Spencer write “As February draws to a close, the Labour Party in Greenwich and Woolwich have clearly decided they ought to deliver the odd leaflet just to look like they might be interested in the electorate with an election in the near future. Each leaflet contains a range of distortions and misleading statements, but one that is being scattered around Blackheath Westcombe ward does take some beating for a completely distorted view of reality.
I thought I would try to take it one story at a time over the next few weeks, starting with the main one, entitled “Bright future for John Roan”. This story suggests that Labour have in some way contributed to a positive future for the John Roan School when nothing could be further from the truth.
The facts are that Labour decided some years ago to move the John Roan School to a smaller site on the Greenwich Peninsula. A positive way of viewing this would be that a new school was needed there; however, a cynic might suggest that the property values for the site on Maze Hill were substantially greater than those on the Peninsula, so there was a substantial profit to be made from this move.
In addition, Labour decided that increasing the size of the school would be a great benefit to everyone, even though the site on the Peninsula was smaller that the two current sites put together. So when the design came through, it was for a 5 storey tall school, with a playground on the roof. At the time Labour claimed that the Peninsula site was the same distance from the school playing fields (which are adjacent to the Ferrier Estate) as the Maze Hill one, so people should not worry about this extra journey time.
Now unfortunately, Labour was held up in its plans as various people with the John Roan governing body and the John Roan Foundation were not convinced by the plan. Their views delayed the decision and then the Health and Safety Executive decided that the school should not be built next to a large gas holder (one having just exploded elsewhere in the country).
This put the whole project on hold, where it remained until just before Christmas, when the John Roan governing body finally gave up and decided they wanted to stay where they were and would try to push for the money which had been allocated to the new school to be put to refurbishing the Maze Hill site and rebuilding the Westcombe Park site. The Council played no part in this decision.
So to suggest that this chaos has been anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the Labour Council’s planning for education is laughable – the original deadline for completing the new Building Schools for the Future schools was September 2009. They have presided over a shambles and their interference has failed to improve this school one iota.
I recently visited the school and was shocked to see a bucket on the floor in the gym where water was coming through the roof and tents outside where student now ate as there was not enough space in the hall as the numbers had been pushed up so much by the Council.
I hope that the John Roan School does indeed have a bright future, but I suspect that the chances of this happening will be much improved under a Conservative Council. The confusion over the John Roan move to the Peninsula is a mess of Labour's making, not a success and Labour’s inability to face up to the reality of the situation and apologise to students, parents and teachers is one of the reasons why they deserve to lose power.”
CONSERVATIVES today accused the Greenwich Labour Party of hypocrisy following their decision to raise rents for Council tenants by above the rate of inflation.
The decision, which was taken at the monthly Cabinet meeting, means that rents will rise by 1.6%. If Labour had stuck to the rate of inflation, then rents would have fallen this year. At the same time as this policy of inflation busting rent hikes, Labour’s literature claims that it is in fact, Conservatives, who will raise rents and end secure tenancies.
Part of the increase is because of the Labour Government’s policy of raising rents for Council tenants to the same as those for Registered Social Landlords by 2012/13. Last year in Greenwich, Labour voted through a rise of nearly 6% but following protests, and a Conservative campaign, Labour eventually reduced it to only around 3%.
Conservative Councillor and Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich Spencer Drury has written to many residents to reassure them that it is completely untrue and that it is NOT Conservative policy in Greenwich to raise their rents.
Spencer said “Labour is resorting to scaring residents to get votes and many are truly worried by the false descriptions of our policies. One of my residents had sleepless nights over this scaremongering. I can assure them that Greenwich Conservatives have no plans to increase rents to market levels and as someone whose family lived for many years in Council accommodation in Eltham, I can assure them that while I am leader, I would not support an end to secure tenancies in our borough.
“I hope residents will punish Labour at the ballot box for their hypocritical tactics. Not only have they got a policy of raising rents above inflation, the Labour government is going to end all subsidy for Council housing. Despite this they are muddying the issue by claiming it is the Conservatives’ policy. This is simply treating people like idiots.
“Democracy is supposed to be about parties competing to provide the best way of serving the people, but Labour seems to think it is just about winning and that this justifies them misleading and scaring the voters. I am shocked and disgusted at their tactics.
“In Greenwich, Labour’s policy of raising rents above the rate of inflation, the fact that nationally they built less social houses than the previous Conservative government and that housing waiting lists have risen by 75% suggests that their policies on housing, as in other areas, are a failure. I urge voters to use the election to remove them from power.”
A good summary of the different national policies can be found at http://simonemmett.net/2010/01/28/sinking-to-a-new-low/
In a mirror image of the national government, Labour’s Greenwich Council is spending now and planning to cut later (after the Council elections).
