Bravery award of the day (The Independent)
"Best of luck to Suzanne Moore, who has announced her candidature for Hackney North and Stoke Newington via Twitter. Moore, a columnist for the paragon of ethnic tolerance that is The Mail on Sunday is running in a constituency in which only 44 per cent are "White British"."Or is she at the nicer end of the Mail? Suzanne Moore disappears from Mail on Sunday
Friday, 9 April 2010
Thursday, 8 April 2010
"Fuck me shoes" columnist to take on Diane Abbott
Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday columnist and (I think) Hackney North and Stoke Newington resident, tweeted yesterday that she will be standing as an independent candidate - I saw the story on this Guardian blog: A tale of two Stokes
If she's serious, whose votes will she be after? I had a quick look to see how often she mentions Hackney in her stories.
Using Google news search - it's not that much. She describes getting burgled, criticises Diane Abbott and praises Brian Paddick in this Jan 2008 piece: If only burglars lived on Planet Statistics.
Comments on Hackney Council banning Iain Sinclair's book launch at the end of this story.
Otherwise I couldn't see much. Here's a list of her latest columns
Surprisingly I couldn't find much about her anywhere - her Wikipedia entry is bare - entering "fuck me shoes" and Suzanne Moore provided more interesting but old info:
From the Independent: "Suzanne Moore, whom Prof Greer attacked in 1995 for her "hair bird's- nested all over the place, fuck-me shoes and three fat inches of cleavage", admitted: "If Germaine attacked me for my writing, it would be far more worthy than to attack me for my shoes". The attack was in response to Ms Moore's comments on an inaccurate report that Prof Greer had a hysterectomy at 25."
2. Apparently, in common with Diane Abbott, she shares a dislike of Rod Liddle (details of PCC finding against the Spectator over piece which started ongoing spat with Diane).
Times and Daily Mail fuel Hackney class war
If she's serious, whose votes will she be after? I had a quick look to see how often she mentions Hackney in her stories.
Using Google news search - it's not that much. She describes getting burgled, criticises Diane Abbott and praises Brian Paddick in this Jan 2008 piece: If only burglars lived on Planet Statistics.
Comments on Hackney Council banning Iain Sinclair's book launch at the end of this story.
Otherwise I couldn't see much. Here's a list of her latest columns
Surprisingly I couldn't find much about her anywhere - her Wikipedia entry is bare - entering "fuck me shoes" and Suzanne Moore provided more interesting but old info:
From the Independent: "Suzanne Moore, whom Prof Greer attacked in 1995 for her "hair bird's- nested all over the place, fuck-me shoes and three fat inches of cleavage", admitted: "If Germaine attacked me for my writing, it would be far more worthy than to attack me for my shoes". The attack was in response to Ms Moore's comments on an inaccurate report that Prof Greer had a hysterectomy at 25."
2. Apparently, in common with Diane Abbott, she shares a dislike of Rod Liddle (details of PCC finding against the Spectator over piece which started ongoing spat with Diane).
Times and Daily Mail fuel Hackney class war
Wednesday, 7 April 2010
Hackney mums let kids carry knives - Diane Abbott
Diane Abbott was the main speaker in one of the last debates in Parliament on gang crime: full transcript here from Theyworkforyou.com
Key points:
Crime statistics - more of a political art than a science
No limits to what kids will do now - stabbing in broad daylight in rush hour (although no mention of the fact that a cop was shot at and then had a gun held at his head last year)
Postcode gangs prevent kids using facilities like London Fields Lido
Negative press and stereotyping
Too few men in Hackney primary schools
Girls in gangs
Gang rape
Disproportionate level of gang violence coming from Turkish/Kurdish gangs
Hackney mum let son carry knife
Witness protection at lower levels of crime needs to be improved - some boroughs not playing ball.
On statistics: "However, as a former Home Office official, I know that it is possible to debate the figures. Such statistics are sometimes a matter of art, rather than science. Fear of gang crime-not just the fear of being the victim, but the fear that mothers have about how safe their children are on the streets-has never been higher in my constituency, despite the welcome drop shown by the statistics."
On what kids will do now: "We all know about schoolboys fighting and, perhaps, about gangs, but what in the culture of this city makes gangs of schoolboys and schoolgirls feel able to stab each other in plain sight during the rush hour? Does that not suggest that we have moved on from the situation 10 or 20 years ago to a very different and alarming situation in which people's loyalty to their gang, their determination to gain respect and their disdain for wider society overrides the caution that kept young people from having knife fights in plain sight, even a decade ago?"
On postcode gangs: "I live on Middleton road in Hackney. One end of the road is dominated by the Holly Street gang-it is the gang next door to me-and the other end is dominated by the London Fields gang. I remember on my way home one evening talking to a young boy who was complaining that there was nothing to do in Hackney. I asked him, "What do you mean there is nothing to do? The council has just built a brand new swimming pool in London Fields." He said, "But you don't understand. For me to walk from here"-we were at my end of the road-"up to the London Fields lido means going into the territory of the London Fields gang, and I just can't do that." One can exaggerate the issue of postcode gangs, but they are real, and they affect how young people, certainly in my borough, feel able to live their lives.
On when the Evening Standard wouldn't cover a celebration of achievements by Hackney kids because none of them were former gang members: When we tried to interest the Evening Standard in the event by saying that it was to be held at the House of Commons, that we would have celebrities and that we would give awards to children who had 11 A*s at A-level, we encountered great resistance. Finally, it rang and asked, "Are any of these young people ex-gang members?" We said, "No", and it said that it was not interested."
Too few men in Hackney primary schools to provide role models: " I have visited a number of primary schools in my constituency in recent months and, with some exceptions, there is an absence of men in the classroom. All the evidence suggests that young black men, particularly-and, I suspect, working class young men more generally-need to see men in the classroom; men taking education seriously. Even if teachers cannot be recruited, men could come and read to them, making a marked difference to their aspirations and their notions of masculinity."
