Meg Vs Diane + bad broadband connectivity in Shoreditch

Meg Hillier gave a frank interview to Blood and Property back in 2010 before the election.


http://bloodandproperty.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/meg-hillier-answers-blood-and-property_22.html

In it she said: "Were the Conservatives to get in they would be bored of the word Hackney because I’d be bringing it up so often. I’d be looking endlessly at the Parliamentary end of things, looking at the detail of everything going through, every funding formula, any slight amendment or tweak that could benefit Hackney. Whether or not we could ever change it is another question but we would have to be ever vigilant."

Should you avoid ψηφισάτω (666) on Halloween?

Until this post was written Blood and Property had a symbolically significant number of posts in its archives.

Wikipedia gives some of the background on the source and meaning of 666. However none of it's that scary, at least not in a supernatural kind of way.

But with Halloween impending and Blood and Property sounding like the title of a horror movie it seemed sensible to push past the number of the beast.

It provides an excuse to revisit October 2009 when Blood and Property asked Hackney politicians if they had ever had a brush with the supernatural. Should the operation be repeated?

Back in 2009 several Hackney politicians replied but some have moved on, like the former leader of the Conservative group who had ghost troubles in a property in Stoke Newington.

Now there are lots of new faces on the benches in Hackney Council and their supernatural views remain uncharted meanwhile older hands may have updates. (Today's Financial Times 'exposed' a potential Conservative MEP as a ghost hunter and expert on the paranormal).

So would it be in the borough's best interests to recalibrate the ghost index? Or did Meg Hillier have the right attitude to Blood and Property's idiotic questions?

Latest on Hackney occult

Otherwise Ancient Hackney is keen to address the devil's work in your area. The most recent post (a lengthy piece of research into an advertising campaign for New Age Games on Hackney Downs) contains this reassuring comment: "It never surprises us when we discover occult symbolism contained within government literature, so on seeing The Venus Map... our response amounted to nothing more than a raising of the eyebrows."

And something on Hackney UFOs too: http://hauntedskies.blogspot.com/2011/10/hackney-ufo-1970-source-material.html

Hackney jobseekers: 11,000 and "entrenched"?

The number of Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) claimants in Hackney rose to 11,043 in May, up from 10,941 in April.

That's 7.3% of the borough's working population.

In Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier's constituency, 8.3% of the working population is on the dole. It has risen every month since December 2010 when it was 7.3%.

These look worryingly high in comparison to the London average of 4.2%. Last week the Guardian commented: "Some of those parliamentary constituency areas, like Birmingham Ladywood, and Hackney South and Shoreditch, in east London, already have some of the highest proportions of benefit claimants, suggesting joblessness there is becoming entrenched."

The JSA claimant figure does not include all forms of unemployment - the bulk of which is known as 'Worklessness' and can include anyone from students to people claiming incapacity benefit.

All together 29.8% of working-age people in the borough are not employed (or 70.2% are employed). The break down between Hackney's two constituencies shows 32% of working age people are not employed in South Hackney while in Hackney North the figure is lower at 26.8%.

But it's worth remembering that worklessness figures are not easy to interpret. Despite having had years to look at it - and saying it would do so - the council has yet to explain why the borough's worklessness figures fell so miraculously (Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and Hackney: A worklessness miracle) from 47,100 in 2005 to 26,900 in 2007 - a much faster rate than neighbouring boroughs. The latest figures show the number around 34,000.

Meg Hillier: "I'm not your love, matey, OK?"

Hackney South MP Meg Hillier seems to have been having interesting run-ins with Tory ministers.

The Express quotes Meg replying: "I'm not your love, matey, OK?" to an as-yet-unknown comment by Energy Minister Greg Barker.

Meanwhile details have emerged about a much older encounter she had with Tory defence minister Andrew Robathan and which she described on a blog by Sky News Sophie Ridge:

"I came back to vote only a short time after giving birth because of the peculiar nature of the job, but I was post natal and breastfeeding at the time.

"So I was gobsmacked to be challenged in this way - it was like stepping back in time. You don't expect that reaction in the modern world. When I told him that I was post natal, he actually demanded to know how many weeks!"

