Today (Sunday): Hustings for Hackney's GLA members

A ‘question time’ for the candidates standing for the London North East seat on the Greater London Assembly will include these four candidates:

Caroline Allen: Green
Jennette Arnold:Labour
Naomi Newstead:Conservative
Farooq Qureshi:Lib Dem

The even has been organised by Hackney Unites which said:

Rabbi Abraham Pinter: Cllr Mulready does not represent the whole community

Pipe Vs Pickles: but will Ken be more dangerous?

“I need no lectures from you on efficiency,” Jules Pipe told Eric Pickles, minister in charge of imposing cuts on councils like Hackney. The report came via the Local Government Chronicle chief reporter's blog - about the London Councils summit (pics) on November 6.

According to LGC blog there had: "been an exchange of letters between the two in the previous week and it seems Mr Pickles had come to the event in combative mood."

But our mayor seems to have done well: "With Mr Pipe remaining cool and collected - and remaining diplomatic - and Mr Pickles becoming increasingly angry and rattled." (Another account of it here)

It seems mayor Pipe is becoming an important figure in battle against the coalition cuts. On Thursday he said as much in his 'Talking Point' - on the letters page of the Hackney Gazette: "I have called on the government to think again and I'm lobbying them on behalf of Hackney and councils across London..."

But Pipe has a more subtle problem than Eric Pickles as he becomes a London-wide player. It seems London politicians are experiencing a cross-party unity against coalition government cuts (not on moral grounds. Apparently Conservative outer London boroughs are worried by the threat of an influx of Labour voting folk shifted from inner city boroughs by benefit cuts).

The problems will come if there's any sign that Johnson might win concessions for London's poor. Would Ken Livingstone allow Labour politicians like Pipe to help Johnson score a London victory as the London Mayoral elections approach?

Although the fates of poor people in London look like they are bound up with the Labour Party, Johnson's stance - probably prompted by Labour boroughs - throws a spanner in the works for Ken.

So could Ken Livingstone and Jules Pipe contemplate undermining Johnson if a political battle with Cameron gathers pace? Who knows? May be, in the very long run, it would be better for Hackney's poorest if Johnson doesn't succeed. But any assumption that the well-being of Hackney is solidly intertwined with the fate of the Labour Party should probably be suspended until after the next batch of elections.

Also, Hackney has two MPs and one Mayor whose attentions are diverted beyond Hackney's borders. They all see their jobs as fighting cuts for the nation as a whole, hopefully they won't use it as an excuse to avoid what De Beauvoir councillors predict predict will be "devastating decisions" about Hackney.

Diane Abbott plays dodgy race card - would she let her son carry a knife?

In an interview with the Mirror, Diane Abbott suggested that West Indian mothers fight harder for their children than mothers from other cultures - and that this was why she sent her son to private school.

Her interviewer, Brian Reade commented in the piece: "I struggle with her defence that it’s a West Indian mum thing. As though non-Caribbean mothers don’t face the same problems in inner-city schools and wouldn’t fight to the death for their sons."

Reade had asked her why politicians from the left were so upset by her decision to send her son to a private school.

Diane Abbott: "Yes, but they didn’t understand me. I’m a West Indian mum and West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.

It’s that kind of atavistic streak that we have. I can see them in the market on a Saturday morning. A kind of ‘touch my children and we’ll turn quite difficult’.

Interestingly, until now, it’s the one thing that’s got me the most positive response from black women locally. They would come up to me and shake my hand. Because ultimately in their eyes it’s about doing the right thing for their children. But obviously people from other cultures didn’t see it that way at all."

So would Diane revise this comment from a speech she made earlier this year: "I was very shocked by one parent whom I saw at an advice surgery. A young boy came in and said to me that he was in trouble for carrying a knife at school. He told me that he had carried it to defend himself and his mother said, "Yes, he did carry it to defend himself and I allowed him to carry it to school to defend himself".

She went on to say: "Parents should know that there can be no circumstances in which they should collude with their child's taking a knife to school and I said that to that mother."

But do Diane's recent comments mean that she really would understand if it was her son defending himself? Or that she would understand if the mother was West Indian?

Meanwhile her past comments about giving parents any power in the state school system have been unsympathetic - as if the instincts of every parent should be distrusted as selfish and destructive to other children.

