Does school row expose 'Charedi coup'?

The first Hackney Gazette of 2012 features a letter and a news story both of which raise concerns about schools for ultra orthodox Jewish (Charedi) children which have opened illegally in and around Stamford Hill.

Some of these schools have been granted retrospective planning permission but usually with conditions attached.

A Google search suggests at least three similar cases (any more please let me know and I will amend if there are any updates.)

Torah V'Yirah, 91 Amhurst Park.

Beis Trana, at 186-194 Upper Clapton Road. (Both discussed in a Jewish Chronicle piece )

The Gur school in Fairholt Road (Another Jewish chronice piece).

The Gazette's news story covered the Gur school which got its planning permission in July but with conditions that it has failed to meet. The Gazette said: "The council has since served several enforcement notices which have been ignored."

The school has now appealed against the conditions of the temporary planning permission.

The letter in the Gazette is about another school, the Torah V'Yirah at 91 Amhurst Road (The Gazette originally wrote this story on December 16). On Tuesday 10 January the Council's planning committee will vote on whether this school should be granted retrospective planning permission too.

Council officers have recommended refusing permission and under normal circumstances this matter would not have gone before a committee. But a petition of 10 councillors has forced it on to the agenda on Tuesday.

Two councillors who sit on the committee (Ian Sharer, Leader of Hackney Lib Dems and Michael Levy, Leader of the Conservative Group) ) have put their names to the petition calling for the schools argument to be heard and not refused on the basis of the officer recommendation.

Nigel Lewis' letter to the Gazette also referred to a meeting with Hackney Councillors in June 2011 - this included Abraham Jacobson (Lib Dem), Ian Sharer (Leader of Hackney Lib Dems), Simche Steinberger (Conservative), Michael Levy (Leader of the Conservative Group) and Benzion Papier (Conservative) as well as Linda Kelly (Conservative) and Dawood Akhoon (Lib Dem) who have all signed the petition.

Lewis' letter described the June meeting as "a Charedi-run closed shop determined to stifle local democracy".

He added that: "The recent petition likewise appears to be the prelude to an intended coup, in which large areas of Hackney's planning will henceforth be managed with Charedi interests uppermost, irrespective of other people."

This may sound a bit insensitive but tensions around planning and  the Charedi community have dogged Hackney politics for years. During the last Mayoral election Andrew Boff, Conservative member of the London Assembly and candidate for Mayor of Hackney, criticised this blog for suggesting that the Conservative party sometimes behaved like an ultra orthodox Jewish lobby group in Hackney: Reply to Andrew Boff.

A couple of years ago Mayor Jules Pipe criticised Cllr Simche Steinberger for putting the interests of the Charedi community ahead of other Hackney residents.

This is how he described it later in an interview with Blood and Property: "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."

The other side

The debate about ultra orthodox Jewish education facilities has been rumbling for a while in Hackney and the Council has been criticised for not acknowledging the problems faced by its fastest growing community.

Rabbi Abraham (Avraham) Pinter, a regular spokesman for the community and principal at Yesodey Hatorah School led a campaign to turn the site of an old Hackney School into a school for ultra orthodox Jewish pupils rather than turn it into residential homes.

At the time he told the Jewish Chronicle that the site represented "a unique opportunity for the Charedi community in Stamford Hill to have improved purpose-built educational facilities. More than 20 per cent of Hackney's under-16s come from the Charedi community and many of our existing schools are old fashioned, sub-standard residential buildings.

He said: "It is an absolute scandal that the educational needs of the fastest growing part of Britain's Jewish community are being ignored by Hackney Council," he claimed. In other words something needs to be done about schools in the community and until then illegal ones will probably keep popping up.


General tension

The ultra orthodox Jewish community seems to have a rocky record in terms of community cohesion. It is often criticised by the mainstream Jewish media here. Between Christmas and New Year the BBC reported stand-offs in Israel as the wider Israeli population protested against demands for gender segregation.

At the end of last year Geoffrey Alderman, historian and columnist for the Jewish Chronicle, raised tensions when he claimed it was "well known that charedi men are notorious harassers of the opposite sex." (Republishing this comment has offended a reader - see comment below - but the context and a response from Rabbi Pinter are included in the link, I'm hoping that's enough to justify repeating Alderman's claim which is not there because I believe it but to demonstrate that this debate has become very heated within the Jewish community itself. Anyway, if you have a problem with this please let me know via comments below.)

Justified or not, is there any way to usefully address these issues before the effects of a poorly performing economy fray tolerance levels?

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.

Is Jules Pipe behind legal feud with "lying little rag"?

The Hackney Citizen's decision not to buckle to Hackney Council's legal threats over a telephone conversation posted on its website has been reported by Journalism.co.uk.

Hackney Council told Journalism.co.uk that it was concerned about how the recording was made. Hackney Citizen replied: "We take the view that it is in the public interest to disclose the way the Council was dealing with the issue, as evidenced by the audio clips."