That was back in 2009 while Labour was in power and, after the incident, Meg's whips arranged for her to vote via phone.

AV: not the end of the line in Hackney

Of the 149,606 people eligible to vote in Hackney, 30,969 voted for the Alternative Vote - about 20% of the entire electorate of Hackney. (Hackney Citizen report here said that Hackney had the highest yes vote in Britain and the FT pointed out that Hackney was one of only 10 areas across the whole country that voted in favour of AV. It was also one of only four London Boroughs that came out in support of AV: Lambeth, Hackney, Islington and Camden.)

Unfortunately it is not possible to see how the vote broke down across the borough's two constituencies but more people in Hackney support AV than their individual MPs - Meg Hillier in Hackney South won 23,888 votes in 2010 while Diane Abbott won 25,553.

The support for a change was high but the one Hackney South candidate who focused almost entirely on electoral reform in the last election only won 95 votes.

Denny De La Haye's campaign website 'Get a Vote' outlined his plan to create an online voting system that would allow Hackney voters to direct his votes in parliament.

Meanwhile Meg Hillier, the victorious MP for Hackney South did not support the Yes campaign. The question is whether the issue will die away in Hackney as it is expected to do elsewhere?

Pipe sets spin to positive for cuts

In this week's Hackney Gazette Meg Hillier says: "These cuts are so deep and quick that even with the strong local leadership by Hackney's mayor, we will see services devastated."

Diane Abbott has spoken about Hackney like a pit village facing mine closure.

Jules Pipe's councillors are no less negative. In July Councillor Louisa Thomson, also of We Love Stoke Newington, wrote an article for Progress Magazine called: "What are community organisers for": "In Hackney, we are bracing ourselves for the 25 per cent cuts rumoured for the autumn spending review. We have a reputation now for sound financial management and efficiency savings, but overall we're a group of Labour councillors that isn't used to having to have these discussions and it's going to hurt."

On September 30th the Hackney Gazette had Jules Pipe implying that there would be no cuts in young peoples services: "We have nearly halved the number of 16 to 18 year-olds not in education, employment or training. We are determined to maintain the provision of services that will continue to drive this figure down still further..." He then spoke about his hopes for the effects of the olympics on the borough... like he did in his previous talking point on 19 August. This spinning is unlikely to be without its purpose, even if it isn't clear at the moment.

Meg Hillier: fears for her seat

In her previous Hackney Gazette 'Talking Point' Meg Hillier said that the government's plans to equalize constituency sizes could lead, among other things, to the end of Hackney MPs (09.02.2010):

"If our population (Hackney's) shrinks a little we then a bi of the City, Tower Hamlets or Islington will be tacked on to Hackeny... or if boundaries start being drawn from outer London into the centre, we could see Hackney carved between the neighbouring constituencies.

Nick Clegg has already singled out Meg's constituency as a target - although the figures he used appear to have been out of date.

Schools Minister offers apology, tea and academy status to Hackney school

Ed Balls, Hackney resident, former schools minister and current contender for the Labour leadership took a couple of swipes at the schools minister, Michael Gove, during the second reading of the Academies Bill (from Theyworkforyou.com)

Balls started off badly, laying himself open to attack after saying: "The idea that the right hon. Gentleman (Gove) is the heir to Tony Blair is complete and utter tosh."

To which Gove replied: "I would never claim to be the heir to Blair; I know that the right hon. Gentleman yearns to fill that role. I was one of the many thousands watching the Labour leadership hustings on "Newsnight", when he said that Tony Blair was the finest Prime Minister the Labour party ever had. I dropped my cocoa in excitement at the right hon. Gentleman's conversion to the cause of Blairism. It is somewhat at variance with what is recorded in Alastair Campbell's diaries, Peter Mandelson's memoirs and various other documents that have thudded on to my desk over the past few weeks, but I am very happy to see him join the conventicle."

