croydon and Hackney is second biggest customer of Operation Trident


Jules Pipe: Hackney Police are able to draft in services provided by serious crime operations such as Operation Trident and Operation Blunt, but they don’t get any extra funding or long-term resources for these operations to keep down crime. Support from the two operations are triggered by serious incidents in Hackney, which can then allow Hackney Police to access short-term resources and support from officers of other London boroughs, as and when we need it. Rather than budgetary constraints resulting in reduced support, it is the fact that serious crime is on a downward trend in Hackney – and therefore may no longer meet the requirements to get extra support from these operations – which might result in a reduction.


Blood and Property: The BNP wants to stand in the Hackney Mayoral elections this year. How do you think this will affect the elections in the borough? (Reference: BNP to stand in Hackney mayoral elections)


Jules Pipe: Hackney is one of the country’s most ethnically diverse boroughs, and also one that is renowned for how well its residents get on together. Without the community tensions that the BNP would seek to prey upon, neither they nor the National Front have contested Hackney for many years. If the BNP were to field a candidate in 2010, overwhelmingly Hackney residents would see through their pretence at respectability, and reject their racism at the ballot box. An enthusiasm to reject the BNP may lead to an increase in turnout, with or without a specific campaign, but this is likely to be masked by any increase resulting from the council and general elections being coincident.


Blood and Property: How much has the borough changed in the last 10 years - demographically (Reference: 50% of people in Hackney North have degrees) - do you think this will change the make up of the voting patterns in the borough?


Jules Pipe: Hackney North and Stoke Newington has a high density of people with degrees, at 50.5%, but according to the ONS Annual Population Survey in 2008, Richmond Park is the highest in the country, with 63.6%. Regardless of the level to which someone was educated, and as I inferred previously, I would hope that they will vote for who they think has the best vision for an area and can continue to improve local services. (This answer contained a long list of parliamentary constituencies showing what percentage of residents had degrees. If it would be helpful to see this, please let me know.)


Blood and Property: To what extent do you think that changes in the borough are related to property prices and new people moving here - how easily do you think that this process could be reversed (i.e. do you think that many hackney residents see their homes as investments or just as homes?)


Jules Pipe: Hackney is a very popular borough for a variety of reasons, including its improving transport links, its vastly improved schools, popular leisure facilities such as London Fields Lido and its many parks, its status as a vibrant arts and cultural hub, amongst many other reasons.

The Council’s research suggests that many of those moving into the borough since 2003 have been young, childless households on higher incomes than the current borough average, who rent privately. The impact of rising property prices in Hackney - as for London and the whole country - means that while owner-occupiers who bought during the past few decades will have benefited considerably from capital gains or opportunities to rent out their homes, the market has become very expensive for first-time buyers. This would suggest that the driving factor for today’s incomers is the desire to live in the borough, rather than seeking investment opportunities.

The Council is committed to ensuring high quality, affordable housing for all Hackney residents. Right now across Hackney construction work is taking place to build hundreds of new social-rented and affordable homes, including council housing, after the Council lobbied the Government and received a total of over £43million in Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) funding since last September.

For almost 30 years, affordable housing across the country often only got built as a spin-off of new private developments, and the downturn in the housing market threatened to bring even that to a halt. The commercial marketplace cannot be left as the only force to drive how housing is delivered. The Council has been working with the Government and its agencies and has successfully strengthened their confidence to give Hackney their social housing investment directly, so that we can deliver homes that are much needed by local residents.


Blood and Property: Do you think that Hackney has suffered the worst effects of the financial crisis? Why is Hackney's employment situation improving more slowly than other boroughs? (References: Feb 2010: Hackney Unemployment deteriorates fastest Jan 2010: Hackney slowest employment recovery )


Jules Pipe: I think it’s very difficult for anyone to say with confidence whether we have suffered the worst. There’s a very diverse mix of people living in Hackney, whose employment prospects in a recession can be affected to different degrees and at different times. The fluctuation of employment rate will naturally be determined by the nature of the work (part time, casual, employment sector etc) and when that sector experiences the effects of the downturn.