Hackney mum let her son carry a knife: "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". The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point about the role of parents and emphasised the importance of educating parents and working with them. 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.
Witness protection: "On the question of witness protection, is my right hon. Friend aware that a key issue for some of my constituents is that they need to be moved away from people who might take revenge on them? What are the Government doing to ensure that all London boroughs contribute to the pool of accommodation available in such cases? The problem is that some boroughs are not contributing to that, which makes it hard to move people.
Key points:
Crime statistics - more of a political art than a science
No limits to what kids will do now - stabbing in broad daylight in rush hour (although no mention of the fact that a cop was shot at and then had a gun held at his head last year)
Postcode gangs prevent kids using facilities like London Fields Lido
Negative press and stereotyping
Too few men in Hackney primary schools
Girls in gangs
Gang rape
Disproportionate level of gang violence coming from Turkish/Kurdish gangs
Hackney mum let son carry knife
Witness protection at lower levels of crime needs to be improved - some boroughs not playing ball.
On statistics: "However, as a former Home Office official, I know that it is possible to debate the figures. Such statistics are sometimes a matter of art, rather than science. Fear of gang crime-not just the fear of being the victim, but the fear that mothers have about how safe their children are on the streets-has never been higher in my constituency, despite the welcome drop shown by the statistics."
On what kids will do now: "We all know about schoolboys fighting and, perhaps, about gangs, but what in the culture of this city makes gangs of schoolboys and schoolgirls feel able to stab each other in plain sight during the rush hour? Does that not suggest that we have moved on from the situation 10 or 20 years ago to a very different and alarming situation in which people's loyalty to their gang, their determination to gain respect and their disdain for wider society overrides the caution that kept young people from having knife fights in plain sight, even a decade ago?"
On postcode gangs: "I live on Middleton road in Hackney. One end of the road is dominated by the Holly Street gang-it is the gang next door to me-and the other end is dominated by the London Fields gang. I remember on my way home one evening talking to a young boy who was complaining that there was nothing to do in Hackney. I asked him, "What do you mean there is nothing to do? The council has just built a brand new swimming pool in London Fields." He said, "But you don't understand. For me to walk from here"-we were at my end of the road-"up to the London Fields lido means going into the territory of the London Fields gang, and I just can't do that." One can exaggerate the issue of postcode gangs, but they are real, and they affect how young people, certainly in my borough, feel able to live their lives.
On when the Evening Standard wouldn't cover a celebration of achievements by Hackney kids because none of them were former gang members: When we tried to interest the Evening Standard in the event by saying that it was to be held at the House of Commons, that we would have celebrities and that we would give awards to children who had 11 A*s at A-level, we encountered great resistance. Finally, it rang and asked, "Are any of these young people ex-gang members?" We said, "No", and it said that it was not interested."
Too few men in Hackney primary schools to provide role models: " I have visited a number of primary schools in my constituency in recent months and, with some exceptions, there is an absence of men in the classroom. All the evidence suggests that young black men, particularly-and, I suspect, working class young men more generally-need to see men in the classroom; men taking education seriously. Even if teachers cannot be recruited, men could come and read to them, making a marked difference to their aspirations and their notions of masculinity."
Hackney mum let her son carry a knife: "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". The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point about the role of parents and emphasised the importance of educating parents and working with them. 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.
Witness protection: "On the question of witness protection, is my right hon. Friend aware that a key issue for some of my constituents is that they need to be moved away from people who might take revenge on them? What are the Government doing to ensure that all London boroughs contribute to the pool of accommodation available in such cases? The problem is that some boroughs are not contributing to that, which makes it hard to move people.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Independent candidate Denny de la Haye answers Blood and Property questions
Hackney South and Shoreditch independent candidate Denny de la Haye answers Blood and Property questions. The questions assume some knowledge of Denny's manifesto. Details of his campaign to become an e-democracy MP can be found at getavote.org and in this Open Democracy piece. I'm hoping to ask him some more questions at a later date.
Blood and Property: What sort of issues that aren't directly related to voting in Parliament - and your system for canvassing your constituents - do you think you'd have to deal with? Will there be parts of the job that cannot be defined by your constituents?
Denny de la Haye: I'm worried about the short timescale on which some votes are called - I think these tend to be minor amendments rather than full bills, which have more forewarning although there's still room for improvement from what I understand of the way the Parliamentary timetable is set.
There are also some votes which are purely procedural as I understand it, along the lines of "I propose we break for lunch now", which I don't think anyone will mind me voting in however seems appropriate at the time.
In any situation where I find myself having to vote on something significant without a mandate from my constituents, then I'll either vote as I think they would want me to vote if I think that's clear, or abstain if it's not. In either case, I'll immediately post such votes (and how I voted) on the website for discussion. This has two aims - firstly, to give me a better chance of knowing how to vote on similar issues in future short-notice votes, and secondly, to call attention to how much Parliamentary business is done on a timetable too short for public participation. I believe the latter to be a significant problem which would be fairly easy to address if there was a will to do so - running the country shouldn't (usually) be done on a short-notice timetable, one would hope there's a lot of planning ahead being done, and that should carry through to allow the public time to participate if they wish.
Blood and Property: Does the job require an element of leadership? Or what other personal qualities do you think an MP should have?
Denny de la Haye: As far as 'qualities an MP should have' are concerned, I think an honest desire to represent the people of their area should be very high on the list. My manifesto not only offers but actually enforces that, in a very open and transparent way.
Blood and Property: Judging by what I've seen, the blogging or online community in Hackney is not very big - at least not in terms of showing an interest in Hackney politics. Does that mean that your system could be beholden to the same few people?
Denny de la Haye: It's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's a probability, and if it does work out that way, I'm not entirely sure it's a problem. Firstly, regarding 'Hackney politics' - most of the issues which people vote on in Parliament are national in scope. They will have local impact, but they're national issues, and nationally there's quite a lot of political blogging and single-issue campaigning. One challenge for the site will be to explain how and why each national issue relates to Hackney, and why people might want to vote on that issue.