As Conservatives revealed last month, Labour have plans for £27m of cuts after the Council elections in May, however, at a Cabinet Committee meeting on 30th December, Labour Councillors spent an extra £7.7m – including some reallocation of funds within the voluntary sector. The spending commitments, many of which were made with little or no notice included:-
Of these five items, three were not in the Council’s forward plan, meaning no notice was given of their inclusion on the agenda.
Councillor Spencer Drury, Leader of Greenwich Conservatives said “While some of these spending commitments are necessary and we support them, others require much further scrutiny. I feel the £172,000 to set up a company outside the Council may be just another drain on taxpayers’ wallets and I fail to see why we do not simply contract out these services rather than subsidising a Greenwich owned company.”
“Similarly the decision to remove all funding for the Greenwich Council for Racial Equality legal support services and the Women’s Trust (Domestic Violence Support Service) need much more consideration than a last minute meeting over the Christmas period. I tried to speak to the officers concerned about these issues, but most are on holiday until the New Year, so the only information available was that in the reports.”
“On the bright side, the last minute decision to offer further support to the Royal Artillery Museum Firepower is very welcome, although the details are unsurprisingly not clear for a report that was only published the day before the meeting.”
I am very concerned about how spending almost £8m at the end of the year, with no planning and a limited ability to question officers appears slapdash and disorganised. Surely more time and thought should be put into decisions which spend such large amount of taxpayers money.”
In response to enquiries from local resdients about problems with the changes to the train timetables at Blackheath Station, Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich and Leader of Greenwich Conservatives Cllr Spencer Drury commented:
"Local Conservatives have been raising issues over these changes for some time, but South East Trains (SET) did their best to hide the true impact at Blackheath by distorting the amount of trains moving from one time (peak or off-peak) to another, which made it difficult to figure out exactly what the impact would be.
We have already raised it with Gareth Bacon (a London GLA member) and he has asked TfL about it, although I understand that they have no specific jurisdiction as this has been changed as a result of government requirements. I have been told that Mike Gibson, SET’s Public Affairs Manager when justifying the changes stated that:
‘A rail franchise is a form of contract set by the DfT specifying the service pattern, subsidy levels, performance targets and other determinants it (the DfT) wishes to see on the network to which the franchise relates. The franchise is a legally binding document and any change has to be agreed by the DfT. Our draft timetable for December this year is based upon the Integrated Kent Franchise (IKF) draft service specification we inherited as a contractual commitment from the DfT when awarded the franchise in 2006. The draft service specification was itself the outcome of a consultation exercise carried out by the DfT and the former Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in 2003/04 and consultees included the former London Transport Users Committee, (now London TravelWatch), Transport for London and the London boroughs of Greenwich and Lewisham. Included in this specification was a requirement to operate an all day Orpington to London Service via Lewisham.
Lewisham is an interchange with the Docklands Light Railway and there is a demand for more stops at stations offering a DLR connection to meet the needs of those travelling on to Canary Wharf. As you may know over the last decade employment in London has been gradually shifting eastwards to Canary Wharf and in southeast London and north Kent demand for stops allowing interchange with the DLR has increased significantly. When we took over the franchise we commissioned an in depth demand validation study (the results of which were shared with stakeholders) to see if the assumptions on which the SRA/DfT had based the draft service specification were still operationally valid in light of revised demand forecasts and subsequent developments such as the Thameslink programme. The results revealed that as a result of infrastructure constraints, Lewisham station is at its maximum capacity for train movements during peak periods and the only way for the DfT’s specification for more peak DLR connecting services to be achieved was for some services to be re-routed away from Lewisham to Greenwich (which also has an interchange with the DLR). We consequently looked at all the routes which serve Lewisham, and the only trains which could be re-routed away are the North Kent semi fast trains from Charlton. So to meet the DfT’s objective our proposal is for these trains to run via Greenwich, so passengers for Lewisham can change onto the DLR. Blackheath passengers can either do the same interchange as the Lewisham people or alight at Charlton and catch a bus to Blackheath.
Meeting this DfT specification obviously impacts on the number of North Kent line trains stopping at Blackheath. At present during the morning peak period there are six North Kent trains and these are being reduced to three. However we are offering two additional Charing Cross trains at Blackheath which at present run past Blackheath non stop, these trains will be calling at London Bridge, thereby offering interchange opportunities for Cannon Street passengers. Therefore the actual reduction in trains at Blackheath during this period is just one. This was explained to the DfT nearly two years ago when we set out the operational implications of the IKF draft service speciation and all parties agreed that this was a necessary consequence of meeting the DfT’s aspiration for operating the Orpington service via Lewisham. The specification detailing future services to London from Blackheath and elsewhere from December 2009 compared to what is on offer today was shared with stakeholders and posted on our website in December last year.