But Balls got his own back later with the help of Woodberry Down Primary school:

Balls: "When the head teacher of Woodberry Down community primary school in Hackney, an outstanding school in a federation with two other primary schools, approached the Department for Education to ask whether the school might access academy freedoms, the Department said it could do so only if it broke up the federation, because outstanding schools would be able to federate only with other outstanding schools rather than underperforming schools. On what basis will such collaboration help less good schools to become better? Is that not just excellence supporting excellence, or has the right hon. Gentleman had to change that policy?

Gove: "No, it is my belief that all outstanding schools should be there to support other schools. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing that issue to my attention. Actually, we have made it clear that groups of schools in which one school is outstanding and the others are not can apply. Woodberry Down may well be a school that we would like to see enjoy academy status and hope will work with other schools, but it may not be among the very first schools to enjoy academy status. If he would like Woodberry Down's application accelerated so that it can become an academy in September, I hope he will join me in the Lobby this evening."

Balls: "I have found in the past few weeks that the right hon. Gentleman is never, ever able to answer a straight question in the House. I will try again. An outstanding school was told that it could federate only with other outstanding schools if it wanted academy status. Is that his policy, yes or no?"

Gove: "It is certainly not our policy, and I am sorry that the headmaster of Woodberry Down has been told that. I shall write to him later or call him, or perhaps he, I and the right hon. Gentleman can have a cup of tea together, to ensure that that excellent school can become an academy by September if it wishes."

Meg Hillier also spoke during the debate but Diane Abbott didn't - although she was there and did vote. Schools in Diane's constituency were mentioned several times (Mossbourne).

Some explanation of the Academies bill: Tribune, Telegraph

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."

Meg Hillier forced to defend her seat as Clegg uses 10-year-old figures

Was Nick Clegg using 10-year-old data from Wikipedia when he stated the size of Hackney South's electorate in Parliament?

A terse comment from Meg Hillier arrived via Theyworkforyou.com email alert yesterday. At first glance it looked like the straightforward correction of an error made by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Meg said: "On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are very keen that Members of the House should always be factually accurate. On Tuesday 22 June, in answer to questions, the Deputy Prime Minister cited my constituency and said that it had an electorate of 52,000. In fact, on 6 May the electorate was 72,920. I would hope that you, Mr Speaker, would remind Government members of the importance of being factually accurate, when they have all the resources of Government to enable them to quote accurate figures, not figures plucked from the tops of their heads."

She was responding to what Nick Clegg had said: "Clearly, in line with existing legislation dating back to 1986, it is right for us to continue to provide for more equal constituencies in this country. [Interruption.] Here in London, for instance, Hackney South and Shoreditch has an electorate of just 57,204, while a few miles down the road, on the other side of London, Croydon North has 22,615 more voters. Its electorate is more than a third larger. That cannot be right."

But Clegg wasn't plucking figures from the top of his head. Most likely he was using this Wikipedia page which also uses the 57,204 figure. The only other place where this figure appears dates it back to the year 2000: from Boundary Commission Report: "3.12 The constituency with the lowest 2000 electorate in London will be Hackney South and Shoreditch BC with 57,204 electors: this will be the second lowest electorate in England after that of Wirral West BC....."

May be Nick Clegg has it in for Meg after she told Labour councils to have a zero tolerance policy toward Lib Dem co-operation.

(It's late and I couldn't find where Meg's 72920 figure came from - maybe here somewhere)

Tense day for Abbott: surge expected before deadline

Yesterday (8 June) Diane Abbott had 11 votes from Labour MPs - a third of what she needs to be a candidate in the party's leadership elections. She will need to have won another 22 by the end of today.

Acting Labour Leader Harriet Harman cast her vote for Diane yesterday and some commentators forecast a late surge - she currently has the least votes of all contenders: (check Labour Party website for updates, next at 12.30pm then 5.30pm).

According to Left Futures, there were 47 MPs yet to vote - 15 of these are women (one of them Meg Hillier of neighbouring Hackney South).

Abbott's chances would increase greatly if John McDonnell stood down (Abbott supporters urge McDonnell to pull out) and pressure is mounting for one or other to sacrifice themselves. According to Left Futures: "It is inconceivable that they can both qualify and one of them should withdraw as soon as possible in order to give the other time to qualify.... The decision should therefore be about who is most likely to reach 33, and about nothing else. John and Diane must resolve this themselves. The greater credit may well go to the one who withdraws."