Secondly, regarding participation levels... if people are given the right to actually change the way I will vote on issues, I think that will have more pull in terms of numbers than the chance to write a blog or take part in political campaigning which has no guarantee of causing
a response. This is further helped by the fact that clicking on a poll is pretty quick and easy, once you've gone through the initial pain of creating your account on the site and logging in. That ease of participation leads to far higher poll-vote totals than comment totals
on every site I've ever run, and I think it'll be the same in this case - a few contributed issues, more comments, and way way more votes.
Finally, regarding 'keen participants' biasing the polls... to steal a software joke, I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. If there's a group of people who feel really strongly about a particular issue, and they're organised enough to keep track of it and vote in polls about it, they're probably quite well informed about it and very entitled to their vote on that issue. If their position is contested, then presumably there will also be people voting against them in equally keen numbers.
If an issue doesn't arouse such interest on one or both sides, then does it matter if the only people who do vote are the people who really care about that issue? If nobody cares enough to vote at all, is the outcome actually important to the people of Hackney? Maybe not.
Blood and Property: Would you set up your system anyway and make it available to whoever does become MP - if it's not you?
Denny de la Haye: Yes, absolutely. I intend to continue setting up the system and make it available to every MP and PPC in the country. The difference is that I (and perhaps some other independents, over time) will agree to be bound by the polls - whereas any party MP is ultimately bound by their party whip.
Blood and Property: Have you ever had a supernatural experience?
Denny de La Haye: I've never had a supernatural experience. I tend to be sceptical about the supernatural, but not so sceptical that I wouldn't happily change my mind if I did have an experience myself. It would take some impressive evidence to change my mind without such an experience.
Other Blood and Property interviews:
Meg Hillier (22nd March 2010)
Jules Pipe (11th March 2010)
Diane Abbott (11th Feb 2010)
Blood and Property: What sort of issues that aren't directly related to voting in Parliament - and your system for canvassing your constituents - do you think you'd have to deal with? Will there be parts of the job that cannot be defined by your constituents?
Denny de la Haye: I'm worried about the short timescale on which some votes are called - I think these tend to be minor amendments rather than full bills, which have more forewarning although there's still room for improvement from what I understand of the way the Parliamentary timetable is set.
There are also some votes which are purely procedural as I understand it, along the lines of "I propose we break for lunch now", which I don't think anyone will mind me voting in however seems appropriate at the time.
In any situation where I find myself having to vote on something significant without a mandate from my constituents, then I'll either vote as I think they would want me to vote if I think that's clear, or abstain if it's not. In either case, I'll immediately post such votes (and how I voted) on the website for discussion. This has two aims - firstly, to give me a better chance of knowing how to vote on similar issues in future short-notice votes, and secondly, to call attention to how much Parliamentary business is done on a timetable too short for public participation. I believe the latter to be a significant problem which would be fairly easy to address if there was a will to do so - running the country shouldn't (usually) be done on a short-notice timetable, one would hope there's a lot of planning ahead being done, and that should carry through to allow the public time to participate if they wish.
Blood and Property: Does the job require an element of leadership? Or what other personal qualities do you think an MP should have?
Denny de la Haye: As far as 'qualities an MP should have' are concerned, I think an honest desire to represent the people of their area should be very high on the list. My manifesto not only offers but actually enforces that, in a very open and transparent way.
Blood and Property: Judging by what I've seen, the blogging or online community in Hackney is not very big - at least not in terms of showing an interest in Hackney politics. Does that mean that your system could be beholden to the same few people?
Denny de la Haye: It's a possibility, but I'm not sure it's a probability, and if it does work out that way, I'm not entirely sure it's a problem. Firstly, regarding 'Hackney politics' - most of the issues which people vote on in Parliament are national in scope. They will have local impact, but they're national issues, and nationally there's quite a lot of political blogging and single-issue campaigning. One challenge for the site will be to explain how and why each national issue relates to Hackney, and why people might want to vote on that issue.
Secondly, regarding participation levels... if people are given the right to actually change the way I will vote on issues, I think that will have more pull in terms of numbers than the chance to write a blog or take part in political campaigning which has no guarantee of causing
a response. This is further helped by the fact that clicking on a poll is pretty quick and easy, once you've gone through the initial pain of creating your account on the site and logging in. That ease of participation leads to far higher poll-vote totals than comment totals
on every site I've ever run, and I think it'll be the same in this case - a few contributed issues, more comments, and way way more votes.
Finally, regarding 'keen participants' biasing the polls... to steal a software joke, I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. If there's a group of people who feel really strongly about a particular issue, and they're organised enough to keep track of it and vote in polls about it, they're probably quite well informed about it and very entitled to their vote on that issue. If their position is contested, then presumably there will also be people voting against them in equally keen numbers.
If an issue doesn't arouse such interest on one or both sides, then does it matter if the only people who do vote are the people who really care about that issue? If nobody cares enough to vote at all, is the outcome actually important to the people of Hackney? Maybe not.
Blood and Property: Would you set up your system anyway and make it available to whoever does become MP - if it's not you?
Denny de la Haye: Yes, absolutely. I intend to continue setting up the system and make it available to every MP and PPC in the country. The difference is that I (and perhaps some other independents, over time) will agree to be bound by the polls - whereas any party MP is ultimately bound by their party whip.
Blood and Property: Have you ever had a supernatural experience?
Denny de La Haye: I've never had a supernatural experience. I tend to be sceptical about the supernatural, but not so sceptical that I wouldn't happily change my mind if I did have an experience myself. It would take some impressive evidence to change my mind without such an experience.
Other Blood and Property interviews:
Meg Hillier (22nd March 2010)
Jules Pipe (11th March 2010)
Diane Abbott (11th Feb 2010)
Monday, 5 April 2010
The key to every door in Hackney
Last week there was a power cut on my street and the expensive new bomb-proof- looking front door - recently installed by Hackney Homes - swung open.