I accept that for Blackheath passengers travelling to Cannon Street, the new timetable may be inconvenient. However, it’s perhaps worth pointing out that Blackheath passengers commuting to Charing Cross, Waterloo East and Victoria will have additional services. For passengers travelling in off-peak periods, there will also be an uplift in service levels from four to six trains an hour’.
This appeared to me to be a lengthy and not very informative response, but at the December Council meeting, Cllr Geoff Brighty (Blackheath Westcombe) raised the issue in Council and received a similar reply to that one laid out above. However, in a supplementary, I did raise the fact that I was aware that there had been a Transport Liason Committee meeting in December and the Deputy Leader of the Council agreed to send me the minutes of that meeting. The relevant bits are laid out below:
"Southeastern Trains
MG: Train performance was back up to 93% following the four week ‘leaf drop’ period.
From 2nd January, Pay As You Go Oyster would be live on the network allowing passengers the cheapest fare option for journey. There will be a fare increase freeze in Jan 2010, although Kent will unfortunately experience a 1.6% fare increase.
The new timetable comes into operation on 13th December and although the borough has a net increase in services SET were still receiving complaints form customers, especially in the Blackheath area, about a reduction in local services
SET had given an undertaking that from January they would monitor overcrowding on services and if levels were unacceptable they would use the information to renegotiate the local element of the service specification with the DfT
KS: Requested information on SET’s publicity on the time table changes, and Andrew Stern in GC’s Comms could place all changes on the LBG web site.
Action: Kim to send e-mail to MG re Andrew Stern contact details so that MG can liaise).
MG: Said publicity on the timetable changes included:
There had been site meetings regarding additional station access at Maze Hill station, which formed part of a Section 106 obligation. Assurances had now been given to SET by the developer and they were now hopeful of a way forward in the New Year.
The installation of new lifts at Blackheath station was scheduled to commence in early 2010 following the resolution of a long term tenancy dispute.”
(Kim Smith (LBG) [KS]
Mike Gibson (South Eastern Trains) [MG])
I understand that the next major timetable change is for December 2010, so it is absolutely essential that the Council lobbies to achieve a better deal for the users of Blackheath Station. In addition, those users of Westcombe Park, Maze Hill and Greenwich who have lost direct services to Charing Cross need to have their strongly represented.
As a Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich and Leader of the Conservative Group, I will be campaigning to reverse these changes which seem to be a side-effect of a set of central government requirements to run an all day Orpington service via Lewisham. In the short term, the more feedback that we have about people’s difficulties, the more we can use to sort out the problems, so please encourage everyone to feedback their problems and we will use this to back up our views during the timetable review next year.
I do hope that this sums up the position adequately – as you can see we have been active on this, but please do let me know if you think there is more we can be doing."
A report published this weekend placed four south east London hospitals among the worst in the country for patient safety.
The ‘Dr Foster Hospital Guide 2009’ revealed that the South London Healthcare NHS Trust (SLHT) which includes the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QE) in Woolwich and the Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup was placed, along with Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust, in group 1 of 5 - the poorest in the country.
The report made clear that there were serious concerns about care for stroke victims in SLHT because only 38% of people received a brain scan within 24 hours of having a stroke which made recovery less likely and subsequent physical and mental disabilities worse.
The report also highlighted the lack of proper reporting procedures at the SLHT because they were one of only three trusts that could not say how many operations were cancelled in 2009. In addition the SLHT was one of only five trusts that could not state whether foreign objects had been left in patients or ‘wrong site’ surgery had taken place, because the figures were not available.
This omission is particularly concerning because foreign objects like scalpels or swabs were left in patients on 209 occasions nationally and patients had operations on the wrong parts of their bodies on 82 occasions nationally. We do not know how many more this would have been if SLHT figures were included.
Leader of the Conservatives in Greenwich Council and Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich (where the QE is based) Cllr Spencer Drury said “I am afraid that this report reflects the anecdotal evidence that I am hearing from local residents, where in the last few months there has been a marked increase in the numbers contacting me to report poor treatment or cancelled operations.
“Greenwich Conservatives have been raising concerns over the health cuts imposed by this government and the poor PFI deal Labour signed at the QE for years – I escorted Andrew Lansley (the Shadow Health Secretary) around the hospital in 2005. In my opinion, our Labour MPs and Council are simply failing to stand up for residents and this needs to change if we are going to improve the NHS in our area.
“This is simply appalling news for people across Greenwich. We knew our schools were being let down by Labour but after 12 years of this government, it seems local hospitals are among the least safe in the country.”