The last time the Citizen clashed with the council was when it reported an alleged £40m hole in the council's budget. This, combined with Lib Dem criticism of Hackney Today (the council's free newspaper) prompted Mayor Jules Pipe to publicly attack the Hackney Citizen in a full council meeting in which he called it a "lying little rag".

Could Pipe's wrath have had anything to do with the Citizen's apparent alliance with Pipe's mayoral rival, Andrew Boff? Keith Magnum, founder and editor of Hackney Citizen - and former Green Party candidate - told Blood and Property that this appearance was just a coincidence: Hackney Citizen: Boff-tastic or intelligence wing of the Green Party?

Christian Party flashes cash

Until recently Hackney's billboards were Conservative Party territory. But below is a giant poster on Lower Clapton Road proclaiming Hackney South's Christian Party candidate, John Williams. According to the BBC the Christian Party launched its poster campaign three days ago.





This story mentions that the Christian Party raised over £100,000 in 2010 - small fry compared to many other parties. However it seems to have been attracting cash from all quarters. "Hackney Christians: Money, power, demonic possession"

Rev George Hargreaves, the founder of the Hackney-based Christian Party, has caused controversy with his campaign in a Barking and Dagenham campaign, while his wife, Maxine, is taking on Diane Abbott in Hackney North: God on her side

Other news:

If you haven't seen it yet, take a look at Hackney Citizen's story on Hackney Council saying there is no Conservative Mayoral Candidate.

Video slanging match - Abbott, Boff, Angus and others

The main row is about 38 minutes into this debate and is about whether people should feel guilty about not voting - but most of it is worth watching anyway.
http://www.worldbytes.org/programmes/015/015_002.html

Earlier story:
Suzanne Moore: 'help' from friends and family

Empire boss accuses Boff of "great naivety"

The Stage covers Andrew Boff's proposals for the Hackney Empire: "Interim chief executive of Hackney Empire, Clarie Middleton, said that she thought the proposals showed “great naivety”, adding that the council grant would have to increase ten-fold in order to sustain the theatre as a producing venue."

And in case this wasn't clear, she didn't just criticise his proposals, she told The Stage: "This man is Naive."

Hackney Citizen: Boff-tastic or intelligence wing of the Green Party?

Keith Magnum, founder of the Hackney Citizen, confesses that the paper's website looks a bit "Boff-tastic" at the moment. It's full of the various gripes of the Conservative Mayoral candidate, Andrew Boff.

This is odd considering Magnum stood as a Green Party candidate in Clissold in the last election (2006). What's doubly odd is that there is no Mischa Borris, the Green Party Mayoral candidate, in the paper's who's who for the Hackney Mayoral race.

I hoped this could mean one of two things. Either the Boff interest was a double bluff and Magnum was master-minding - in his own words - "the intelligence wing of the Green Party" or hated his former colleagues at the Green Party so much he'd turned to the Conservatives.

But Magnum said neither interpretation was correct: "I left the Green Party. I left because I didn't think being a member of a local party would be compatible with what I'm doing now. I'm still friendly with them but I'm not involved in it."

Apparently the lack of Green stories is because the Green launch has come a bit later than the others. "We're not avoiding them... I've known them for ages and I still speak to them. But it's not like this is the intelligence wing of the Green Party, they don't know anything before it gets published."

So, what's with all the Boff coverage - as opposed to the lack of Borris coverage ? "We've done stuff with Andrew Boff just because it's interesting." He said Boff had approached them with his story about the council refusing to print his election address.

Magnum - who has no background in journalism (I failed to ask him what his professional background was) - said "Hackney Council rejects mayoral candidates election address" was a "brilliant story" but hard to substantiate, which was probably a pop at the Hackney Press office which took its time confirming Boff's story.

Magnum says: "When I look at our homepage, it does look a bit Boff-tastic, but he's just given us the best stories." As an antidote he says Boff might have slightly brought the problem on himself by not attending relevant meetings and leaving it all to the last minute.

In contrast Magnum says the Greens have provided press releases about more money for pensioners which, while worthy, are unlikely to prompt the kind of reactions that Boff's problems have - lots of comments can be found at the end of the story.

HACKNEY GAZETTE:

Otherwise, has the Hackney Citizen overtaken the Hackney Gazette as the borough's main newspaper? While Magnum can point to a print run of 20,000 free newspapers, a statistician might balk at comparing this to the Gazette's weekly 8,000 sold newspapers. But according to Magnum his 20,000 probably means a readership of around 60,000.

Compared to the Gazette's full time editorial staff of 7 - four reporters, news editor, deputy editor, editor (that doesn't include sport, advertising or circulation) the Hackney Citizen doesn't have any paid staff. According to Magnum, the advertising revenue goes back into the circulation.

Meanwhile Magnum says he's watching for any web activity from Archant which owns the Gazette. He says the privately owned newspaper group has upgraded some of its local news sites.