I thought this must have been a one-off problem in my block but no, every front door to every Hackney Homes block will swing open and stay open in power cut.
A spokeswoman for Hackney Homes said: "When there is a power failure to a block, the door entry systems are designed to default to open - this is essentially a safety measure in case there is an emergency and residents need to evacuate quickly. Once the power supply is back, the doors revert to normal."
But there are some emergencies involving power cuts where a resident might rather hide behind a locked door. Or where a resident might want to leave their home for a while - preferably with a locked front door.
Think back to the period when banks were going bust. This was when the term "counterparty risk" started doing the rounds. People who thought they'd bought a lump of gold discovered that they had actually bought a piece of paper from a bank saying "I.O.U a lump of gold".
In this case, Hackney residents don't actually have locks on their front doors, they have a note from an electricity supplier saying I.O.U a door lock and a secure home.
Even if your power supplier is reliable this wouldn't be the ideal situation - think riot, flood, earthquake, war, terrorist attack or just long-lasting powercut while you're not in.
Recent discussion about day-long power cuts in Shoreditch: http://shoreditchtriangle.ning.com/
Trader's Power Cut Showdown: http://finsburypark.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/traders-power-cut-showdown/
I thought this must have been a one-off problem in my block but no, every front door to every Hackney Homes block will swing open and stay open in power cut.
A spokeswoman for Hackney Homes said: "When there is a power failure to a block, the door entry systems are designed to default to open - this is essentially a safety measure in case there is an emergency and residents need to evacuate quickly. Once the power supply is back, the doors revert to normal."
But there are some emergencies involving power cuts where a resident might rather hide behind a locked door. Or where a resident might want to leave their home for a while - preferably with a locked front door.
Think back to the period when banks were going bust. This was when the term "counterparty risk" started doing the rounds. People who thought they'd bought a lump of gold discovered that they had actually bought a piece of paper from a bank saying "I.O.U a lump of gold".
In this case, Hackney residents don't actually have locks on their front doors, they have a note from an electricity supplier saying I.O.U a door lock and a secure home.
Even if your power supplier is reliable this wouldn't be the ideal situation - think riot, flood, earthquake, war, terrorist attack or just long-lasting powercut while you're not in.
Recent discussion about day-long power cuts in Shoreditch: http://shoreditchtriangle.ning.com/
Trader's Power Cut Showdown: http://finsburypark.wordpress.com/2009/01/18/traders-power-cut-showdown/
Saturday, 3 April 2010
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...
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...
Friday, 2 April 2010
Is David Cameron coming to Hackney again? Yes
Update:
Yes, David Cameron did appear in Hackney again and made various announcements.
Here's Samantha Cameron's blog about her trip to the Pedro Club and another story from the Press Association. Neither really say very much.
He was only here last a couple of weeks ago: Cameron rally in South Hackney. Why?
I wonder if he'd have any comments on the Hackney Conservative group. According to an ongoing debate in the Jewish media, most of Hackney's Conservative councillors have bigger fish to fry than Conservative policies: A must-read for Hackney politics
From earlier...
According to the Spectator David and Samantha Cameron will be visiting a social action project in Hackney.
If correct, could that be this?
He was only here last a couple of weeks ago: Cameron rally in South Hackney. Why?
Hopefully someone will ask him about the Hackney Conservative group. According to an ongoing debate in the Jewish Chronicle, most of Hackney's Conservative councillors have bigger fish to fry than Conservative policies: A must-read for Hackney politics
Yes, David Cameron did appear in Hackney again and made various announcements.
Here's Samantha Cameron's blog about her trip to the Pedro Club and another story from the Press Association. Neither really say very much.
He was only here last a couple of weeks ago: Cameron rally in South Hackney. Why?
I wonder if he'd have any comments on the Hackney Conservative group. According to an ongoing debate in the Jewish media, most of Hackney's Conservative councillors have bigger fish to fry than Conservative policies: A must-read for Hackney politics
From earlier...
According to the Spectator David and Samantha Cameron will be visiting a social action project in Hackney.
If correct, could that be this?
He was only here last a couple of weeks ago: Cameron rally in South Hackney. Why?
Hopefully someone will ask him about the Hackney Conservative group. According to an ongoing debate in the Jewish Chronicle, most of Hackney's Conservative councillors have bigger fish to fry than Conservative policies: A must-read for Hackney politics
Thursday, 1 April 2010
A must read for Hackney politics
The Jewish Chronicle published this piece yesterday: Hacking off Hackney voters.
It sheds light on a debate that Hackney politicians tend to avoid: Do ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors put the interests of their community ahead of the rest of the borough?
Last week its author Geoffrey Alderman wrote this critique of ultra-orthodox Jewish politics: Religion or mere self interest? Last week Blood and Property asked him to comment on the relationship between ultra orthodox Jewish councillors and the Conservative Party.
In Hackney there are nine ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors, six of them in the Conservative Party.
Alderman said: "All I would say is that the ultra-orthodox communities in Hackney are much less interested in party dogma than in what the parties can do for them. That's not to say that they aren't interested in dogma, rather that it's a secondary consideration."
Planning restrictions have been the community's main concern as they prevent large families from extending their homes. This issue also consumes a lot of the energy of Hackney's Conservative Party.
The issue is likely to heat up again after a planning victory for Ultra Orthodox Jewish families living in Haringey. One commentator told the Jewish Chronicle "It sets an excellent precedent" adding that she hoped Hackney Council would do something similar.
Professor Alderman refers to Blood and Property's interview with Jules Pipe and a stand-off the Mayor had with Cllr Sime Steinberger over exactly this issue (links in the interview).
