Well I have moved on, blog-wise, as you will have noticed by the paucity of posts here on recent months.

Not so quiet, I'm pleased to say, has been my "own" blog at Neil Reddin ... No G which has made number 34 in the Top 100 Conservative Blogs and number 66 in the wider Right of Centre Blogs chart in the 2008-09 Total Politics Guide to Blogging.

So I will not be posting on SELblog any more - many thanks for your readership and comments over the last two years. If anyone of a similar political dispostion and geographical area of interest wishes to pick up the baton then I'm sure Mikey and I will be happy to consider it.

Labels: blogging

The Lib Dems, having come out in favour of a referendum on Europe, or not, and then in favour of tax cuts, or not, are now to concentrate on being the left-wing alternative to Labour, as Nick Clegg switched the party’s electoral strategy away from Conservative held seats to the “softer” Labour constituencies.

This, from the Lib Dem viewpoint, is a sensible move, and shows they have learnt at least one lesson from Henley. Johnathan Isaby has helpfully put together a list of Lab-Lib target seats – the ones that will receive the focus (sorry) of Cowley Street’s attentions – as much as they can muster these days, anyway.

The list includes Lewisham West & Penge at number 40, which could be expected to be a three way fight anyway. The only other "target seat" south of the river is Streatham at number 34. Conspicuous by its absence, though, is Lewisham East, where Bromley chicken-runner Chris Maines had set up camp in the hope of succeeding where he failed in Orpington.

Rumours had already been circulating on the Lewisham grapevine that Alex Feakes in Lewisham West & Penge was garnering far more support from activists than poor old Chris, and this latest news will not go down well among the Maines team.

On a wider note, Clegg really didn’t have many other realistic options, if he wants to keep more than a handful of MPs after the next General Election. If he pulls it off, then in few years the Lib Dems could realise their dream of becoming the official opposition – more likely, though, is that they will replicate the effects of the Gang of Four in the early Eighties and usher in a period of a split Left that will give Cameron a good three terms in government. As a good Conservative, of course, you won’t find me complaining about that.

Cross-posted.

Labels: lewisham, liberal democrat, penge

As Greenwich Watch and the NewsShopper, among others, have reported, Councillor Kanta Patel of Greenwich Council passed away last week. Our condolences to her family and friends.

Cllr. Patel had served on the Council for a very respectable 21 years, and was last re-elected in 2006, for Plumstead ward, with a 581 majority over the Conservatives.

Labels: greenwich, kanta patel

The Conservatives comfortably retained Christchurch ward in Bexley last night, with James Spencer taking over the seat vacated by Ian Clement, who moved onward and upwards to City Hall as Boris’ “bovver boy” (© Ken Livingstone).

James Spencer (Conservative) 1,192 (47.81%)
Oliver John Brooks (Liberal Democrat) 459 (18.41%)
Michael Barnbrook (British National Party) 431 (17.29%)
Ursula Ayliffe (Labour Party) 411 (16.49%)

There were shades of Henley for Labour, as the by-election saw them drop from second to fourth, behind the BNP. That being said it was, as in 2006, something of a scrap in the gutter for second place, as less than 2% of the vote separated second and fourth places.

Labels: bexley, by-election, christchurch, james spencer

More to the point ... is it UKIP, is it Lib Dem?

Actually, it's Labour, but you'd be hard pushed to notice it. In fact, you have to get halfway down the fourth (back) page until you even see the first - and only - mention of the word "Labour".

In fact "Tory" gets more of a mention than the fragrant Ursula's own party.

I assume she is actually a member of the Labour party?

Anyway, things look good for James Spencer as he looks to succeed Ian Clement in the Christchurch by-election in Bexley. More interesting is seeing whether Michael Barnbrook - father of the sole BNP member on the GLA - can repeat the feat of his colleague in the Henley by-election and beat Labour.

Labels: bexley, bexleyheath and crayford, by-election, christchurch

TfL's plans for the Thames Gateway Bridge are now history - not that the idea of a bridge has been scrapped (and why should it?)