Boff answers Blood and Property's 'distasteful' questions

Andrew Boff is the Conservative Mayoral candidate for Hackney. He is currently a member of the London Assembly and will hold the seat until 2012. Some links: Wikipedia biography; His election website: changehackney.com. (Also, there is an interesting piece in Hackney Citizen: Hackney Council rejects Mayoral candidate's election address)


QUESTIONS:

1. Blood and Property: Do you think it is acceptable that Mayor Pipe has answered a similar set of questions to these via the Hackney Council Press office? Should tax payers money be used for this as an election nears?

Andrew Boff: This is one of the points that I'm trying to make about whether or not the Mayor should be paid. The Mayor should be a representative of the people, not subsumed into the bureaucracy of the Council. These questions are clearly related to the election. Using the press office would be highly inappropriate if that is what has happened.

2. Blood and Property: How significant is the PR/Comms department in Hackney? Do you think that it's senior figures - or any of the other departments in the council - have become politicised? And would you be able to work with them if you won the election?

ANDREW BOFF: To quote Government Minister Ben Bradshaw, “You’ve got local authorities that are spending a considerable amount of council taxpayers’ money employing armies of press officers to produce these propaganda sheets masquerading as newspapers. They remind me of (Soviet state newspaper) Pravda and papers I knew from my times in East Germany as a BBC correspondent. If the only information you’re getting is misleading propaganda put out by politicians from one particular party, I think that’s very dangerous.” Read Hackney Today and tell me it's not propaganda without giggling. There are some very good officers working in Hackney Council who can speak for themselves. The regime does not allow them to speak to the press, however, because Mayor Pipe wants to control the message. Under my Mayoralty officers would be allowed to speak for themselves, dispensing with the need for a large media management team.

Andrew Boff answered questions 3, 4 and 5 together below. He said he found them "distasteful" - (does this mean racist?). These are the questions:

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.

6. Blood and Property: Do you think it matters that Hackney's legal department was 25% understaffed during major development period - olympics, bishopsgate goods yard, dalston development. (Hackney legal department recruiting crisis)

ANDREW BOFF: I'd prefer the legal department to serve the interests of the people of Hackney, not just its administration. The Head of legal services letter to Lowell Grant (“Spirit”) which told him to “desist from misrepresenting the facts to the media” after the Council had corruptly taken away his home and business shows how that department has become a puppet of the political class in Hackney. No wonder they have problems keeping staff. (Easteight's coverage of Spirit's story)

7. Blood and Property: How much has the borough has changed in the last 10 years - demographically (there's some research claiming that Hackney North has the highest density of people with degrees in the country) Do you think this will change the make up of the voting patterns in the borough in your favour?

ANDREW BOFF: In Hackney, Conservatives have always had a better reception on the Council estates than in the wealthier streets. Now that even the wealthy are finding it difficult to afford Labour many are realising that if you want to vote for change, you may have to change your vote.

8. 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?)

ANDREW BOFF: What is clear is that people brought up in Hackney are having greater difficulties staying here. The Council's policy of social cleansing doesn't help, with a large numbers of new dormitory developments and very very little for Hackney families. I will end the public subsidy of new one and two bedroom flats and ensure all that taxpayers money goes into building proper family homes, preferably with gardens. The overcrowding in Hackney is a severe problem and largely hidden. It has an effect on educational attainment, health and the cohesiveness of families. The Council doesn't seem to talk much about it though.

9. Blood and Property: Do you think that Hackney has suffered the worst effects of the financial crisis? Why is Hackney's employment situtation either improving more slowly than other boroughs? or degenerating faster than other boroughs?

ANDREW BOFF: The question is in the past tense and the past is not the biggest issue. The effects of the recession will carry on through the next few years and it will hit Hackney particularly hard. We already have the highest number of job applicants chasing each job (92) and I shudder to think of what is going to happen if we carry on with the current Council who have neglected their duty of care to help local residents find work. The example of only one Hackney resident on an apprenticeship on the Olympic site is a symbol of how rubbish the Council is at finding work for local people. It needs to be much more pro-active in assisting the unemployed.

10. Blood and Property: There is a fear that if the Conservatives win the next election, Hackney will see a substantial fall in financial support. Is this fear justified?

ANDREW BOFF: Whoever wins the General election will be cutting back on financial support to Hackney. That is the brutal reality of the financial crisis. The Government is paying out more than they are getting in. Their current policies are less to do with Keynesian stimulation of the economy and more about delaying the inevitable for as long as possible, well, after May 6th anyway.

11. Blood and Property: What sort of relationship does Jules Pipe have with Boris Johnson?

ANDREW BOFF: They have to have a constructive relationship. I do not know if Bozzer has ever invited him round for dinner.

12. Blood and Property: Do you think that you would be more effective at winning money and resources from Johnson's administration than Pipe?