Alderman also noted Pipes comments about communal voting. The mayor told Blood and Property: "... personally I think communalism is very unhealthy. People should be looking at the manifestoes and candidates of the different parties and voting for the ones who seem to have the best ideas, qualities and relevant experience. It is unhealthy for democracy if people vote for candidates from their own community for that reason alone and not on merit. It is also unhealthy for community cohesion – whilst there are specific communities within Hackney, we are all part of one wider civic community."
This seems to clash slightly with MP Meg Hillier's views on the issue. In her interview with Blood and Property, she said that self interested communities is what politics is about.
"Blood and Property: Do you expect communities to be self-interested for a multicultural system to work?
Meg Hillier: We have a party system in this country and people will look at what policies work for them. People don’t necessarily vote down ethnic lines. They wouldn’t necessarily vote for a Vietnamese councillor because they are Vietnamese or for a Turkish councillor because they were Turkish or African councillor because they were African. People tend to vote more for the party of their choice and I think that’s healthy.
Blood and Property: And if they weren’t doing that, would you say it was unhealthy?
Meg Hillier: Lots of people vote for parties, but of course a lot of people don’t have parties, they float, and there are many factors in their decisions. There are lots of people who will vote for the same party, not necessarily mine, for years and years. Others vote for one party one year and another the next and they have different reasons for voting. Rarely is it a personality decision. My view is that there is very little personality voting and it is more on the big issues and wider concerns.
Blood and Property: Does it matter if you have large, politically active communities, that do act with a certain level of self interest – or promote issues that affect this community?
Meg Hillier: That’s what politics is about."
Geoffrey Alderman concluded his piece in the Jewish Chronicle with this warning: "Jewish "communalism" is a major trigger of anti-Jewish prejudice. It may look clever but its victories, purchased at a high price, are invariably short-lived."
FOR REFERENCE:
Last week Blood and Property interviewed Geoffrey Alderman (I have yet to write it up). He lived in Clapton (Walsingham Road) from 1946 to 1973 and was educated at Hackney Downs School (He is the school's official historian) before going to Oxford. Alderman now holds several academic posts in the UK and the USA. Try geoffreyalderman.com or his reference in Wikipedia which includes controversies he has sparked over Islam, Palestine and Harold Pinter.
On page 364 of his book Modern British Jewry (1992), Alderman writes: "The UOHC and kindred ultra-orthodox communities have also grown in size. The most visible manifestation of this expansion has been the post immigration, particularly from Communist eastern Europe, of adherents of various pietistic (and, some would say, excessively narrow-minded and anti-intellectual) chassidic sects, each following a particular rabbinical dynasty, all reconisable by a very distinctive style of dress... and each family doing its very best to bring into the world as many children as possible."
Until relatively recently, in Hackney and the UK in general, the distinctively dressed ultra orthodox Jew was a rarity. In Modern British Jewry, Alderman noted how most Jewish historians paid them little attention: "Who, at the time of Sir Israel Brodie's retirement (1965), would have predicted that Lubavitch chassidim would have found employment within the United Synagogue, or that "Lubes" would have featured, as they clearly must, among the opinion-formers of British Jewry?"
It sheds light on a debate that Hackney politicians tend to avoid: Do ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors put the interests of their community ahead of the rest of the borough?
Last week its author Geoffrey Alderman wrote this critique of ultra-orthodox Jewish politics: Religion or mere self interest? Last week Blood and Property asked him to comment on the relationship between ultra orthodox Jewish councillors and the Conservative Party.
In Hackney there are nine ultra-orthodox Jewish councillors, six of them in the Conservative Party.
Alderman said: "All I would say is that the ultra-orthodox communities in Hackney are much less interested in party dogma than in what the parties can do for them. That's not to say that they aren't interested in dogma, rather that it's a secondary consideration."
Planning restrictions have been the community's main concern as they prevent large families from extending their homes. This issue also consumes a lot of the energy of Hackney's Conservative Party.
The issue is likely to heat up again after a planning victory for Ultra Orthodox Jewish families living in Haringey. One commentator told the Jewish Chronicle "It sets an excellent precedent" adding that she hoped Hackney Council would do something similar.
Professor Alderman refers to Blood and Property's interview with Jules Pipe and a stand-off the Mayor had with Cllr Sime Steinberger over exactly this issue (links in the interview).
Alderman also noted Pipes comments about communal voting. The mayor told Blood and Property: "... personally I think communalism is very unhealthy. People should be looking at the manifestoes and candidates of the different parties and voting for the ones who seem to have the best ideas, qualities and relevant experience. It is unhealthy for democracy if people vote for candidates from their own community for that reason alone and not on merit. It is also unhealthy for community cohesion – whilst there are specific communities within Hackney, we are all part of one wider civic community."
This seems to clash slightly with MP Meg Hillier's views on the issue. In her interview with Blood and Property, she said that self interested communities is what politics is about.
"Blood and Property: Do you expect communities to be self-interested for a multicultural system to work?
Meg Hillier: We have a party system in this country and people will look at what policies work for them. People don’t necessarily vote down ethnic lines. They wouldn’t necessarily vote for a Vietnamese councillor because they are Vietnamese or for a Turkish councillor because they were Turkish or African councillor because they were African. People tend to vote more for the party of their choice and I think that’s healthy.
Blood and Property: And if they weren’t doing that, would you say it was unhealthy?
Meg Hillier: Lots of people vote for parties, but of course a lot of people don’t have parties, they float, and there are many factors in their decisions. There are lots of people who will vote for the same party, not necessarily mine, for years and years. Others vote for one party one year and another the next and they have different reasons for voting. Rarely is it a personality decision. My view is that there is very little personality voting and it is more on the big issues and wider concerns.
Blood and Property: Does it matter if you have large, politically active communities, that do act with a certain level of self interest – or promote issues that affect this community?
Meg Hillier: That’s what politics is about."
Geoffrey Alderman concluded his piece in the Jewish Chronicle with this warning: "Jewish "communalism" is a major trigger of anti-Jewish prejudice. It may look clever but its victories, purchased at a high price, are invariably short-lived."