In a 2006 NASUWT-sponsored paper (Academy schools: case unproven) Diane said: "... We know what parent power means in London. In practice, it means giving power to small groups of white middle-class parents, or if not to capture by one ethnic group as opposed to another, the best organised. Actually, if you want to empower the breadth of the parent body in inner-city areas you have to look to the local education authority."

Below is a longer excerpt from the 2006 report to provide some context. It also seems to suggest that leaders of London's black communities may not have provided black parents with reasonable solutions to schooling problems:

Page 38: Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, (whose lack of confidence in her local comprehensive schools was expressed in her decision to send her own son to the private City of London School) has led a movement to improve secondary education for Black children. With the support of the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, she has organised a series of ‘London Schools and the Black Child’ conferences which have produced a range of proposals to tackle the problem of underachievement by Black boys in particular. Among the sessions at the 2003 conference was one focusing on ‘Alternative Community Schools for African-Caribbean children’. Yet, despite attracting 200 participants to the session (there are in total 3,000 names on the database maintained by the conference organisers), the conference report reveals that the number of parents interested in taking it further was small: ‘over 40 participants signed up for follow-up action towards setting up and running their own schools’ (Mayor of London, 2003). The fact that the large majority even of those who attended the session did not show interest in such follow-up suggests that, while the problems of underachievement addressed by the conference are beyond dispute, the idea of tackling it by setting up independent schools for Black children attracts much less support.

Moreover, when it is proposed, the idea attracts robust opposition from within the Black community. When the London Mayor’s advisor, Lee Jasper, suggested that Black parents should group together to win state finance to set up separate schools, others, such as Tony Sewell, strongly opposed the idea. Moreover, former OFSTED chief David Bell warned that nation building and citizenship in Britain could be undermined by the approach taken by some existing independent faith schools. There is much more support for supplementary schools, run independently on Saturdays and after the normal school day, but precisely as supplements rather than replacements to existing provision. The ‘London Schools and the Black Child’ conferences have also revealed much stronger support for improving existing schools in various ways, to tackle what is seen as their institutional racism, than for replacing them. Diane Abbott herself insists there is no single solution to the problem, and highlights the point by both urging that there should be more Black leadership of schools and pointing to the successes of Sir Michael Kilshaw (should be Wilshaw), who is not Black, in raising the attainment of Black boys. Sir Michael is now principal of Hackney’s first academy, Mossbourne, but was previously headteacher of a Catholic comprehensive school in another East London borough, Newham. ‘After an article I wrote in The Observersome years ago, Michael Kilshaw (Wilshaw) wrote to me and said you ought to come to my school and see what I do about it,’ Abbott recalls. She took up the offer, and found a school with an ‘extraordinary atmosphere’ of calm and order. ‘It wasn’t a Black school as such but it was in Newham and it was 95 per cent Black and it got such good results that the Government used it as an example of what to do about Black boys,’ Abbott says. Key measures in the successful approach had been individual student targets, a system of after-school homework clubs and well-organised academic mentoring.

Page 39: Sir Michael has taken such techniques to Mossbourne, and yet Diane Abbott comments: ‘The trouble with the academies is that, popular as they are and supportive as I am of Mossbourne, there is a danger that they take us back to that past. All the research shows that if you introduce an element of selection, working-class children will lose out. If you have a borough like Hackney and have four academies and four wonderful heads there will still be a residue of children and I know what those children will look like.’ She adds: ‘We know what parent power means in London. In practice, it means giving power to small groups of white middle-class parents, or if not to capture by one ethnic group as opposed to another, the best organised. Actually, if you want to empower the breadth of the parent body in inner-city areas you have to look to the local education authority.’ In a number of cases, parents groups struggling with insufficient local school places have had to take different routes in efforts to exercise power in the system, as the case studies below illustrate...

McDonnell quits but Diane odds have widened

John McDonnell has left the Labour leadership contest to give Diane Abbott a chance of gaining 22 more votes by this afternoon.

With a number of MPs yet to decide, Diane's chances look better for getting through this first round, but bookies odds on her overall leadership bid seem to have widened today to 50 to 1 from 33 to 1 yesterday (updated now without McDonnell).

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.

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).

Sorry, Diane Abbott 20-1, fifth behind Ed Balls

Last night's post said 100-1 for Diane Abbott to be leader of Labour Party. That's now changed to 20-1 since announcing that she'll actually be taking part in the race.