ANDREW BOFF: Yes, because I am well placed, as a member of the London Assembly, to argue for the kind of things that Hackney needs. Having spent most of my life in proper jobs, becoming a paid politician in 2008 has given me the chance to campaign at the GLA for the things I think that Hackney needs such as more family housing, protecting small independent shops against the threat from chain stores and improving the London Plan in its attitude to street markets.

13. Blood and Property: Would a Conservative government and a Conservative Mayor of London be more benevolent towards Hackney if the borough had a Conservative Mayor?

ANDREW BOFF: They'd want to see a Mayor who was spending their financial support effectively rather than building plush new Town Halls, glossy marketing and jollies to Beijing. So yes, they probably would.

14. Blood and Property: Although crime in Hackney has fallen, other boroughs complain that Hackney has more policemen. Meanwhile, Hackney seems to rely on outside agencies like Operation Trident. If Boris Johnson cuts numbers of police officers, how will this affect Hackney?

ANDREW BOFF: The overall number of a Police Officers on the street will increase by 95.

15. Blood and Property: Also, while other boroughs are actively lobbying Johnson to siphon resources away from Hackney, can Hackney residents be sure that you will put in as many hours as a paid-up Mayor?

ANDREW BOFF: Yes.

16. Blood and Property: To what extent do you think that the crime figure improvements in Hackney are down to numbers of police men in the borough?

ANDREW BOFF: The effectiveness of Police Officers (they can be women as well you know) is one part of making Hackney safer. However, there is an enormous amount of unreported crime especially that which is perpetrated against young people. We have also seen a disturbing increase in hate crimes and it appears that whilst the quantum of crime may have had a statistical improvement, the severity of crime has increased. This points to Police time being directed to the low hanging fruit to hit targets. The rise in knife crimes and anti-social behaviour indicates that there is not enough attention being given to issues around social deprivation, overcrowding, the shameful lack of positive activities for young people and the breakdown in community based self-policing . The Council has to abandon its hostility to people of good will in the community who are trying to make a difference. Only then will there be a truly sustainable and equitable decrease in crime.

17. 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? - References here: Hackney academies: too good to be true?

ANDREW BOFF: I welcome there being more information about the academies coming into the public domain. The success of the academies comes not from their secrecy but their ability to manage themselves without the target-driven tick-box obsessed Learning Trust breathing down their necks. That dead hand and lack of trust is creating impossible pressures on excellent teachers and driving them out of the profession. The Learning Trust must be scrapped. It has been an abysmal failure. We need to bring trust back into education. Trust in the professionalism of the teachers, headteachers and parents who want to see their schools thrive.

18. 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? (There seems to be a lot of political activity in fundamental churches) and the orthodox jewish community is said to be growing fast and has specific requirements.

ANDREW BOFF: Understanding is generally a good thing. The secular media are curiously bi-polar when it comes to the activities of people with faith. If they separate themselves from the political process they are accused of not integrating, if they join political parties they are accused of entry-ism. The chattering all has a rather nasty taste to it. Hackney is the sum of its parts and must meet the needs of all its residents.

19. Blood and Property: Do you think the BNP will stand in the Hackney Mayoral elections this year: if so, how do you think it will affect the elections in the borough?

ANDREW BOFF: It now turns out that this was a hollow threat. That party works on creating mistrust between communities. That kind of approach has absolutely no place in Hackney. (Hackney Citizen covers Boffs BNP clash in the London Assembly)

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...

Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions

Meg Hillier, MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch and Under-Secretary of State for Identity talks to Blood and Property.



Blood and Property: How does your job as a minister fit in with your job as a constituency MP?

Meg Hillier: There’s quite a lot of overlap with Home Office issues and concerns in Hackney and it’s helpful to have the experience of being a Hackney MP for my ministerial work and vice versa.

In terms of the time I spend in Hackney, it is much the same as it was when I wasn’t a minister; a lot of an MP’s time is spent in Parliament during the week.

The difference is that I can’t speak about issues in the chamber of the House of Commons that aren’t related to my ministerial portfolio or department.
So I can’t ask questions in the House on certain issues but that’s not necessarily a problem because there are other ways I can raise them. For example, on the Crown Estate proposals, which is a big issue in the constituency, threatening to sell off its property in Victoria Park, I’m working very closely with the other MPs involved who are not ministers. We’re working together but they’re speaking and I’m supporting.

Blood and Property: When I tried to get in touch with you about Brian Pead (Hackney child therapist caught in polic sting), the initial response was that I couldn’t talk to you about it without going through the Home Office press office.

Meg Hillier: In my Parliamentary office my staff are funded to deal with my Parliamentary work, not my Home Office work and don’t field any Home Office phone calls. The staff there deal with Hackney, not the Home Office.

Blood and Property: So you couldn’t talk to me about that stuff?

Meg Hillier: I couldn’t talk to you about an individual case.

Blood and Property: But if there’s an issue in your constituency that is brought up by a constituent, do you find out about it?

Meg Hillier: If any constituent raises an issue with me, I take it up. There’s nothing stopping me taking anything up.