So, happy faces in Bexley and a mixed response no doubt in Greenwich. Now perhaps someone at TfL saw this coming, but I never had a reply to my question to TfL about why they were tendering for the construction project before the inquiry decision had been made. How much has been spent already on such clearly premature preparations?

Labels: bexley, boris johnson, greenwich, thames gateway

So, almost days after Jimmy Mizen’s tragic murder in Lee, comes another knife fatality. Rob Knox, stabbed in an apparent fracas at the Metro bar next to Sidcup station, was the latest addition to this year’s grim statistics. Like Mizen, but unlike many of the other knife deaths, this murder was not gang related. (This sort of event is getting closer to home: Knox’s murder took place only a couple of hundred yards from where I used to work.) Just under a year ago, of course, we had the murder of Ben Hitchcock (in what did appear to be a gang incident) in Beckenham.

Clearly, Mayor Johnson’s determination to target knife crime is right, and equally it is right that the police should be emboldened to go in hard when dealing with it, as they did a week ago in Deptford. However, whether it is fuelled by gang culture or just a more general readiness to resort to potentially lethal means of violence, measures to tackle simply the possession of knives, though right and necessary, are largely dealing with the symptoms.

What makes someone seem so ready to put a knife into another human being, knowing that there is a good chance it will kill them? If it wasn’t a knife, would Knox’s killer have simply used a broken bottle?

As with the debate on gun control, it should be remembered that knives don’t kill people, people kill people. Of course, tackling the underlying cultures will take a lot longer and a lot more than just policing. That being said, the police can play a role in demonstrating that it is unacceptable to resort to violence, whether lethal or not, on our streets or off. Part of this is to make it clear that the violence and conspiracy to commit it will be not only prosecuted (which means letting the police get on with the job) but rewarded with fitting sentences. This means that the Mayor or police alone cannot solve the problem – it goes all the way through the criminal justice system, and all the way to the top of Government.

RIP Rob Knox.

(Cross-posted.)

Labels: crime, policing, sidcup

The point of regeneration is to provide a catalyst in a run-down area to trigger an upward spiral of economic growth.

Of course, the activities of bodies like the LDA are now starting to unravel, as the concept of economic development was stretched beyond its limits by the body known as “Ken’s Bank”.

However, others are working towards genuine regeneration goals, including those working on the developments that are following in the wake and shadow of the Millennium Dome O2.

Yesterday’s report by the Taxpayers’ Alliance highlighted the number of publicly funded bodies that constitute hidden government. Another feature of big government is that this myriad of bodies produces an awful lot of illusory activity and trading – “Busy Doing Nothing” as the song goes – to keep turning the merry-go-round of taxpayers’ cash.

When do we cross the line between a leg up from government and the creation of long term dependency on the state? The debate is much the same for an area as it is for individuals.

Of course, I may be being harsh – if TfL are moving from more expensive offices in Central London, then there could be a saving (and the staff will provide business for local shops and the like). Even government has to “live” somewhere, and if it can be in a regeneration area, then why not? But then again, given that so much of TfL’s activity is simply duplicating the work and expertise of the boroughs, perhaps the same and more could be achieved with a little “restructuring”.

So whether it is out of a wish for Boris to be successful in chopping out the deadwood in the GLA forest, or to ensure that the Greenwich Peninsula regeneration is truly sustainable and successful in the long term, let’s hope that TfL don’t hang around in Peninsula Central for too long.

Cross-posted on Neil Reddin ... No G.

Labels: boris johnson, greenwich, regeneration

So now the dust has settled after the London elections, we can have a look at the ward level results, which came out earlier this week. For an overview of the situation across London, see here, or for the impact on some of our neighbours, Croydonian has done some work. With the election results broken down by ward, we can now see just how the 1^st May poll would translate into General Election results. It makes fairly happy reading … if you are a Conservative. On the downside, the BNP will also be encouraged.

So, Jacqui Lait and John Horam are vying for the prize of safest Conservative seat, while Bexleyheath & Crayford, Bromley & Chislehurst and Old Bexley & Sidcup, who will soon be selecting Derek Conway's replacement, are in a comfortable position.