FOR REFERENCE:
Last week Blood and Property interviewed Geoffrey Alderman (I have yet to write it up). He lived in Clapton (Walsingham Road) from 1946 to 1973 and was educated at Hackney Downs School (He is the school's official historian) before going to Oxford. Alderman now holds several academic posts in the UK and the USA. Try geoffreyalderman.com or his reference in Wikipedia which includes controversies he has sparked over Islam, Palestine and Harold Pinter.
On page 364 of his book Modern British Jewry (1992), Alderman writes: "The UOHC and kindred ultra-orthodox communities have also grown in size. The most visible manifestation of this expansion has been the post immigration, particularly from Communist eastern Europe, of adherents of various pietistic (and, some would say, excessively narrow-minded and anti-intellectual) chassidic sects, each following a particular rabbinical dynasty, all reconisable by a very distinctive style of dress... and each family doing its very best to bring into the world as many children as possible."
Until relatively recently, in Hackney and the UK in general, the distinctively dressed ultra orthodox Jew was a rarity. In Modern British Jewry, Alderman noted how most Jewish historians paid them little attention: "Who, at the time of Sir Israel Brodie's retirement (1965), would have predicted that Lubavitch chassidim would have found employment within the United Synagogue, or that "Lubes" would have featured, as they clearly must, among the opinion-formers of British Jewry?"
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Newham and Haringey demand equality with Hackney for schools cash
Two days ago Haringey MP Lynne Featherstone wrote about a campaign to equalise pupil funding with Hackney.
Today Newham joined the fray. The Newham Recorder said the borough receives £5,071 per head of pupil compared with boroughs like Hackney and Tower Hamlets which get £6,170 and £6,289 per student.
The paper said: "The Newham campaign, 4in10: The End Child Poverty London Project has handed in a petition to Ministers signed by close to 1,000 supporters, calling for the review to deliver a fair deal for Newham's children."
Some boroughs are also complaining that Hackney has more than its fair share of policemen.
Could this be a dilemma for Hackney politicians? Tone down the success stories on crime and education to encourage more funding - or tone them up to encourage more voters? Here Mayor Pipe discusses the cash gathering game... at least when there isn't an election around the corner: The message must be clear not true
Today Newham joined the fray. The Newham Recorder said the borough receives £5,071 per head of pupil compared with boroughs like Hackney and Tower Hamlets which get £6,170 and £6,289 per student.
The paper said: "The Newham campaign, 4in10: The End Child Poverty London Project has handed in a petition to Ministers signed by close to 1,000 supporters, calling for the review to deliver a fair deal for Newham's children."
Some boroughs are also complaining that Hackney has more than its fair share of policemen.
Could this be a dilemma for Hackney politicians? Tone down the success stories on crime and education to encourage more funding - or tone them up to encourage more voters? Here Mayor Pipe discusses the cash gathering game... at least when there isn't an election around the corner: The message must be clear not true
Nationwide: Hackney house prices up 22% in 12 months
According to a story in the Evening Standard, research by Nationwide Building Society showed:
"Prices rose faster in Hackney and Hammersmith & Fulham — both with 22 per cent increases — than anywhere else in the country. Property experts said the dramatic recovery in the London market was down to foreign investors cashing in on the weakness of the pound combined with higher salaries and bonuses in the City and a shortage of homes up for sale."
"Prices rose faster in Hackney and Hammersmith & Fulham — both with 22 per cent increases — than anywhere else in the country. Property experts said the dramatic recovery in the London market was down to foreign investors cashing in on the weakness of the pound combined with higher salaries and bonuses in the City and a shortage of homes up for sale."
Undiagnosed autism and Asperger cause of disruptive Hackney kids
Update April 3 - The research was carried out in Hackney -
According to this piece, the lead researcher said: "“Our research shows that many children who get into trouble at school are being labelled ‘disruptive’ or ‘aggressive’ by their teachers and peers, when in reality they are displaying behaviours that are consistent with traits we see in clinically diagnosed autism. The children involved in our study have been recommended for appropriate treatment and their educational needs should now be recognised and adjusted accordingly.
“Teachers should be supported to identify these children before they are unfairly excluded from school and they miss out on the education and learning opportunities they deserve.”
Old story:
A study on persistently disruptive primary school children found 35% met criteria for atypical autism or Asperger syndrome. (35% = 9 children)
An excerpt of the report from a google search said: "All 56 mainstream primary schools in the London borough of Hackney and the local pupil referral unit were invited to participate in the study."
" Many persistently disruptive children have undetected disorders of social communication, which are of potential aetiological (causal) significance."
Social communication deficits in disruptive primary-school childrenR. Donno, G. Parker, J. Gilmour, and D. H. Skuse
BJP 2010 196: 282-289. [Abstract] [Full Text]
According to this piece, the lead researcher said: "“Our research shows that many children who get into trouble at school are being labelled ‘disruptive’ or ‘aggressive’ by their teachers and peers, when in reality they are displaying behaviours that are consistent with traits we see in clinically diagnosed autism. The children involved in our study have been recommended for appropriate treatment and their educational needs should now be recognised and adjusted accordingly.
“Teachers should be supported to identify these children before they are unfairly excluded from school and they miss out on the education and learning opportunities they deserve.”
Old story:
A study on persistently disruptive primary school children found 35% met criteria for atypical autism or Asperger syndrome. (35% = 9 children)
An excerpt of the report from a google search said: "All 56 mainstream primary schools in the London borough of Hackney and the local pupil referral unit were invited to participate in the study."
" Many persistently disruptive children have undetected disorders of social communication, which are of potential aetiological (causal) significance."
Social communication deficits in disruptive primary-school children
BJP 2010 196: 282-289.