Blood and Property: It just sounded, from your description of how you have to deal with the Crown Estate Issue, that you are limited in what you are allowed to do.

Meg Hillier: No, I can’t speak on another minister’s portfolio because I’m a member of the government. But I’m not silenced. There are many ways of raising issues. And realistically, you don’t always get to speak about the issues you want to speak about in Parliament. There are constraints on what is spoken about and you have to queue for your space.

So I’m still very active dealing with my constituents. I’ve dealt with 11,000 since I was elected (although that number includes some who have come back on other issues). I do all the things that I did in Hackney when I wasn’t a minister. Nothing has changed there at all.

Blood and Property: It’s just that that doesn’t sound realistic. Your ministerial job must involve a lot of time.

Meg Hillier: Yes, but as I say to my office, my main job is as a constituency MP. What I mean by that is that my time spent in the constituency and on Hackney issues is priority.

Blood and Property: How many people do you employ and, in the Home Office, how many people are specifically dedicated to you?

Meg Hillier: 2.8 - two full timers and one person working a four day a week, that’s for Hackney and Parliament. (In terms of the Home Office) there’s a private office and that has four people and those four people shadow the work that I do and part of that is about Home Office continuity.

Blood and Property: Do you think that you get enough scrutiny from your constituents? There seems to be an unhealthy level of disinterest.

Meg Hillier: Constituents contact me on a whole range of issues but one issue is the timing of that engagement. Influencing policy is better the earlier you get into that process. The earlier people get involved the more likely it is that any individual MP or group of MPs can influence policy. Part of the challenge is how people find out about what is going on. I try and write a report every month to say what is coming up in Parliament and what’s been going through (with the aim of getting feedback and having consultations) Essentially I welcome that earlier discussion.

Blood and Property: But do people come and speak to you about what’s going on in Hackney rather than what’s going on in Parliament?

Meg Hillier: It’s a fair mix of both. There is a level of misunderstanding still. People think that I work for the council. And although councillors in Hackney are very active, a lot of people don’t know what a councillor is. If you come across an issue that affects you or that you are passionately interested in, at that point you have to engage, and if you have never engaged before then the system probably is a bit confusing. We need to do more to explain what happens and how to engage and make it easy for people to find things on the website or in the literature.

Blood and Property: In comparison to Islington, is Hackney a lot less sophisticated?

Meg Hillier: People have stereotypes about places. I spent my first two years in Parliament taking every chance I got to speak about Hackney and to raise issues like poverty in the borough. But people have a negative impression and I felt that part of my job was to say some of the good things about Hackney too, to challenge the stereotypes.

Blood and Property: One issue that pops up every now and again is that some communities don’t seem to have any political representation. Like the Vietnamese community.

Meg Hillier: The Vietnamese community did have a representative, Than Vu who was a Hackney Councillor.

Blood and Property: How big is the community?

Meg Hillier: I don’t know off the top of my head but it is significant. We talked about having a Viet Town in Hackney. There is Bangla Town and China Town and Hackney has one of the largest Vietnamese communities in the capital.

Blood and Property: Any idea why they don’t have a representative?

Meg Hillier: Well he (Than Vu) was but the Chinese community as well has never been massively represented. It’s an issue I have discussed with the Chinese Association. It’s partly cultural, but certainly there’s a level of engagement.

I have to say diverse representation is not a big problem in Hackney. If you look at the diversity of Hackney council it is the most diverse council of anywhere, I would say in the country. So something is going right in Hackney.

It’s not a pick and mix, it’s not as if you have to have someone from every group, to make it representative. A council is elected for four years and if you look at it now I’d say it’s pretty genuinely mixed.

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.

Blood and Property: But if that’s all happening in the North of the Borough, and you’re south, does it mean that the political attention of the council is drawn up there.

Meg Hillier: I have no indication or worry that the political attention of the council is being drawn away from my area on important issues.

I have no concerns there at all. The divide in the borough is artificial. One of the things about Hackney is that it’s multicultural, it’s diverse and that is very healthy. You don’t get the same divides that you get in other boroughs where perhaps you don’t get that level of diversity. Why is it that the BNP doesn’t get a grip in Hackney? Part of that is because it is so diverse.

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

Meg Hillier: Well there are lots of people of different faiths, are you talking about the political influence of religion?

Blood and Property: It’s just that there seems to be a stark divide between Hackney politicians, a very atheist secular side and a very religious side.

Meg Hillier: But that’s what you get in society, a mix of different faiths and different views. Hackney council is no different to the rest of the world in that respect. There are certainly plenty of different faith communities that are very active in Hackney so it has a place as much as elsewhere. I engage with people of all faiths and none.

Blood and Property: Are you religious at all?

Meg Hillier: I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job.

Blood and Property: What about a question I asked other Hackney politicians – do you believe in ghosts? (Do Hackney Politicians believe in ghosts? )

Meg Hillier: I’m an MP and I talk about what I do in Hackney as a politician. To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that.