Those with most to worry are John Austin, who would only cling onto the now super-marginal of Erith & Thamesmead with a 300-odd majority, and Bridget Prentice and John Dowd, whose majorities dip below 1600 and 1200 respectively.

The LibDems, formerly a force in the politics of our four boroughs, only have the consolation of coming a distant second in Orpington. They also suffer the indignity, however, of being knocked into fourth place behind the BNP in Bexleyheath & Crayford, Eltham, Erith & Thamesmead and Old Bexley & Sidcup. However, it would be fair to say that such protest votes would possibly not recur in the cold reality of a General Election.

What of the Council Elections, which will now probably be held on the same day as a 2010 General Election?

Only Crystal Palace and Penge & Cator would elude the Conservatives, raising the possibility of a conservative majority on Bromley of 50 – which would surpass even the 44 seat majority gained in 1982.

Bexley would be a sea of blue for all but the far north, in Thamesmead East.

In Greenwich, Middle Park and Sutcliffe is lifted from its current Lab/Lib split into the Conservative fold, and GLA candidate Andy Jennings could find himself in a wholly Conservative ward in Kidbrooke With Hornfair, bringing the Conservative group up to 17 seats against Labour’s 34, with no LibDems.

Finally Lewisham, conversely, returns firmly into the Labour fold, eliminating all the minor parties, with only Grove Park providing, as it does now, the Conservative redoubt in the borough.

Labels: elections

The horrific killing of the 16 year-old Jimmy Mizen on Saturday, just south of Lee station, has understandably figured prominently in the headlines, and has also really caused massive concern in south east London.

The murder has been linked to other teenage murders in London, but this is different as there was no shooting or stabbing, and the victim was not in a gang. The suspect, believed to be of Turkish origin, is still being sought. Let us hope that he is apprehended soon. In a very stressful situation, the dignity and courage of Jimmy's family have been inspirational.

Labels: crime, lewisham

Congratulations to Ian Clement, (now former) leader of Bexley Council as he takes up his new job as Deputy Mayor of Greater London, with specific responsibility for Government Relations. With Ian's appointment, Boris is sending clear signals about his relationship with the Boroughs and with Outer London.

It's onwards and upwards for Ian, who led Bexley Borough's Conservatives to victory over Labour in the 2006 Council Elections, and who was a close advisor to Boris during the campaign.

And just because Ian is following his council colleagues Katie Perrior (who led Boris' PR operation) and Gareth Bacon (elected as a London-wide assembly member) to City Hall, we'll have no talk of a Bexley mafia, thank you. I'd rather have them on our side, especially as they only live next door!

His move will trigger a by-election in Christchurch ward, where he leaves a formidable 1,455 majority.

Labels: bexley, boris johnson, ian clement, london government

Or to quote a government minister in the Observer yesterday, “It was Bromley that did for us”. The Minister is quite right, for as James has pointed out, Bexley and Bromley provided 58% of Boris’ majority over Livingstone.

Of course, I wouldn’t want to see our redoubtable brothers-in-arms next door in Bexley not taking their rightful share of the limelight, but Livingstone, today enjoying his first official day as the ex-Mayor, will know that some twenty seven years on from Bromley’s “Fares Fair” victory over Ken, the good people of this corner of Greater London finally delivered the knock-out punch, helped by our friends and neighbours across the outer London doughnut.

Whether he'll admit it in the promised autobiography, though, is another matter.

Update: Ken's lieutenant during the Fares Fair episode (and more recently) Dave Wetzel has also emptied his drawers today.

Labels: bexley, boris johnson, bromley, ken livingstone

So Boris is in, but the good news for the Conservatives continued (almost) through to the assembly results.

Having yesterday been somewhat dismissive of our chances of gaining any top-up seats, I must happily breakfast on humble pie today and congratulate our three new London-wide members, including Bexley’s Gareth Bacon. The LibDems won’t be in party mood though – they lost 2 of their five list members, and were hammered even more than Labour across the capital, suffering a swing to the Conservatives of 5.5% (based on the constituency vote). The swing from Labour was 1.5%.