According to Paddy Power she's now fifth behind Ed Balls who lives in Hackney.

Before the election she let it slip to the Independent that she was thinking of running for Mayor of London - discussed here.

Who was she talking to (apart from Operation Black Vote) about her leadership bid? Meg Hillier? Not long ago Meg told the Times: "It looks like it’s becoming a beauty contest of young men in their forties in smart suits.” Or another Hackney resident and Times political columnist and sometime critic of Hackney council's anti middle-class stance on sure start centres, Rachel Sylvester: "It says something about the Labour gene pool that all the serious candidates for the leadership are white Oxbridge-educated men in their forties who were special advisers in 1997. They are, as John McDonnell — the leftwinger who is standing but won’t win — put it “the sons of Blair and sons of Brown.”

Clearly it wasn't black commentator Lester Holloway, (Wikipedia profile) and (apparently editor of OBV's blog) who said in his own blog yesterday(about the OBV piece): "I hazard a guess this is not a serious suggestion but merely a means of promoting the need for black politicians and women at the highest level in politics. If so, it may be better to stick to the arguments rather than personalising the issue around one occasionally divisive personality. The fact is, Britain does not have an Obama yet."

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."

Lib Dems leave Hackney strategy in a pub - is there an opposition conspiracy?

Apparently the Lib Dems left their election strategy for Hackney in the Wellington Pub on Balls Pond Road last week. Blood and Property has been told that the Labour activists who found it were not particularly surprised by its contents but were pleased for the confirmation.

The document allegedly says the target wards for Lib Dem canvassing are Cazenove, Brownswood, Hoxton and Hackney Central.

A source told Blood and Property that the combined campaign efforts of the Lib Dems, Greens and Conservatives look as if they may have been co-ordinated. So are opposition parties doing their best not to step on each others toes?

The conspiracy theory is that the Greens are targeting Stoke Newington Central and Clissold while the Conservatives are concentrating on the wards they already hold but also on Queensbridge and De Beauvoir.

If all of these were successful, then Hackney would have a hung council.

Matt Sellwood spotted the Labour Party habit of pushing this hung council phobia earlier this month. He provided a detailed break down with pie-charts and all: Labour's hung council ploy

Hopefully there is some truth in the conspiracy theories. May be the opposition parties should be working together. With any luck they'll have a bit more power to hold the Labour monolith to account after May 6.

Chops, changes, councillor controversies...

This morning Matthew Coggins, leader of Hackney's Conservative group, expressed a little frustration at Blood and Property's "obsession" with the ultra-orthodox Jewish community. It was much the same as the frustration expressed by Conservative mayoral candidate, Andrew Boff, when he answered Blood and Property's 'distasteful' questions two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, Ian Sharer, leader of Hackney's Lib Dems, who is an ultra-orthodox Jew, expressed no such frustration.

Luckily both Sharer and Coggins were happy to discuss the changes that have taken place in their candidate line-ups.

And the most interesting changes appear to be those affecting the ultra-orthodox Jewish community.

The fates of two are of particular interest. Joseph Stauber, who was a Lib Dem councillor in Cazenove ward from 2002 until he defected to Labour in 2008, will not be standing again. He was the only ultra-orthodox Labour councillor in Hackney.

And Simon Tesler, former ultra-orthodox Jewish Conservative councillor for Lordship, was de-selected. He has decided to stand as an independent in the ward.

Tesler was one of six ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors in the Conservative Group. But he has been replaced by Alexander Ellis, who was the Conservative candidate for the GLA in 2008.

The swapping of Tesler for Ellis is not totally straight forward. The Conservative decision to drop Tesler might have been made more painful because the party also took on a new ultra-orthodox Jewish councillor to replace a departing Jacob Landau.

Via a chain of replacements, Landau's departure made an opening for Benzion Tapier. This could be seen as a double snub for Tesler and might explain his decision to stand as an independent.

Tesler could still argue that he isn't splitting the "Jewish vote" (an interesting article) by standing because he has not been replaced by an ultra-orthodox Jewish councillor. He is simply relying on those who supported him before. A Labour source said that this rift in the Conservative Party could make the ward an interesting one to watch.

Matthew Coggins, said that Tesler's position had disproved the theory that ulta-orthodox Jewish councillors don't stand against each other.