Bookmakers Paddy Power gives Diane odds around 33 to one while McDonnell is at 100 to one.

Looks like this might be a nail-biting day.

Hackney fox attacks babies

This story from the Telegraph says a fox attacked nine-month old twins in their own home: "Police were called to the three-storey Victorian terraced house in Hackney, on Saturday night after the toddlers' parents, Nick and Pauline Koupparis, raised the alarm at 10pm."

The Sun reports: "Last night Isabella remained in intensive care while Lola was being treated on a separate ward... Cops went round telling residents to keep their doors and ground-floor windows closed. Neighbour Fatma Pekcam, 22, said: "There have always been foxes around here but now they're so tame they're not afraid of anything."

A couple of weeks ago my flatmate was confronted by the family of foxes living in a hole next to the bins in our communal garden. They didn't bother running away - just stared at him in a slightly unnerving fashion.

As an aside, the fox attack appears to have happened in MP Meg Hillier's constituency. Meg's predecessor, Brian Sedgemore, once had a spat with Clive Aslet, then editor of Country Life over fox-hunting.

Bloggers provide latest on Hackney gang violence:

Loving Dalston provides news of cover-up over knife fights on Kingsland Road

Hackney Hive reports another London Fields shooting with a man in hospital

Hackney academy silent over teacher exodus claims

Before half-term the Petchey Academy was asked how many teachers would leave the school this year and whether its maths department was moving to the new Skinners Academy.

The questions were sent directly to the school but also to the press office of the Learning Trust and the PR agency of the Jack Petchey Foundation. Spokespersons for the foundation and the trust spoke to Blood and Property.

But, despite emails and telephone calls, the academy has not acknowledged receiving the questions (whether it is correct that as many as 30 teachers may leave the school). The lack of a response may have been due preparations for half term but there are already concerns about how academies communicate with the community. Academies - your secret is safe

When Blood and Property asked Jules Pipe, elected Mayor of Hackney, if the Freedom of Information Act should apply to academies: (Jules Pipe answers Blood and Property questions) he said: "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."

Last year Diane Abbott told Blood and Property: "I am concerned about the lack of transparency both in relation to academies and in relation to The Learning Trust itself. But there is no question that academies are hugely popular with Hackney parents and they are all massively oversubscribed."

A couple of days ago Meg Hillier provided MPs (June 2 debate via Theyworkforyou.com) with a mission statement for Hackney academies: "There is still more to do, of course. Bridge, Petchey and City academies in Hackney, which are yet to have GCSE years, are all working to emulate the Mossbourne example. It would also be interesting to discuss with Ministers the establishment of a 14-to-18 academy in Hackney community college."

Might it be a good idea to find out what is really going on in Hackney academies before asking for more of them?

Diane: Hackney like pit village facing mine closures

Writing in the Mirror Diane Abbott said: "The front-runners in the Labour leadership race all assume that, sooner or later, we have to have big cuts in public expenditure to fill the hole in the public balance sheet.

"But as an MP from the inner city, I know that these cuts will hit my people twice. Firstly, they will have a worse service, but secondly they will lose their jobs. I live in an area where 90 per cent of people work in the public sector.... Just as closing the mines devastated many pit villages, big cuts in the public sector could devastate some inner-city areas."

In yesterday's Hackney Gazette, Mayor Jules Pipe, listed his Labour administration's achievements (London Fields Lido, Clapton Library etc...) then said: "We have been able to achieve this through sound financial management and it is this sound management which means we are in a better position than many to weather the inevitable storms ahead, protecting services that matter to people."

Can they both be right?

MEG HILLIER

Meanwhile Meg Hillier maintains her usual low profile. The Aberdeen Press and Journal describes her as "Labour home affairs spokesman" but her role in the opposition will probably be related to who she supports in the Labour leadership contest and whether they win. In one of the few post election news stories about her, she appeared to have burnt a couple of bridges.

The Times reported: "Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South, said sadly: “It looks like it’s becoming a beauty contest of young men in their forties in smart suits.”"