The biggest individual hit suffered by the LibDems was in Bexley & Bromley where James Cleverly scored a 10.2% swing, as well as chalking up a record and thumping 75,000 majority. Labour’s worst swing was 6.6% in Havering & Redbridge where old hand Roger Evans tightened the Conservative grip.

The one sour note was the loss of Bob Blackman in Brent & Harrow, where the Labour candidate squeaked in, no doubt on the strength of being on Livingstone’s home patch.

The headlines are focussing on Boris’ historic victory – which will be a relief to the LibDems who have struggled to make any mark on Thursday. Yesterday Nick Clegg said that the local election results were “regaining momentum”. He’s not wrong – after all, he didn’t specify in what direction the momentum was going!

Labels: elections, london government

The count is underway for the London elections. I guess Friday counts are much more civilised – the candidate can get something resembling sleep on election night (yeah, right) and I assume it works out cheaper than paying counting staff for unsociable hours. Even so, it must lack the atmosphere of the early hours of a Friday morning, with results coming in from around the country. And what could kill the excitement off more effectively then an electronic count? No vote tallying as the boxes are opened and their contents spilled out onto the table? What's a political anorak to do?

Anyway, back to “our” patch: Andy Jennings will be in the privileged position of glimpsing the rarely seen creature known as Len Duvall, and the results for Greenwich & Lewisham will be analysed closely for the impact on the remaining Labour seats in South East London.

Bromley & Bexley, of course, isn’t expected to be the scene of any upsets. James will be able to enjoy today. Instead it will be something of a rematch between the other parties, after 2004 saw Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP fighting to avoid fourth place, with just over 3,000 votes (2% of the total turnout) separating them all. Of course, last time UKIP benefitted from the coinciding European Elections and the Lib Dems have since virtually abandoned Bromley and have long lost any interest in Bexley.

Across London, Conservatives tend to have little interest in the “top-up” consolation seats, but some pundits are predicting a seat for the BNP. I have to agree that this is, sadly, quite feasible.

The BNP polled 4.84%, just below the magic 5%, in 2004. The 2006 council results in Barking and Dagenham saw them poll the equivalent of around 7,500 votes in seven wards – extrapolated across London (though more probably focussed on the traditional “white working class” Labour areas, where BNP support is most fertile), one can see that the extra 0.16% isn’t much of a hill to climb.

Interesting times ahead.

Go Boris, well done James and good luck Andy.

(Partly cross-posted at Neil Reddin ... No G).

Labels: elections, london government

Today sees a march, organised by the Bromley Extra, along Elmstead Lane (on the Chislehurst/Mottingham border) to protest about the number of deaths along the road in recent times.

Road safety is always a sensitive issue, and of course, the sympathies of myself and all my colleagues are with the loved ones of those who have died. However, the approach of the Bromley Extra is a curious one. Indeed, they seem to have taken a few leaves out of the Lib Dem book of campaigning, in that they are calling for action that is already underway.

The Council is already drawing up plans for Elmstead Lane, as for numerous other roads due for action this year, but is wisely awaiting the outcome of the coroner’s hearing, on Thursday, into the latest death. The Extra, as its swansong, is keen to press for “action now”. So, almost uniquely for a newspaper, it has the luxury of not being around for much longer to answer two key points:

1) If the Council were to have installed a scheme by now, and the coroner’s enquiry came up with an opinion that would render the works irrelevant, or at least less effective than they could be, then the Extra would no doubt have slammed the Council for wasting money on useless road safety measures – probably after another death on this road.

2) If Elmstead Lane is the number one priority for action now, then how will the editorial team at the Extra explain to those who have suffered because of accidents on other dangerous roads higher up the list (Elmstead Lane is at number eight, though still on the works list for 2008/09) why their victims don’t count as much? Explain to the loved ones of, say, the seven people killed or seriously injured each (in recent years) on the Westerham Road, Penge High Street or Queensway/Franks Wood Avenue/Southborough Lane in Petts Wood, why Elmstead Lane is more, rather than roughly equally, deserving?

With perhaps only one or two more editions to go, time is running out for answers.