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
Bloggers and tweeters vs Hackney Gazette: History
Tweeter Northsixteen (any relation to N16?) and blogger Raggydeeann chart the misdeeds of the Hackney Gazette and crime reporting. As far as I can tell, the Gazette tried to credit the source for a story - but got it wrong. This looks like it might be an improvement on the bad old days:
Dave Hill had a run in with the Gazette back in 2008 - "It was all about bloggers and how they're a bunch of nutters who have no business complaining if, by some miracle, they publish something of interest that a newspaper - such as the Gazette - helps itself to without acknowledging its source."
Dave Hill had a run in with the Gazette back in 2008 - "It was all about bloggers and how they're a bunch of nutters who have no business complaining if, by some miracle, they publish something of interest that a newspaper - such as the Gazette - helps itself to without acknowledging its source."
Reading between the lines
Does it mean anything if the business minister chooses Hackney to launch a consultation into debt relief.
According to Insolvency Service to help vulnerable people trapped in debt: "The consultation was launched by Business Minister, Ian Lucas who attended Citizens Advice Bureau in Hackney on Tuesday, where he heard first hand the problems that those in debt are facing."
The problem being consulted on is that people with tiny amounts of pension cash saved are not eligible for Debt Relief Orders - a low cost and effective way of avoiding bankruptcy.
According to Insolvency Service to help vulnerable people trapped in debt: "The consultation was launched by Business Minister, Ian Lucas who attended Citizens Advice Bureau in Hackney on Tuesday, where he heard first hand the problems that those in debt are facing."
The problem being consulted on is that people with tiny amounts of pension cash saved are not eligible for Debt Relief Orders - a low cost and effective way of avoiding bankruptcy.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Hackney gets too much cash for schools
Some boroughs complain Hackney has more than its fair share of policemen. Now here's Haringey complaining about Hackney schools: "Our children get £1318 less per head for their schools than neighbouring boroughs like Camden, Islington and Hackney. We have now reached the point where the Government is finally consulting on the funding formula for schools to start in 2011."
Could this be a dilemma for Hackney politicians? Tone down the success stories to encourage more funding or tone them up to encourage more voters? Here Mayor Pipe discusses the cash gathering game... at least when there isn't an election around the corner: The message must be clear not true
Could this be a dilemma for Hackney politicians? Tone down the success stories to encourage more funding or tone them up to encourage more voters? Here Mayor Pipe discusses the cash gathering game... at least when there isn't an election around the corner: The message must be clear not true
Sunday, 28 March 2010
Hackney hustings desert: report from the Lib Dems
Here's Lib Dem candidate Keith Angus' view of the first Hustings of the election: No longer a Hustings virgin.
Keith says Diane Abbott turned up 15 minutes before the debate ended and then joked that she'd blame the people of Hackney if she looked flustered on This Week (which she did - could this explain the last two posts? Diane to publish her medical records and Observer: Diane Abbott has dangerous attitude)
There's other interesting stuff in Keith's report but the final punch line is that the people of Hackney should be demanding more debates from their prospective MPs:
Keith wrote: "There was one thing all four of us agreed on (me, Diane, the Tory and the Green) after the meeting had finished. It’s pretty poor that this is the only hustings we have in our diaries at the moment."
Anyone know who or how these hustings are organised?
I was also wondering what happened on Saturday with Meg Hillier's visit to Leabank Square and Hackneywick.blogspot
Keith says Diane Abbott turned up 15 minutes before the debate ended and then joked that she'd blame the people of Hackney if she looked flustered on This Week (which she did - could this explain the last two posts? Diane to publish her medical records and Observer: Diane Abbott has dangerous attitude)
There's other interesting stuff in Keith's report but the final punch line is that the people of Hackney should be demanding more debates from their prospective MPs:
Keith wrote: "There was one thing all four of us agreed on (me, Diane, the Tory and the Green) after the meeting had finished. It’s pretty poor that this is the only hustings we have in our diaries at the moment."
Anyone know who or how these hustings are organised?
I was also wondering what happened on Saturday with Meg Hillier's visit to Leabank Square and Hackneywick.blogspot
Observer: Diane Abbott has dangerous attitude
Barbara Ellen writes "MPs are in no position to sneer" in the Observer - referring to Diane's rant at Esther Rantzen last week:
"It rather looked as though Abbott's definition of "diverse" was her, and any other MPs, who had come up through similar channels, and therefore "knew what they were talking about". Indeed, Esther was a red herring here. One got the feeling that if you scratched Abbot's attitude to the likes of Rantzen, it might all too quickly extend to ordinary members of the public also "not knowing what they're talking about". Now there's a dangerous attitude for dangerous times.
"It rather looked as though Abbott's definition of "diverse" was her, and any other MPs, who had come up through similar channels, and therefore "knew what they were talking about". Indeed, Esther was a red herring here. One got the feeling that if you scratched Abbot's attitude to the likes of Rantzen, it might all too quickly extend to ordinary members of the public also "not knowing what they're talking about". Now there's a dangerous attitude for dangerous times.
Friday, 26 March 2010
Diane to publish her medical records?
Diane looked a bit unstable on This Week. Is she ill?
May be we'll find out soon.
At the end of an unhappy exchange with Esther Rantzen, she said it would be a good idea for MPs to publish their medical records - and their tax returns - apparently something US politicians do. So will Diane be publishing hers before the election?
Rod Liddle had another pop at her yesterday. This time over a video of school kids singing - literally - her praises. The scene, according to Liddle, would not have been out of place in North Korea.
This might be unfair but Diane is no less crude. Her treatment of Rantzen was polite compared to an interview of Nick Robinson, the BBCs political editor, she did for the Guardian. She thought his appearance was the most important topic for discussion.
May be we'll find out soon.
At the end of an unhappy exchange with Esther Rantzen, she said it would be a good idea for MPs to publish their medical records - and their tax returns - apparently something US politicians do. So will Diane be publishing hers before the election?
Rod Liddle had another pop at her yesterday. This time over a video of school kids singing - literally - her praises. The scene, according to Liddle, would not have been out of place in North Korea.