But it's worth noting that the it was the Times that added "sadly" without which it appears to be a judgement-free observation.

Before the election, she told Blood and Property: "Were the Conservatives to get in they would be bored of the word Hackney because I’d be bringing it up so often. I’d be looking endlessly at the Parliamentary end of things, looking at the detail of everything going through, every funding formula, any slight amendment or tweak that could benefit Hackney. Whether or not we could ever change it is another question but we would have to be ever vigilant."

Will she be able to do this properly and hold a major role in the opposition? Especially if she's not able to employ the staff that she needs to run her constituency (Guardian).

Meg Hillier: Zero tolerance of Lib Dems

There's not much in this piece from the Times other than: "Harriet Harman, acting party leader, later convened a meeting of Labour MPs where anger was voiced towards the Tories’ new partners in government. Meg Hillier, a former Home Office minister, demanded that Labour abandon co-operation deals with the Lib Dems on local councils."

Both of Meg's Labour MP predecessors in Hackney South defected to the liberals...

UKpollingreport.co.uk: "Oddly enough two Labour MPs for Hackney South in a row have defected to the centre party. Ron Brown, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch from 1974-1983 defected to the SDP in 1981, when he was defeated by Labour`s Brian Sedgemore. Sedgemore in turn defected to the Liberal Democrats shortly before 2005 when he stood down from Parliament. In the 1990s the Liberal Democrats enjoyed success at a local level here, but it never translated into Parliamentary strength and following a difficult period of Liberal Democrat-Conservative control of Hackney council they largely collapsed, leaving every council seat in this ward in the hands of Labour."

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."

The north south divide - in Hackney

Three stories:
1 The Independent reports a remarkable 15% rise in voter registrations in Hackney. But did they register because they wanted to vote? I'm one of the newly registered - my mind was made up because of a £1000 fine threat.

2. New varieties of diametrically opposite views from Meg Hillier (Hackney South) and Diane Abbott (Hackney North) are still being discovered.

Last night Diane told "This Week" viewers that the worst thing about Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy a bigot was that it raised the issue of immigration. When asked her why talking about immigration might be a problem, she didn't have an answer.

Moments later she said that Hackney was an area with a high level of illegal immigration.

Then she said that she supported the idea of an amnesty for illegal immigrants - she specifically approved of the one proposed by the Lib Dems.

Compare that to Meg Hillier. According to this piece in the Guardian, Meg told the people of Barking and Dagenham: "We deport someone every eight minutes... We fingerprint anyone who comes in for over six months. Foreigners now have to carry special national identity cards."

3. Another interesting story: The Jewish Chronicle adds some extra detail to Simon Tesler's decision to stand as an independent candidate (Chops changes and councillor controversies) against his former Conservative colleagues. According to the JC, Tesler says he was dropped because he spent too much time working on ultra-orthodox Jewish issues. Matthew Coggins, leader of the Hackney Conservative Group, had a different story: "Mr Tesler was deselected not because of the time he spent representing the strictly Orthodox community but because of his lack of attendance at council meetings."

It also reports Labour supporting Abraham Pinter saying he is disappointed that Joseph Stauber couldn't be found a Hackney seat to stand in by the Labour Party. Some of these issues were discussed in Blood and Property: Chops changes and councillor controversies

Hackney candidate faces repossession and other issues

Independent Hackney South and Shoreditch candidate, Denny de la Haye, answers his own selection of Blood and Property questions.

In the piece he reveals that the financial crisis has put his home at risk: "As it happens I'm in danger of having my flat repossessed since I lost my job last year, so I'm painfully aware of the ongoing problems the recession has left us with."

(Denny will not be on the panel of a hustings tonight at Hackney Community College - April 21 - but he will be in the audience.)

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

Denny de la Haye: Quite the opposite... I think the strength of London these days is that it's a cultural melting-pot. You can see this particularly well in school-children, with friendship groups often clearly crossing two or more ethnic groups, and those differences meaning nothing difficult to those young people - they're aware of them, but not troubled by them. I think for our multicultural society to work really well, we need to be aware of and interested in each other's cultures, and maybe take some of the best bits from each of them.