Labels: bromley, media, transport

While local MPs and Boris continue to press for discounts on the Dartford Crossing tolls, we are reminded that those tolls were supposed to be scrapped once the bridge had been paid for … a quaint idea from the days when cars and lorries were not seen as chariots of Lucifer and planet killers.

So full marks to a Havering councillor who has posted a petition on the Number 10 website in the following terms:

Despite calls to scrap the Dartford Crossing Toll and allow vehicles to move freely across the river, the Government now propose to increase the standard charge from £1.00 to £1.50 later this year.

The charge was introduced in 1963 and was designed to pay for the construction costs of the tunnels and latterly the bridge. These costs were finally paid off in 2002 and the legal authority to charge a toll expired in April 2003. However, the Government decided to continue the toll under the guise of a congestion charge.

Not that we can expect much response, but it’s worth a punt. After all, it gives us something to think about while the Thames Gateway Bridge sits on the backburner.

Labels: dartford river crossing, thames gateway, transport

The market for local newspapers has been looking somewhat saturated of late, particularly in the Bromley/Bexley area, following the launch four years’ ago, by the Kent Messenger, of the Bromley and Bexley Extras. It seems, though, that even the mighty Kent Messenger has had trouble breaking the duopoly of the News Shopper and Kentish Times and looks set to bow out.

This week’s Bromley Extra was somewhat thin at just 40 pages – one wonders how much hard content would have been left without the six pages of air crash coverage – so the demise of the Extra might not be such a surprise. It wouldn’t be for lack of effort on the part of their deliverers, though, as the KM titles have been holding their own against the News Shopper, and left the Kentish Times in a clear third place. These are the official weekly circulation figures to last December:

							Bromley		Bexley
Kentish Times							61,711		65,923
News Shopper							96,447		69,561
Extra							95,638		72,014

Source: Audit Bureau of Circulation

When it comes to free sheets though, it’s down to advertising, and that means readers venturing beyond the first few pages. It just goes to show that when you’re looking at free newspapers, circulation and readership are not the same thing.

Labels: bexley, bromley, media

As some of you will know, in my council role as Portfolio Holder for Resources, I am responsible for Bromley Council’s property interests. That gives me the dubious honour of being, in effect, the landlord for Biggin Hill Airport.

So you can imagine that, despite being on “sick leave”, I had more than a passing interest in yesterday’s tragic events in Farnborough. My thoughts, as those of my colleagues, are with the loved ones of those who died.

Of course, those who are opposed to any expansion of the Airport’s operations, have re-iterated their fears about the future against the background of yesterday’s events.

It might be suggested that the immediate aftermath of such a tragedy is the least appropriate time to be holding a rational debate on an issue as sensitive, and with as much historical baggage, as Biggin Hill Airport, but it has still brought into focus the worries of some people – even if those worries have been previously unnecessarily fuelled by ill-informed speculation and unhelpful comments on various sides.

So, if I may use this blog to make a few points clear:

1. The Airport is our tenant and we will continue to talk to them regularly – it would be an odd landlord-tenant relationship if we didn’t talk to each other, and it would not be in residents’ long term interests either.

2. The Council would still like to see more modern, robust and effective controls on the Airport’s activity, particularly with regards to pollution – including emissions and noise.

3. We are aware that the current lease would permit an increase of around 50% in the sort of flights that yesterday’s aircraft was undertaking.

4. If anyone suggests that the Council is hatching a secret plot to allow the Airport to have scheduled fare-paying passengers in 747s and turn Biggin Hill into another Stansted – when we councillors are more than aware of our residents’ feelings on the issue, and when many of us live under the flight path as well – then they are living in cloud-cuckoo land. Any application by the Airport to vary the lease will be considered at the appropriate time and after public consultation.


Thank you. (I will now return to nursing my bronchitis.)

Labels: biggin hill, bromley

From earlier this afternoon, here we see a fluffy haired creature which hops around making females go "oooh".

Labels: boris johnson, bromley

So it’s officially on. The last of the pre-election leaflets were delivered yesterday (got to watch those expenses!) and Boris kicks off 12 points ahead in the polls, with Ken Leaving-soon up to his neck in sleaze and corruption alleged wrongdoing.

So, what will Mayor Johnson do for our neck of the woods? For this post, we’ll look at his transport manifesto.