But according to Lib Dem leader Ian Sharer, this practice is very much still the norm.

Sharer has always been open about the tendency of ultra-orthodox Jews not to stand against each other in elections. In January he told Blood and Property: "It is not a scriptural thing. The basic thing is that the Jewish community votes for Jewish councillors. They don't care which party you're in. They support you if you're Jewish."

He said that having more than one Jewish candidate in an election made it "confusing" and that these conflicts could get "nasty and a bit silly". He said that tactical voting of this kind took place in various forms in all politics.

He said that Stauber wasn't standing again in Cazenove because they were friends and didn't want to stand against each other.

But he made no bones about the fact that he and Abraham Jacobson were the only two ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors standing in the ward and that they are both Lib Dems because Jewish people don't like standing against each other.

Even so, why hasn't Stauber, the Labour party's only ultra-orthodox Jewish Councillor, managed to find another seat? He certainly tried to find one. What could have stopped him standing for Labour in Stamford Hill?

A Labour source said that Stauber "has taken it very well and still wants to be involved" adding that he hoped that it would be possible to find a way for him back onto the council. He also said that the Labour Party had always been keen to have a representative from the ultra orthodox Jewish community.

Another interesting fact is that Ian Sharer's wife, Bella Sharer, is standing in Brownswood. In doing so (and she's stood in elections before) she will (I've been told) be breaking new ground for women in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community. According to her husband, the seat she is contesting this time is much more winnable.

Nominations for council elections closed on April 8. Here's the full list of candidates broken down into wards.

Changes in the Labour Party are more numerous but don't seem to be controversial. You can find the Labour ward candidates here.

LIB DEM buzz.

Ian Sharer, Matthew Coggins and the Labour Party source, were all aware that there has been a significant rise in Lib Dem support in the borough. Sharer didn't want to put a figure on the change but simply said he'd never seen anything like it.

He said he didn't quite believe that people who had voted Labour for twenty years would be able to make the change.

Labour said that the Lib Dem threat could prove a problem in wards where the Greens are already weak but in wards where Greens are strong, the shift to the Lib Dems could help Labour.

Apologies for not mentioning anything about Green candidates, I didn't have time. Interesting piece on Luke's Blog about recycling of Green councillors.

I'm also hoping to write up the hustings from last night at Hackney Community college - most interesting moment was the reaction to Meg Hillier's comment along the lines of: "If you went to Lithuania would you expect the Lithuanians to pay for you to learn their language?"

Hackney bookies takes big Lib Dem bet - Green, Labour who hates bookies most?

Proliferation of betting shops in Hackney could become one of the top election issues. It's already turning nasty in Stoke Newington.

Greens laid claim to the Hackney betting shop agenda in August 2009 - Greens thank Labour for joining their campaign and on page 8 of the Hackney Gazette 13 August 2009: Greens claim credit for clamp down on bookies.

According to Stoke Newington Labour councillors the Green Party has overdone itself on the issue and accuses the Greens of distributing a misleading leaflet. Apparently they've made unfounded claims about who worked hardest to stop Paddy Power opening in Stoke Newington.

Meanwhile Politics.co.uk quotes a Paddy Power spokesman yesterday: "Strangely, we've taken our biggest bet on a Liberal Democrat outright victory, £200 at 200/1. The punter, in Diane Abbott's Labour constituency of Hackney North, would be set for a potential return of more than £40,000 should Nick Clegg's party pull off one of the greatest shocks in parliament's 208 year election history."


Or from Diane Abbott's website (25 March 2010): "Hackney currently has 69 betting shops which is three times the national average.

“Applications like this are turning Hackney into a mini Las Vegas. I and the people of Hackney do not want the future of our borough to be gambled away like this. Hackney has high levels of unemployment and poverty and betting shops are a temptation to make money quick. They also attract crime and anti-social behaviour to surrounding areas without offering any benefit in return. The government and local councils need to act together to stop our high streets being dominated by the gambling industry before it is too late.”

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

DIANE ABBOTT ANSWERS BLOOD AND PROPERTY QUESTIONS

Hackney Labour Councillors - Budget defence by blogging

Hackney Central's Labour councillors appear keen to crush their opposition as early as possible.

According to the Hackney Central Labour blog, the Greens offer "reckless proposals" in their alternative budget that will hit the poorest hardest.