(Incidentally, I was obviously intrigued by Meg's reply that "We have a party system in this country and people will look at what policies work for them". The party system explicitly does not let people vote on policies - it requires you to vote for a party, and buy into their whole
manifesto. My 'direct digital democracy' system will let people really vote on what individual policies work for them!)

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?

Denny de la Haye: I think this is a natural tendency that might have a lot of its negative side taken away if you let people vote 'per policy' instead of having one 'overall' vote. People will be less tempted to clump into clans and more interested in looking at how each individual
policy on its merits. As I said in my last interview with you, if a particular group is very engaged by a particular issue, then they will tend to be well-informed about it and I think that's a great reason to let them make decisions about it. If their position is countered by an opposing group, then you'll see some interesting debate and that will help others form their own opinion.

Blood and Property: How important do you think religion is in terms of understanding Hackney? Is it a big issue or not really?

Denny de la Haye: I'm not religious myself, but as with many other issues of personal belief, this is completely irrelevant to how I'd perform as a direct democracy MP. The fact that my vote on each issue is mandated by the public in an open and transparent way means that my
personal opinions are very secondary when considering me as a candidate. What I'm offering is a choice on each issue as it arises, instead of a single choice of a potentially unrepresentative representative.

Blood and Property: Do you think that Hackney has seen the worst of the
financial crisis?

Denny de la Haye: Quite possibly, yes. I think a recession always bites hardest at the bottom, and Hackney has a lot of people who are struggling financially, including many people living in poverty (defined as having an income lower than 60% of the national average). As it happens I'm in danger of having my flat repossessed since I lost my job last year, so I'm painfully aware of the ongoing problems the recession has left us with. We might be out of the recession in theory, but I don't think many people are feeling that at street level yet - and those
problems are clearly worse the lower your income is and the harder it is for you to find work in the present economic climate.

Blood and Property: Have things got much worse though, since the financial crisis?

Denny de la Haye: They certainly did for me, and I'm pretty sure I had it easy compared to some.

Blood and Property: How seriously do you think Hackney would be affected if a Conservative government came into power?

Denny de la Haye: Well, as Meg observed one of the main employers in Hackney is actually the council. The Tories are aiming to reduce the size of government at all levels if I understand their 'big society' plan correctly, so presumably that's not going to help the ongoing situation with unemployment in this area. As for their other policies, they've mostly been keeping them to themselves for now, so it's hard to say anything clear about them - but generally I'm distrustful of 'yet another political party' at this point, and I think a lot of people
share that feeling.

Let's hope for a hung Parliament, with a healthy number of independents keeping a watch on things without party whips telling them what to do!

Blood and Property: Do you think that in places like Hackney, or Tower Hamlets, that council departments and staff become politicised?

Denny de la Haye: I think that councils tend to have quite a strong in-house culture, but I'm not sure if it's politicised towards the prevailing party so much as a thing in its own right. A couple of the local Labour councillors actually knocked my door before I'd decided to run myself, and asked whether I'd be voting Labour. They didn't seem interested in defending the national party at all, in fact they seemed very aware that the national party was probably hurting their local prospects at this point. I certainly didn't get an impression of a closely-tied local and national Labour party 'machine' from that experience, which I think is a good thing.

Blood and Property: What about crime?

Denny de la Haye: My only experience of being a victim of crime in London was not long after I moved into Hackney - nothing serious, just someone did quite a lot of damage to my car. I went to the police station and they gave me a form and told me to bring it back when I'd filled it in. I asked what else would happen after that and they said 'probably nothing', so I didn't bother. I don't think that experience is particularly unique to Hackney - I suspect that crime figures are falling because of statistical tricks and under-reporting far more than because of an actual reduction in crime. If I'm right that might explain why people's fear of crime isn't falling - people know how safe or unsafe their area is, regardless of how the statistics are doctored
from year to year to show us steady improvement.

As far as I understand it, 'bobbies on the beat' is actually one of the least effective ways of reducing crime levels, so it's only really a publicity win (reduces the fear of crime without reducing crime). It seems a shame that the number of bobbies on the beat has been made into
a measure of success by both Labour and Tories - it seems that they care more about the perception than the reality.