Blackwall Tunnel. TfL may have thought it had gone quiet, but Boris will reintroduce the tidal flow system, combined with some more intelligent safety measures. He has recognised that the nut required something less unsubtle than a sledgehammer.

No new bendy-buses. A fare-dodgers paradise, they lose money faster than an cash machine with diarrhoea. That’s when they’re not picking off cyclists. One can only guess why Livingstone was so keen to spend money on a vehicle that is so patently unsuitable for a city like London. Best not say any more … the lawyers may be circling.

Tolls at the Dartford crossing. Boris will oppose increases in the Dartford tolls, and campaign to extend the local discount to boroughs adjacent to Dartford (including, presumably, Bexley). He and David Evennett are clearly holding the same hymn sheet on this one, with David moving an Early Day Motion on the issue. Of course, many of us remember that the tolls were only supposed to last for twenty years or so, to cover the construction costs, and then be abolished. Oh, such innocent times.

Thames Gateway Crossing. Boris strikes a cautious note, supporting the crossing in principle, but is opposed to the current proposals.

Congestion charge. Hopefully to be no more than relevant to those travelling into Central London, Boris is to move to a proper account-based system for paying the charge. This was the elephant in the room when the c-charge was launched – almost as if TfL had deliberately chosen the most convoluted method possible, thus ensuring that the number of late charges and fines were maximised. Surely not!

Motorbikes in bus lanes. Just eminently sensible (and coming from Boris - a cyclist).

Express orbital bus routes. Citing journeys across South London as an example, Boris will introduce bus routes connecting major centres and transport nodes. In this he is resurrecting the idea behind the old route 726, for example, which provided a very useful orbital route from Dartford to Heathrow via outer South London, until being effectively finally killed off in 2005 by you-know-who.

The Tube. As the “Underground” network extends further into South East London with the East London Line extension, we will find the raft of measures for the Tube of even more interest. Boris is to look again at air conditioning (initially on sub-surface lines, such as the ELL), explore no strike deals and running the Tube for an hour later on Fridays and Saturdays – useful for catching the one o’clock am “sleeper” service from Charing Cross (the dozing and inebriated may outnumber the sober, but it’s still quicker and preferable to the night bus!)

And there’s plenty more. RTWT (pdf 274k).

Labels: boris johnson, david evennett, elections, london government

The Times, no less, has revealed Livingstone’s plans to extend congestion charging to the whole of Greater London, given the chance. It hardly matters to him that the Greenwich plan isn't working out – with the pointless “Low Emissions Zone” now up and running with the cameras guarding the major access points into London like watchtowers.

It’s not the first time we’ve heard the rumours... but of course it won’t happen, because Ken has such respect for public opinion … just ask anyone in the West London zone.

Conspiracy Corner: The original Times article is currently unavailable. (The NewsShopper story is here.)

Like most wards on most boroughs, my ward (Hayes & Coney Hall) has its Safer Neighbourhood police team details here. As you can see, it includes names of all the officers, a mobile contact number and all the usual contact details you would expect. It has been this way for at least two years.

Except, it seems, when you travel through the worm-hole into the time zone inhabited by Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary:

Police to give out mobile phone numbers

Every household in England and Wales will be given a mobile phone number to call new neighbourhood police teams, Gordon Brown has announced.

Each home will also get an email address for the officer responsible for their street and neighbourhood police chiefs will have to hold regular public meetings under the plans, to be rolled out by April.

The £325 million-a-year plan, one of the UK's biggest shifts from centralised policing, has been drawn up by Mr Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Tomorrow ... Brown and Smith announce a new organisation dedicated to preventing crime and catching criminals, called the "Police".

Cross-posted on Neil Reddin ... No G.

Labels: crime, gordon brown, jacqui smith, policing

Another year, another slash and burn of the post office network. Bromley and Greenwich are bearing the brunt, with five closures each, three in Lewisham and two in Bexley. Sorry – did I say "closures"? Of course, they’re "proposed closures" on which we are being "consulted".