Blood and Property: There was an issue back in 2005 about child abuse, exorcism and witchcraft in Hackney which put this stuff on the political radar.

Meg Hillier: Diane and I put out a joint press statement at the time. The story came from one line in a metropolitan police report where one person who had been interviewed said something. That one line was played up. Diane Abbott and I were both annoyed that it had been played up that way. That’s why we put out a joint statement saying that we did not believe there was ritual sacrifice going on in Hackney.

Blood and Property: Diane said some quite strong things about some of the churches ( Ban these witchcraft churches).

Meg Hillier: That’s all pretty old stuff now.

Blood and Property: It’s just to show that issues about religion do come up.

Meg Hillier: I didn’t say I didn’t talk about religion, I said I engage with all groups on an equal basis. I visit mosques, churches of all denominations, faith groups and groups who I don’t know if they’ve got a faith commitment or not. I don’t question people on that basis. And if people want to lobby me on particular issues they need to know they can do that without fear of favour.

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

Meg Hillier: I don’t think I could say one way or another at this stage. It depends what happens nationally, it looks like we’re coming slightly out of recession. One of Hackney’s challenges and one of the things I’m keen to pursue further is the issue about skilling up the population.

In Hackney you get hundreds of people applying for checkout jobs in places like Sainsburys. And that’s partly because the level of skills required in those jobs means that they are open to a lot of people.

Hackney’s got a very fast turnover of population. If you talk to the local bus company, they will tell you they take people on as bus drivers, skill them up and they move up to become managers then very often move out of Hackney.

That’s my biggest concern, that we are working with schools and colleges, and that we are skilling people up to take jobs in and around Hackney. And Hackney doesn’t have that many big employers at the moment other than the NHS and the council.

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

Meg Hillier: I went to the Job Centre recently to ask them what they are doing and who they are seeing. Certainly there have been some changes. A slight increase in unemployment as you would expect although I’m not complacent about it.

And I go back to the skills thing. The best way to deal with this is to make sure that the people offering advice and training are doing their jobs properly. So that in bad times Hackney residents are in a good position to do well.

So the fact that Hackney schools are improving is a real welcome step because Hackney school children will be the workers of tomorrow and the better equipped they are to take on jobs available, the better equipped they are to compete.

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

Meg Hillier: If you look at the investment that’s gone into Hackney both from central government and from the council – the government has been pouring money in. We’ve got, five new secondary schools, 12 new Sure Start centres, other school improvement work, work at the Homerton Hospital and new GP surgeries. That investment is not an accident, that’s because Hackney has not had that investment for a very long time and the government prioritise that. For instance Decent Homes. When I started out in politics in the 90s I used to have to say to people I’m sorry, I have no idea when your window will get replaced. It was awful, people would have problems in their properties with no likelihood for improvement and now that work happens. But I don’t think it will be Conservative priority to focus on areas like Hackney.

Blood and Property: But is there much that can be done about that if the Conservatives do get into power?

Meg Hillier: 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.

Blood and Property: You and Diane seem to have very different views and styles, does that ever cause a problem? For example you seem to be on opposite sides on issues like the DNA database and Yarl’s Wood.

Meg Hillier: We actually get on very well. She’s been a great support as a fellow working mum. Her experience has been very helpful and she’s happy to share that with me. We are separate MPs representing different constituencies but sometimes there are issues that are Hackney-wide and we work together on those things. Even on the issue of children and detention there are areas of overlap, we actually share some views on that even though it might seem that we come from different positions. We work more together behind the scenes than people might appreciate.

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.

Blood and Property: What about crime?

Meg Hillier: Crime has definitely gone down massively in Hackney. When I speak to people on doorsteps they recognise that.

Blood and Property: Is that because of the number of policemen?

Meg Hillier: Well there are record numbers of police in London compared with what we’ve had. Neighbourhood policing has played a fantastic role in that, as well as building people’s trust in the system and reducing fear of crime because people are seeing bobbies on the beat. It’s an example of how the public can be right, they wanted more bobbies on the beat which has reassured people as well as making a difference.

Blood and Property: Do you think that these improvements are reversible?

Meg Hillier: Certainly, if there was a dramatic reduction in police officers across London that would be challenging. But normally, in a recession, we see crime increase and we haven’t. Although figures are all very well, if you’re a victim of crime you’re 100% a victim and you wouldn’t care about us saying that it’s all great. But you’re far less likely to be a victim now than you ever were – I think since the 50s. But if you are the victim it’s horrible for you. But that’s why we make sure that there’s victim support, that we catch the perpetrators and we let people know what’s happened to them. If someone’s done something wrong, you need to know, as a victim, that that person’s being held to account.

Links to Diane Abbott interview and Jules Pipe interview.

Did Hackney Council throw in the towel for £50m?

A couple of industry magazines report that Hackney Council could be investigated for pushing through Hammerson's updated plans for Bishopsgate Goods Yard - Bishops Place - too quickly.