Blood and Property: Do you think it is healthy that so many of the borough's schools are now academies - and whether it matters that these schools are not subject to the freedom of information act?

Denny de la Haye: I wasn't aware that academies were exempt from FoI, that's quite obviously a problem. Any public-funded body (including a great number of quangos) should be subject to FoI legislation.


Commenting on Blood and Property's Jules Pipe interview:

Denny de la Haye: I'll second the comment on his interview about it being very odd for him to claim that the Tories are Labour's main Parliamentary opposition in both Hackney constituencies - that's not what it looks like to me from a quick glance at the last few election results. That said, obviously I hope to present some serious opposition in Hackney South and Shoreditch this time round, given the unique nature of my platform.


NOTE: Denny chose these questions from ones that had already been put to other politicians.

These were
Andrew Boff interview
Meg Hillier Interview
Jules Pipe interview
Diane Abbott interview

How many people would Andrew Boff have to sack?

Back in 2005, after becoming the Labour candidate for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier worked in Tower Hamlets Council press office. At the time complaints were made because if Meg had been a normal council employee she would not have been allowed to hold the position.

But she worked for an agency which meant she was not strictly a council employee. Which meant she could do a job that was 'politically restricted', a job that politically active people wouldn't usually be allowed to do.

So, was the minister now in charge of the massive "Vetting and Barring Scheme" guilty of using a loophole to avoid being vetted and barred herself?

More importantly, do local authorities fill posts with people who are politically sympathetic to the leadership? And would a new administration have to carry out a cull?

Meg Hillier's answers from Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions:

Blood and Property: Do you think that in places like Hackney, or Tower Hamlets, that council departments and staff become politicised?

Meg Hillier: I deal with them on a very factual basis. If I’m dealing with a licensing issue then I’m dealing with them in relation to a licensing issue. But I think it’s right that council employees should follow the policy mission of the council. They should also be able to change course if the leadership changed. But I don’t think there’s any likelihood that the leadership will change.

Blood and Property: Do you think that concern over Hackney’s communications department, with Hackney Today for example, is fair? Do you think there are safeguards to prevent these becoming political tools?

Meg Hillier: There are safeguards because there have been councils in the past that have been taken to court when they’ve put something in the paper that’s been seen to be political. If anyone has an objection they should raise it and it should be investigated. But I don’t deal with Hackney Today at all beyond updating surgery details. I do publications from Parliament and I have to make it very balanced and not party political. There are very strict rules for all of us in public life.

Blood and Property: Back in 2005 when you were the parliamentary candidate for Hackney you were working in Tower Hamlets council press office which I think the Lib Dems had an issue with.

Meg Hillier: I wasn’t employed by Tower Hamlets council.

Blood and Property: No you were employed by an agency but you had a job in the press office.

Meg Hillier: I didn’t actually have a job in the press office. I was employed by my employer who then sent me on an appointment and they took me on because of the skills I had and my politics was really neither here nor there. If I hadn’t been able to do the job I wouldn’t have got the job.

Blood and Property: Yes, but its just an example of having people who are clearly political in roles that may be shouldn’t be political.

Meg Hillier: But there are rules about that. You can’t do that in jobs of a certain level.

Blood and Property: But you were able to do that job in Tower Hamlets because you worked for an agency instead of being a council employee.

Meg Hillier: I was employed by someone to do a job and I was not there to do any spin for any particular political party. In my job before I was very professional and you don’t last very long if you are partial. But equally, if you work in any local government environment you have to follow the policy that your political leadership sets. And that’s the job of a non-politically aligned administrative body.

Blood and Property: So if someone like Andrew Boff won and became Mayor you wouldn’t see a huge exodus of staff at a certain level?

Meg Hillier: Well. I don’t know. I don’t see it happening. But really there a lots of examples of people being councillors from one party or another and they wind up being chief executives of a council of a different political hue and it’s not an issue because they’re good at their jobs.

Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions on ghosts, unemployment, crime, religion...

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?"