This might be unfair but Diane is no less crude. Her treatment of Rantzen was polite compared to an interview of Nick Robinson, the BBCs political editor, she did for the Guardian. She thought his appearance was the most important topic for discussion.
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Hackney unemployment breaks 10,000
Hackney is still the London borough with the highest proportion of its working-age population claiming Job Seekers Allowance (JSA).
Figures released on March 17 2010 ( Regional Monthly Data - March 2010) - and which refer to February - show that there are now 10,044 JSA claimants in the borough. In February Hackney saw another 139 people sign on compared to 162 signing on in January.
This now means that 7% of the borough's working population is claiming job seekers allowance.
In addition, the Office of National Statistics reports a nationwide decrease in employment levels and an increase in economic inactivity (highest since 004). Also the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months also rose and is at its highest level since 1997.
The figures do not break down these changes to local authorities or constituencies so it is not yet clear what may have happened to Hackney's economic inactivity levels.
Will levels of 'worklessness' in the borough have changed dramatically since June 2009 when 24.2%, or 34,000 of borough's working population, were economically inactive?
Levels of long-term unemployment in Hackney fell from 47,100 in 2005 to 26,900 in 2007 - a much faster rate than neighbouring boroughs.
But the reasons for this large drop in economic inactivity remains unexplained (Worklessness miracle). In addition to last months rise in national economic inactivity levels there are some other reasons to suspect that worklessness levels may be picking up. Some of these are discussed here: 42% of Hackney households on benefits
Hackney JSA claimant count:
February: 10,044 (7%) - next highest is Tower Hamlets with 6.7%
January: 9,905 (6.9%) - next highest is Tower Hamlets at 6.6%
December: 9743 (6.7%) - next highest was Tower Hamlets at 6.5%
November: 9,795 (6.8%) - next highest was Tower Hamlets at 6.7%
October: 9,827 (6.8%) - equal highest with Tower Hamlets.
September: 9,884 (7%)
August 9,826 (6.9%)
July: 9550 (6.7%)
Divided into constituencies: - Diane Abbott (North) and Meg Hillier (South) -
Meg Hillier Vs Diane Abbott on unemployment (I did ask where Diane got her figures but have had no reply)
Hackney North
May - 4,081
June - 4,118
July - 4206
August - 4,331
September - 4,338
October - 4365
November - 4386 (6.3%)
December - 4331 (6.2%)
January - 4,402 (6.3%)
February - 4,450 (6.4%)
Hackney South
May - 5,296
June - 5,190
July - 5,344
August - 5,495
September - 5,546 (7.8%)
October - 5,462
November - 5,409 (7.5%)
December - 5,412 (7.5%)
January - 5503 (7.6%)
February - 5,594 (7.7%)
Hackney unemployment deteriorates fastest
Minister: Hackney unemployment nothing to complain about.
Figures released on March 17 2010 ( Regional Monthly Data - March 2010) - and which refer to February - show that there are now 10,044 JSA claimants in the borough. In February Hackney saw another 139 people sign on compared to 162 signing on in January.
This now means that 7% of the borough's working population is claiming job seekers allowance.
In addition, the Office of National Statistics reports a nationwide decrease in employment levels and an increase in economic inactivity (highest since 004). Also the number of people unemployed for more than 12 months also rose and is at its highest level since 1997.
The figures do not break down these changes to local authorities or constituencies so it is not yet clear what may have happened to Hackney's economic inactivity levels.
Will levels of 'worklessness' in the borough have changed dramatically since June 2009 when 24.2%, or 34,000 of borough's working population, were economically inactive?
Levels of long-term unemployment in Hackney fell from 47,100 in 2005 to 26,900 in 2007 - a much faster rate than neighbouring boroughs.
But the reasons for this large drop in economic inactivity remains unexplained (Worklessness miracle). In addition to last months rise in national economic inactivity levels there are some other reasons to suspect that worklessness levels may be picking up. Some of these are discussed here: 42% of Hackney households on benefits
Hackney JSA claimant count:
February: 10,044 (7%) - next highest is Tower Hamlets with 6.7%
January: 9,905 (6.9%) - next highest is Tower Hamlets at 6.6%
December: 9743 (6.7%) - next highest was Tower Hamlets at 6.5%
November: 9,795 (6.8%) - next highest was Tower Hamlets at 6.7%
October: 9,827 (6.8%) - equal highest with Tower Hamlets.
September: 9,884 (7%)
August 9,826 (6.9%)
July: 9550 (6.7%)
Divided into constituencies: - Diane Abbott (North) and Meg Hillier (South) -
Meg Hillier Vs Diane Abbott on unemployment (I did ask where Diane got her figures but have had no reply)
Hackney North
May - 4,081
June - 4,118
July - 4206
August - 4,331
September - 4,338
October - 4365
November - 4386 (6.3%)
December - 4331 (6.2%)
January - 4,402 (6.3%)
February - 4,450 (6.4%)
Hackney South
May - 5,296
June - 5,190
July - 5,344
August - 5,495
September - 5,546 (7.8%)
October - 5,462
November - 5,409 (7.5%)
December - 5,412 (7.5%)
January - 5503 (7.6%)
February - 5,594 (7.7%)
Hackney unemployment deteriorates fastest
Minister: Hackney unemployment nothing to complain about.
Monday, 22 March 2010
"To be brutally honest I've got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that" Meg Hillier
Blood and Property posted an interview with Meg Hillier on Monday morning. It is long. But is it dull?
Meg Hillier on Religion: "I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job."
Meg Hillier on Ghosts: "To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that."
So, did she answer any of the questions Blood and Property put to her in this interview?
Find out here: Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions.
Meg Hillier on Religion: "I don’t really want to talk about my personal situation. It’s not relevant to my job."
Meg Hillier on Ghosts: "To be brutally honest I’ve got better things to do with my time than answer questions like that."
So, did she answer any of the questions Blood and Property put to her in this interview?
Find out here: Meg Hillier answers Blood and Property questions.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