Local architect Will Willingdale is quoted in Building Design and Construction News: “It was pushed through. Hammerson pretty much dictated how this planning application was going to be dealt with. I’ve never seen anything like it.I have spent 20 years submitting applications to Hackney Council and I have never been in a position to tell them when to deal with an application.”

The stories also said: "On behalf of several other architects — who don’t want to be named for fear of prejudicing future bids for work — Willingdale instructed solicitor Bill Parry-Davies to write to the mayor’s Greater London Authority."

According to the news stories Open Shoreditch claims that Hackney Council stands to make £50 million from the site, but only on condition of Hammerson securing planning permission, and that this constitutes a conflict of interests.

I might have got the wrong end of the stick but as far as I can tell Hackney's legal department is 25-30% understaffed and was, at one stage, farming out 50% of its work to private firms. This was while the council was dealing with Olympics related contracts. Also, for the last two years, the council's legal department has been looking for a new boss, only finding a new one in February 2009. (April 2007 The Lawyer reported the departure of Hackney's legal chief - has it really taken more than two years to find a new one? Apparently yes it has.)

So it doesn't sound too unrealistic that some things may have got less attention than they deserved.

Also I've been told by a former employee of a large architectural practice that these firms have a policy of challenging every single objection and to appeal every decision against them - however unrealistic their chances of success. This is done by better paid and more specialised lawyers and it is done in the knowledge that local authorities have limited legal budgets and are usually over-worked/understaffed.

This policy keeps local authorities on a permanent back foot and if any mistakes are made they will be in favour of the big companies.

A Google search for Will Willingden produced a less than rave review from Utility Week whose journalists were concerned when he proved difficult to contact. But Willingdale's claims sound believable.

(Gifty Edila, the new head of Hackney's legal department gets a mention in Andrew Boff's EastEight magazine over the council's long-running battle with Broadway Market shopkeeper Spirit.)

Do Hackney politicians believe in ghosts?

Hackney politicians were asked:

1. Have you ever had a supernatural experience? (Could you give a brief description? Include anything from ghosts to aliens or mediums - or whatever you consider to be supernatural.)

2. Whether or not you have had a supernatural experience, is it a subject that you would class as significant or insignificant? Do you think people should take any of it seriously?

Of 57 councillors, 1 Mayor, 2 London Assembly Members and 2 MPs who represent Hackney, 21 responded. Judging by the replies, many of them thought this was a waste of time, so thanks for replying and if there are any more to come, please send them in.

The replies:

Alan Laing, Labour: As per your comment on your own blog that these questions were "not meant to be a serious exercise", I didn't respond. However, looking at the rest of your blog, perhaps it might be of more help to point out that I am an atheist and believe in a secular society.

Jennette Arnold, Labour: From my background I am very familiar with the culture of belief in ghosts and spirits. As a youngster my grandfather would regularly take me with him on occasions where he told me he was exorcising ghosts!!
On the serious side of this though there is a culture, in some communities, of witch-craft which is incredibly dangerous and has already lead to the death and abuse of children. As a patron of the Victoria Climbié Foundation I have campaigned on this issue for years, however, a lot of work still needs to be done.

Sally Mulready, Labour: Sorry,I have no particular thoughts on this subject

Matthew Coggins, Conservative: I have lived in two houses where I believe there were ghosts present. There were smell and temperature changes but I never saw anything.
The first was in Blackburn, as a child, when my father got someone to come in and deal with it. And I had a similar problem in a house in Stoke Newington.
I'd say my experiences weren't of any significance to me really - I just treated them as a curiosity.

Julius Nkafu , Labour, I am a Christian-Catholic and believe in the HOLY ghost or the HOLY Spirit. I believe in the Power of God and know of the many instances of the Lord's divine interventions to our every day lives.

Michael Desmond, Labour: The only “supernatural” experience I’ve ever had was when I was 14, doing work experience for 3 weeks in Borough, South London at my father’s cousin’s accountancy practice. I turned on a tap, the old rickety piping caused water to gush out in such a way words were audible; those words were "Get away from here! …get away from here!" Whether it was a scientific or supernatural phenomenon, I rightly decided never to become an accountant! I think spirituality is very important, I believe each person has a soul which can continue after death. Spirituality is significant, the supernatural less so.

Luke Akehurst, Labour I haven't personally had a supernatural experience but have met a few people who say they have and are people I trust so I have an open mind.

Ian Sharer, Lib Dem: "I've not had supernatural experiences myself but a very good friend of mine did. He was an atheist. One day I saw him in the synagogue and he said he had had a heart attack and that he had died and been revived in hospital. He said he had had an out-of-body experience during which he had met his mother who said: "We're not ready here for you yet." He became religious for the last year of his life. He was a friend of my father's and what had happened to him was clear enough in his mind. I'm very religious. The truth is that your view will depend on what you call supernatural. But people do talk about things like the supernatural, evil spirits, and this does border on religion. If you believe in heaven and hell then all of this stuff is bound up. It does appear to be a religious thing. I certainly am open to views on these things. Jewish books that we study say things like "if you could see what was standing next to you, you would die with fright". There are countless things to do with this that we don't understand. For example it is strictly against my religion to use a Ouija board. Obviously there's a belief that there is something going on there.