When the p.o. in Hayes Street on my patch was earmarked for the axe back in 2003, the rep. from the Post Office admitted that 99.5% of proposed closures go ahead after the consultation. So, across “our” four boroughs we might save 7.5% of one post office.

Ken Livingstone has reacted by consulting the lawyers – not on his own behalf, as he probably ought to be given recent revelations - but to fight the closures, or to be more precise, he has “… taken legal advice on the feasibility of a legal challenge to today's announcement”.

So, he’s asked for advice about thinking about legal action. But deal. Be fair though, even this would probably be more than he did during any previous wave of P.O. closures. Anyone would think there was an election coming.

Anyway, here is the list for Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham:

Bexley (2):

Brampton Road
301-303 Brampton Road Bexleyheath DA7 5QR

Foots Cray
3 Hollytree Parade, Sidcup Hill Sidcup DA14 6JR

Bromley (5):

Albemarle Road
40 High Street Beckenham BR3 1AY

Walden Road
4 Walden Parade,
Walden Road Chislehurst BR7 5DW

Carlton Parade
12-13 Carlton Parade Orpington BR6 0JB

Crofton Lane
86 Crofton Lane Orpington BR5 1HD

Pratts Bottom
9 Charmwood Villas, Rushmore Hill, Pratts Bottom Orpington BR6 7NJ

Greenwich (5):

Eltham High Street
263 Eltham High Street London SE9 1TY

Plumstead Common Road
119 Plumstead Common Road London SE18 2UQ

Bostal Hill
43 Bostal Hill London SE2 0RB

Blackheath Hill
11 Blackheath Hill London SE10 8PB

Woolwich Road
8 Woolwich Road London SE10 0JU

Lewisham (3):

Hither Green Lane
116 Hither Green
Lane, Lewisham London SE13 6QA

Lee Nr Station
11 Burnt Ash Hill, Lee London SE12 0AA

New Cross Road
405 New Cross Road London SE14 6LA

Labels: ken livingstone, post offices

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the bomb at Kent House station – or to be precise, on a train at the station. Though there were no injuries or deaths the bomb was one in an IRA campaign which also saw the fatal London Bridge bomb - which I would have had an uncomfortable first hand experience of had I not been off sick that day.

It is interesting now to reflect on the Troubles (or “the most recent wave of troubles” as some historians of the Ulster situation refer to them) and how, despite the increasingly sophisticated methods used by the IRA, we somehow got by without ID cards, 90 day detentions and the like. OK, so I know the Diplock courts weren’t exactly uncontroversial, and the debate over the value of internment still rages on, but I’m taking a blatantly mainland-centric view here.

Granted, the Provos did occasionally give warnings, but what the Islamofascists lack in the services of Mr. P. O’Neill (the nom-de-guerre often used to "sign" the warnings), they make up for in sheer incompetence ... or is that just the Glasgow-based ones?

Labels: beckenham, penge

So Derek has done the decent thing and will retire at the next GE. A wise move, and thus ensuring that the frisson of excitement that will have been felt by the opposition in the constituency will be short-lived. In fact, once today's unsurprising vote in the Commons has cleared the presses tomorrow morning, it'll back to business as usual in the media (OK, give it a week for the local rags to go through the motions).

What's the latest on Alan Johnson?

Labels: derek conway, old bexley and sidcup

As a blog supposedly concerned with politics in South East London, when yours truly isn’t peering from beneath a pile of tax returns (two days to go….), it would be odd if at least one post wasn’t written about Derek Conway’s difficulties. *

Like James, I know nothing more than I have read in the media (and if I did have any explosive inside knowledge I would probably not be splashing it on the internet – sorry). Conway has apologised and faces suspension from the Commons. This afternoon Cameron took the appropriate course of action and suspended the whip – anything else would have been Brown-esque.

If the last fifteen-odd years in politics, under both Conservative and Labour governments, has shown anything it’s that you don’t just have to be clean, but be seen to be clean. This is the point that Roger Gale was missing when he defended his friend earlier, complaining of a “witch-hunt” against Conway.