The figures to which you refer are relatively short-term and relate only to those claiming Job Seeker’s Allowance and should be seen in context of the Office of National Statistics data, which shows that employment has risen from 55.4 per cent in 2005 to 68.7 per cent in 2009, putting Hackney very close to the London average. Nevertheless, Hackney has been putting significant resources into getting the long-term unemployed into work, from job-readiness programmes through to apprenticeships. In the longer term, Hackney has concentrated on preventing a future skills gap in its young population by prioritising investment into schools and raising educational attainment.


Blood and Property: Can you rule out speculation that you might stand for a parliamentary seat in the next general election?


Jules Pipe: I can rule it out entirely. I have never approached a parliamentary constituency, or even expressed an interest in standing in a parliamentary constituency. I can say the same for the European parliament, the GLA (both list and constituency) and the London Mayoralty. I have absolutely no intention, desire or even vague thought of doing so now, and have no plans to do so in any future election. I am personally committed to continue leading the Labour administration in the borough in which I live.


Blood and Property: How many Hackney Labour councillors are in the process of trying to become labour parliamentary candidates in the next general election? And if there's more than Nargis Khan and Sophie Linden - it would be great to know who they are.


Jules Pipe: I am aware that both Nargis and Sophie have entered constituency contests. Beyond the Cabinet, there is no expectation for councillors to keep me informed of such intentions, so I wouldn’t be aware of a definitive list. Furthermore, if there were any, it would be a matter for them to disclose to you directly.


Blood and Property: Do you think it matters that Hackney's legal department was 25% understaffed during a major development period - Olympics, Bishopsgate Goodsyard, Dalston development. (Reference: Hackney legal department recruiting crisis)


Jules Pipe: All major and high profile schemes have been fully supported by Legal Services with appropriately experienced lawyers advising as necessary. There have been no instances of work being externalised because Legal Services has not had the capacity to deal with it.

The Corporate Director has had the opportunity to review Legal Services and a restructure is under way with recent permanent appointments made to senior manager and senior lawyer positions. The recruitment process will continue until all vacant permanent posts have been filled.

DIANE ABBOTT ANSWERS BLOOD AND PROPERTY QUESTIONS

Hackney council in new row with Orthodox Jewish community

The Jewish Chronicle reports a campaign by Hackney's Charedi community to prevent a former school being turned into residential property. Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks is among those supporting the campaign.

According to Abraham Pinter, former Hackney Councillor, headmaster of Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School, 20% of Hackney's under 16s are from the Charedi community.

The dispute could reignite debate over planning restrictions in Stamford Hill. Bad feelings still linger after a personalised row - back in April 2009 - when Mayor Jules Pipe said that Conservative Councillor Sime Steinberger - head of the borough's scrutiny committee - had been prepared to "withhold money from 23,000 households" in order to push the Orthodox Jewish call for looser planning rules in Stamford Hill. Pipe described it as an "incredible abuse of his position" and that "23,000 people could have had their rent decreases delayed and you used that as a bargaining chip."

Cllr Steinberger replied: "What Mayor Pipe said is not what happened. I got a call in the morning saying what about this item. I hadn't seen any paper work and I asked officers what it was about." He said that Pipe had not returned his calls.

Blood and Property recently stole another Jewish Chronicle story: Hackney Council tells Orthodox Jew to demolish his home - which illustrates how severe this planning issue has become in some instances.

Meanwhile should there be concern about the state of democracy within the Orthodox community?

Council tells Orthodox Jew to demolish home

The Jewish Chronicle reports: "A Charedi father must demolish his family home after losing a planning dispute with a council. Jacob Dreyfuss, president of Stamford Hill's Stolin-Karlin synagogue, rebuilt his two-storey home without planning permission, to add a cellar and a loft extension. Hackney Council issued an enforcement notice and he appealed against it without success.... and more"

Orthodox Jewish housing needs are likely to reignite as an issue in the elections this year. Six of Hackney's nine Conservative councillors are Orthodox Jews. Nine of the borough's 58 elected politicians are members of the Orthodox Jewish community.