Patrick Vernon, Labour: I have not had a supernatural experience but I would say that when I have been to Africa and visited the slave forts in Ghana, Gambia and Senegal and also in East Africa Zanzibar I have experienced or felt the unrest of souls of Africans that were captured as part of the transatlantic and Arabic slave trade.
I think we should not rule out any experience of a supernatural nature as we still are understanding interaction of the human spirit and the impact of exploitation and historical injustice.


Clayeon Mackenzie, Labour: I have no comments on this issue.

Jules Pipe, Labour: 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 – this is not a subject to which I would ascribe any significance, nor which I would wish to see taken any more seriously than it already is.


Darren Parker, Labour: I have not had any experience of the supernatural myself. You may find it of interest that the 5th most haunted street is said to be Gloucester Drive in my ward:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/31/britishidentity.martinwainwright
http://www.roadsuk.com/roadepedia/haunted.html

Mischa Borris, Green: I've not had any supernatural experiences, and I have no particular view on its significance or otherwise. Everyone needs an interest in life, and so long as it doesn't take over someone's life, or lead to fraud (e.g. mediums) that's fine.
If there are "ghosts" then they might be some kind of blip in the time continuum, rather than unquiet spirits.

Linda Smith, Labour: I have never had a supernatural experience. It is not an issue that is at all significant in my work as a councillor or my life generally. If people wish to take it seriously it is up to them, indeed I believe people's right to believe and express their belief in religion which I would class as being supernatural is now enshrined in law.

Tom Price, Labour: (Any experience of the supernaturual?) No - happily not. (Is the supernatural significant?) I would class it as insignificant and not to be taken seriously.

Geoffrey Taylor, Labour: Yes, I have had experiences I could not explain. Sometimes they don’t really need explanation, for instance if a series of events seem to fit conveniently together, that’s really coincidence or chance, as is obvious when you think of all the very many occasions when events don’t fit together particularly conveniently. Some of the other cases I put down to my brain operating out of my conscious control or knowledge and then pushing some thought into my consciousness. And the rest I’m happy to say I don’t understand, though I think that in principle if not (yet) in practice they are susceptible to scientific explanation.
I think people should take life in general seriously. Getting hung up on the so-called supernatural can often mean that people cease to feel the awe they ought to feel in contemplating perfectly natural but wonderful things. You’d think that the natural world, including our loving human relationships and our quest for truth, would be quite enough to keep us thrilled and fascinated without having to reach out beyond for something called the ‘supernatural’.

Jonathan McShane: On ghosts, no I've never had any supernatural experiences and I've never taken a particular interest in the supernatural world. Sorry to give you such a boring answer.

Michael Levy (Conservative Chief Whip): Although I receive varied and interesting mail, your questions are a definitive first. I generally have quite enough on my plate dealing with the corporeal without having to delve into the unknown. Fortunately I have had no supernatural experiences - although listening to some debates in the Council Chamber might qualify and therefore its not a subject I would class as having any impact on my thoughts. Although I do believe in the supernatural.
Since we live in a Democracy people are free to make up their own minds on the matter.

Katie Hanson: "Rationalist - don't believe in anything supernatural."

Christine Boyd: I suppose the definition of “supernatural” is key here, if I take it as meaning something that I can’t explain then the answer would be yes (No comment on the details) – but then again that applies to lots of things. For example I can’t explain Tory policies either, but tend to class those as sinister or spooky rather than supernatural. I don’t think this is a significant subject, certainly does not compare with global warming, child poverty or many of the problems people face on a day to day basis.

Meg Hillier, Labour: Spokesperson: "Meg is still on maternity leave at the moment so I don’t think we can help on this occasion."

Diane Abbott, Labour: A researcher said that the MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington had not had any supernatural experiences. When asked if the supernatural was a significant issue she said: "I’ve spoken to Diane but unfortunately she doesn’t have any other comments to make."

Andrew Boff, Conservative: I've experienced odd coincidences but not enough to make me believe in pixies. I don't think you can explain things by using myth rather than evidence. I enjoy the goings on at Hogworts but I do not think that is an explanation for what happens away from the pages of a book.
Did you want more?
Yes - I am an atheist - the only God is Dawkins.


This was not a serious exercise but it seems likely that the people of Hackney take this subject more seriously than their politicians. Back in 2005 the borough was caught up in a scandal surrounding African churches, exorcism and child abuse. At the time Diane Abbott wrote a piece for the Evening Standard called "Ban these witchcraft churches?"

The fact that a large number of Hackney charities are religious, 22% compared to 10% national average, could indicate the extent to which Hackney residents take supernatural issues seriously.