The blog criticises the Conservative Party saying: "They have shown how unprepared they are and how little effort they have made in offering the people of Hackney an alternative. Right before our elections in May - the Tories have failed before the firing gun has even been set off."

The Lib Dems got off lightly with HCL briefly saying that their policies would be annoying and unhelpful if they were ever put into practice.

Hackney Central Labour sounded unworried. This may have more to do with a historically loyal electorate than any policies. The 2006 election results (with a 32% turnout) and the 2002 election results (31% turnout) in the ward both saw Labour win comfortably.

Over at We Love Stoke Newington the mood wasn't quite so aggressive - the only criticism from its Labour Councillor authors was for an unnamed free local paper - (might that be the Hackney Heckler?)

We Love Stoke Newington said: "There have been some misleading reports in a local free newspaper about budget cuts - we'd like to reassure you that this is not the case - these are different economic times, but due to managing the Council's finances well, we're able to freeze council tax and continue to invest in key services."

(Could this article in PR Week, by Hackney's head of Communications, Polly Rance, also be described as misleading too? "Talk of spending cuts in an election climate often sends a chill through communications departments. Comms teams know full well that their budgets are a prime target for cuts in manifesto pledges. Now is the time, more than ever, for us to prove our value, not just to our organisations, but to the residents we serve.")

Labour Councillors in Stoke Newington Central face a more real threat than their colleagues over at Hackney Central.

The 2006 local elections results for Stoke Newington Central show that Labour Councillors faced a threat from the Green Party - two Green candiates won more than 700 votes each while the poorest performing Labour councillor won around 900 votes.

The results for the 2009 by-election in Stoke Newington Central - to replace Labour Councillor Jamie Carswell - saw Labour with 48% of the vote compared to the Green's 32%.

The results for the 2002 elections in Stoke Newington Central showed a more comfortable lead for Labour suggesting that support for the Green Party in the ward has gained momentum since 2002.

Nargis Khan - Wigan a la Haggerston?

She was de-selected from Dalston and then controversially re-selected in Haggerston only to stand down - apparently from politics all together.

But now Hackney Councillor Nargis Khan - Cabinet Member for Community Services - has resurfaced in Wigan amidst 'angry scenes' at a Labour Party selection battle.

Six prospective Labour candidates were selected to take part in the contest to replace MP Neil Turner but a popular local candidate was squeezed out. The defeated candidate's supporters blamed a last minute venue change and selective crowd control.

So conspiracy theories abound - as they did in Haggerston. That was where hard left Cllr Barry Buitekant was beaten by New Labour Cllr Khan in what the Conservatives claimed was a New Labour effort to save one of its own. Cllr Khan - who had been de-selected by the Dalston ward she will represent until the election - moved on Haggerston and allegedly benefited from a poor turnout of unsuspecting Buitekant supporters at the selection meeting.

In Wigan six people were selected to take part in the contest including Cllr Nargis Khan.

Wigan Today quoted one Labour Party member: "The meeting was moved from The Deanery High – which obviously has loads of room – to the Unite office, which doesn't.

"Officials decided there was no more room and locked the doors before we were due to start, leaving supporters out in the cold.

"When the result was announced people couldn't believe it. There was booing and people broke into a round of chants for 'McGurrin, McGurrin' before there was a mass walkout. It just wasn't right."

Cabinet member steps aside after unpopular victory

Labour councillor Nargis Khan, cabinet member for community services, will not be standing in next year's local elections despite successfully recovering her political career earlier in the year.

Khan was deselected as a Labour representative for Dalston but then managed to get reselected as a candidate for Haggerston.

The casualty of Khan's move to Haggerston was Cllr Barry Buitekant who is more left leaning than many of his Labour party colleagues (http://www.revolutionaryhistory.co.uk/). His profile on Labour's website reads: "Barry Buitekant has lived in Hackney for most of his life and went to school locally. He has been a lifelong active trade unionist in the Post Office and BT unions serving as an official locally and nationally."

During the summer Buitekant wasn't keen to answer any questions on the situation.

The story is that the original Haggerston selection meeting was poorly attended and that Kahn's win would not have happened if Haggerston's Labour party members had thought there was a threat to Buitekant.

Now Khan has decided to take time out from politics all together.

News of these goings on originally came from a Conservative who speculated that Hackney's New Labour establishment had conspired to save one of their own at the expense of an old-school socialist.