Last year Mayor Jules Pipe suggested that one of these councillors had put OJ housing needs ahead of the wellbeing of the borough's other residents: "23,000 Hackney tenants used as a bargaining chip, Mayor Claims."

Democracy problem in Stamford Hill?

Is there a pact between Jewish politicians in Stamford Hill not to stand against each other in elections?

Some Hackney politicians have commented on this - unfortunately most of it was off the record. One suggested that there may be a pact between the Lib Dems and the Conservative Jewish candidates not to stand against each other.

But this week Cllr Matthew Coggins, leader of the Hackney Conservative group denied this.

The evidence suggests that Orthodox Jewish candidates don't oppose each other, whichever political party they represent. If this due to a comfortable arrangement between politicians in opposing parties, it would be antidemocratic.

But the conspiracy theory - and its implications for democracy - is not the only explanation.

1. A religious principle?

One non-Jewish councillor said: "The main reason they won’t stand against each other is a reluctance to promote division within the community. They don’t want to encourage that.
At the same time they are not terribly interested in it. There are religious principles about not having these arguments publicly."

The same councillor claimed that there may be a scriptural justification for this avoidance of conflict. Asked if there was some specific text that dealt with this he said: "There is, yes, but I’m not entirely clear about what it is. But it is not a rule."

Ian Sharer, leader of the Lib Dems said there was no religious reason why candidates from the Jewish community couldn't stand against each other: "It is not a scriptural thing. The basic thing is that the Jewish community votes for Jewish councillors. They don't care which party you're in. They support you if you're Jewish."

2 Not enough candidates:

One councillor said: "Another reason why they aren’t standing against each other is that there aren’t people there who want the job."

He said that parties didn't have Jewish candidates queuing up and said that Labour had been looking for an OJ councillor for years before Joseph Stauber defected from the Lib Dems.

But Ian Sharer said that having more than one Jewish candidate in an election made it "confusing" and that these conflicts could get "nasty and a bit silly". But he didn't say there was a formal agreement not to stand against each other, adding that it had happened in the past.

3. Conspiracy:

That Jewish candidates agree not to split the Jewish vote and so do not stand against each other.

The evidence is simply that Jewish candidates very rarely stand against each other. I've been told - but haven't checked - that the last time Jewish candidates stood against each other was in the New River by election in 2005 when Harvey Odze (Conservative) and Mani Silver (Lib Dem) stood against each other.

But prior to that there is a long gap going back to Abraham Pinter - who became a Labour Councillor in the 80s/90s.

Al Sharpton visits Hackney Schools: a good idea?

A press release from Operation Black Vote says Al Sharpton will be visiting schools in Hackney this week.

Sharpton, civil rights activist and politician, is not seen by everyone as a positive or peaceful force.

Some blame him for the deterioration of race relations in the US. In 1991 Sharpton said: "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house" - that was in the run up to the bloody Crown Heights riots which pitted the black and Jewish communities against each other.

All of this stuff resurfaced last year when right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal condemning Sharpton. Sharpton threatened to sue Limbaugh but the story is still on the WSJ website.

In its press release OBV director Simon Woolley said that there was no greater figure to awake the “sleeping giant” of the Black vote than Sharpton.

OBV also said Sharpton would hold a reception with Black MPs and church leaders, and visit schools in Hackney and Lewisham: "Sharpton’s trip is aimed at inspiring the UK’s Black communities to get involved in politics and make their voices heard ahead of the forthcoming general election."

No one was in the Operation Black Vote (OBV) offices on Friday to say whether or not Sharpton's Hackney schools visit is still going ahead.

Hackney's religious 'vigilantes' have Conservative support

This story in the Independent describes the Stamford Hill Orthodox Jewish community's private crime fighting force, the Shomrim Rescue Patrol, which has been operating for two years.

Hackney's chief of police - borough commander Steve Bending - is not a fan of the organisation. Nor is his counterpart in Golders Green which has a similar organisation.