Hints have inevitably been made that Conway may not be reselected. If the whip isn’t to be permanently withdrawn (and so far the term of the suspension is “indefinite”), then there is little that CCHQ can actually do on that score, though, since the Association may not share the views of the party top brass – Conservative Associations can be fiercely loyal to their MPs. David Cameron’s final decision on the length of sentence will probably, therefore, be made in the light of the collective decision of the Association about their relationship with Conway.

Inevitably, though, we can expect a particularly nasty and personal campaign at the next parliamentary election in Old Bexley & Sidcup – not least because the Lib Dem in that constituency (yes, it seems there is at least one Lib Dem left in Bexley) will undoubtedly follow that party’s usual campaigning tactics. Even more so, perhaps, as they try to make up ground, seeing as the BNP have already (embarrassingly for the Libs) stolen the march on the current situation by way of the former UKIP candidate Michael Barnbrook (now a BNP member) making the original complaint.

Even so, as the history of Brown’s premiership is written, it is unlikely that Derek Conway’s episode will provide more than a brief passing reference compared to the whole chapters devoted to Hain, Johnson, Livingstone and whoever it will be next month…


* OK, I could also comment on my friend and colleague Cllr. Gordon Jenkins’ local front page appearance, but really - haven’t you all got more important things to be getting on with?

Labels: derek conway, old bexley and sidcup

Brian Paddick, the Lib Dem candidate for London Mayor who doesn’t even qualify for a nickname from his enemies (unlike Red Ken or BoJo), has got his campaign off to a stunning start in South East London … by getting a letter published in the Kentish Times ‘papers in our neck of the woods.

“Mayor of London Ken Livingstone boasts about his fares freeze - anyone would think there is an election coming on May 1."

Err, yes there is Brian. You might want to put it in your diary.

"What he doesn't reveal, however, is that three out of four Tube users have been hit by the increase in Travelcard fares from January 2.

"Londoners are paying the most expensive Tube fares in the world for a service with little sign of improvement. Now that Mr Livingstone is in full charge of two-thirds of the Tube network, look out for more delays and cancellations.

"Commuters from London's suburbs are crammed into overcrowded Tube trains in conditions that would be illegal for animal livestock."

Now of course Brian makes some fair points here that I’m sure Boris would also agree with.

Unfortunately it isn’t exactly going to set the voters running to the LibDem banner in many outer boroughs south of the river. For those commuters in Bromley and Bexley it might be the shocking rises in National Rail fares which are of more concern than Tube fares, given that the number of Tube/DLR stations in Bromley & Bexley, for instance, is a figure not unadjacent to zero.

Not that I don’t recognise that commuters from these parts might have to squeeze onto Tube trains for the final leg of their journey when they get to Central London (as I had to occasionally when I couldn't find a bus), but if you’re running a campaign for London Mayor, shouldn’t you be tailoring your message to be a little more relevant to the target audience – a letter to outer South London boroughs stressing the Livingstone-inspired hike in surface rail fares would surely hit the mark for effectively?

Then again, unfamiliarity with the geography of London beyond Zone One … perhaps Brian has got all the qualifications to be Livingstone’s successor already!

Labels: elections, liberal democrat, transport

Livingstone is at it again. From one month after the election 1st June, 11-18 year olds will have to “touch in” with their Oyster cards when they get on a bus – though they will still be travelling for free. This is apparently to solve the problem of rowdy behaviour by some youths on buses since free travel for under-18s was introduced by El Mayore.

So, yet another token measure to tackle a problem of his own making – in fact, a worse than useless token. The new rules are to prevent youths who are banned from the buses from boarding. Fine, except who’s going to stop them? Without physical tube-style barriers how is a driver supposed to enforce the new rules? The driver? The same drivers who cannot deal with the little darlings at the moment without risking either injury or prosecution? Bus drivers, who have enough to deal with as it is, already have access to photos and descriptions of known troublemakers, but their hands are largely tied.

It also emerged, at a recent meeting at Bromley Council, that if a child appears and has lost/forgotten their Oyster, TfL do owe a duty of care and drivers will still be expected to allow them to board, rather than leave them stranded. I predict a spate of selective amnesia among the more troublesome element of our teenagers.

Labels: buses, crime, ken livingstone, transport