However the story quotes Michael Levy, Conservative councillor for the Springfield ward: “The police are understandably nervous because it is a new organisation but they will soon pick it up and realise that the group is a benefit and can help to drive down crime. It is a valuable service and will be able to augment the police service.

“The police encourage neighbourhoods to have a neighbourhood watch service and I cannot see a great deal of difference between that and this, apart from the fact that this is active rather than static. But that is a good thing because it will inevitably provide a great deal of intelligence for the police service.”

With six out of nine Conservative councillors coming from the Orthodox Jewish community it is hard to know which policies come under the umbrella of Conservatism and which are related to the Jewish community. Does Cllr Levy's support mean that the Conservative party supports the establishment of religion-based security forces?

And would this relaxed attitude to religion-based security forces be extended to the Muslim community?

(Can this Wikipedia entry be correct? "Shomrim SHSRP is backed by the local rabbonim and councilors and community police liaisons and volunteers are on call 24hrs." The Independent story quotes Hackney borough commander Steve Bending: "Whilst I have a great amount of respect for the Orthodox Jewish Community within Hackney, I do not support the concept of any community having its own form of patrol service. There is a risk of other communities feeling intimidated by this course of action.")

1 in 5 disabled children from Orthodox Jewish community

The Jewish Chronicle reports: "One in five disabled children in Hackney are from the strictly Orthodox community and there is a constant demand for respite care, where the child is cared for temporarily to help out the parents."

"Out of the 141 approved foster families available in the borough, only three are from the Charedi community — just two per cent, despite 29 Charedi children assessed as requiring respite care."

23,000 Hackney tenants used as a bargaining chip, Mayor claims

Someone was definitely playing politics at last night's full council meeting - but who?

I've got a feeling that the following report may be focusing on what Mayor Pipe wanted everyone to focus on - his allegations - rather than the passing of a controversial policy on housing extensions. According to some at tonight's meeting, this piece of local legislation has jammed up swathes of council officers for at least three years. (I don't know, most of this stuff was new to me)

It was also claimed that the council's position on this issue could prompt legal challenges from representatives of Stamford Hill's orthodox Jewish community who have been calling for looser planning rules in their communities to allow large families to modify their homes.

The council's position has been described as racist in the past - although such claims were not made last night, but feelings were high.

However the strongest comments came from Mayor Pipe, who accused Cllr Simche Steinberger - one of the champions of the orthodox cause - of abusing his position as chair of the borough's overview and scrutiny board.

In his statement to the council Pipe said that he had had to invoke emergency mayoral powers to ensure that 23,000 hackney house holds had their rents cut in line with government guidelines. The cuts will see these households save an average of £140 in rent per year.

Pipe claimed that efforts to push the decreases quickly through the council could have been hampered by Steinberger who, Pipe said, had refused to include the item in the formal council process unless certain conditions were met.

Pipe told the council that Steinberger refused to help unless his concerns about the handling of the controversial Residential Alterations and Extensions policy were addressed.

Pipe said that Steinbeger had been prepared to "withhold money from 23,000 households" in what he described as an "incredible abuse of his position." He said: "23,000 people could have had their rent decreases delayed and you used that as a bargaining chip." He asked what would have happened if he had not had special powers allowing him to by-pass the process.

Steinberger said: "What Mayor Pipe said is not what happened. I got a call in the morning saying what about this item. I hadn't seen any paper work and I asked officers what it was about." He said that Pipe had not returned his calls.

Cllr Coggins defended his fellow Conservative saying that Steinberger had a legitimate complaint about the way the council had dealt with the Residential Alterations and Extensions Policy. He said that he did not know that the item in question was related to rent decreases.

The council passed its recommendations on the extensions policy but not before a recorded vote was called. 34 passed the recommendations, 11 voted against and there was one abstention.

Guardian: Do Stamford Hill Jews need intergration?

And there's an interesting, but old debate at http://theshaigetz.blogspot.com/ in a piece called Yellow Brick Road.

Other stuff:

The deputy business editor of the Times thinks Hackney has made good progress and believes it is a beacon for enterprise: The success story that Labour is writing off.

And then there's the government commendation for the borough's homelessness team.