Conservative plans to improve home insulation and reward recycling
Spencer Drury, Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich and Leader of the Opposition on Greenwich Council, this week gave his backing to bold Conservative plans to help Greenwich’s households protect the environment and save money. Major policy proposals for a Conservative government include giving rewards to householders for recycling their rubbish and also a ‘Green Deal’ of providing up to £6,500 for home insulation improvements at no upfront cost to residents.
Green Deal: Under the plans, every household will have the right to have home energy efficiency work of up to £6,500. There will be no upfront cost, as the work will be paid for by the much larger savings on energy bills from the improved insulation. This will open up a whole new market in energy efficiency, create tens of thousands of skilled jobs and cut carbon emissions. It will also save families money and make Greenwich’s homes warmer in winter – helping the elderly and ‘fuel poor’ in particular. A typical home could see £30 a month knocked off its final bill.
Rewards for recycling: A Conservative government would also scrap Labour’s plans for new bin taxes on family homes. Labour Ministers have already changed the law so bin taxes can be imposed, despite the fact that they have been shown to increase fly-tipping and dangerous ‘backyard burning’. Conservatives would work with councils across London to promote schemes where good behaviour is rewarded, but families are not taxed or fined. Under the American ‘Recyclebank’ scheme now being piloted in Britain, households receive points for recycling; these are then converted into vouchers for local shops, including Marks & Spencer and Costcutter, or into donations to charities. Households could earn up to £175 a year in vouchers.
Spencer said:
“Gordon Brown hits people with taxes, fines and bans, rather than trusting people and encouraging social responsibility. Conservatives believe in incentives to help and reward people to do their bit to help the environment.
“The Green Deal of insulating people’s homes for no upfront cost and rewarding people for recycling will not only protect the environment, but also help families and pensioners who are struggling to make ends meet. These practical policies show how if you vote blue, Greenwich and Woolwich will go green and save money.”
As a long-term member of Friends of the Earth, your parliamentary candidate Spencer Drury writes “There are so many environmental challenges facing our society, so I decided to address one of the less discussed – the damage trawling is doing to our seabeds and fish stocks.
28% of fish stocks globally are on the point of collapse and trawling is turning the sea around Britain into a desert – only military harbours does marine life flourish. At the same time our fishermen are struggling to make a living.
The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy is a rare example of a policy which could be dealt with at a European level. However, it is ineffective in dealing with overfishing and does not enforce quotas on some of the larger fishing fleets. If we do not deal with this problem now, future generations may find fishstocks have been destroyed.
As an MP I would campaign against overfishing and fight for a better way of catching fish, which will limit the damage to their populations and the seabed.”
Conservatives recently uncovered a hidden programme of cuts, planned by Labour’s Greenwich Council. In a document marked confidential, leaked to the Leader of the Conservative Group, Cllr Spencer Drury, Labour discusses its plans for £26.8m of cuts following the next set of Council elections
The leaked document called ‘Future Financial Strategy 2011/12 to 2014/15 Potential Work Streams’ was presented to a Labour Group Meeting on behalf of the Labour Leader of the Council .
The briefing makes clear that the programme of cuts is ‘being pursued by officers’ and states “Current best estimates are that a four year freeze to Council budgets would require a reduction in revenue budgets of £26.m over the four year period of the next administration.”
Areas which are identified as having potential to produce cuts or extra revenue are:-
After the 2006 Council Elections, the Labour Cabinet announced a programme of £24.7m of cuts (through service reductions and fee increases) which they had not advertised prior to the elections. In their 2009/10 budget, the Labour Cabinet chose to freeze fee increases.
Conservative Group Leader and Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich at the next elections Cllr Spencer Drury said “The Labour Party has clearly got a hidden programme of cuts already in place – just as it did in 2006. They are taking voters for granted and refusing to be honest about their plans.
“It seems that the old, the vulnerable and other users of Council services will be affected once again if Labour wins. To add to that Labour are planning to cut whole areas of services, potentially including the VOCU police unit which has worked so hard to reduce crime in the Woolwich and Thamesmead areas.
“After 40 years in power this is a complacent, tired and dishonest Labour-run council and it is time for a change.”
Conservatives have established that Greenwich’s Labour council are the only borough to refuse to attend a London wide police meeting intended to coordinate the reduction of crime
Following questions from Leader of Greenwich Conservatives Cllr Spencer Drury, it has become clear that of the 31 major London boroughs, Greenwich’s Labour leadership is the only one that has refused to take part in The Joint Engagement Meetings (JEMS).
JEMS are part of the Mayor Boris Johnson’s pledge to reduce youth crime and allow boroughs to learn from each other. JEMS meetings which include the borough commander of each area would be particularly appropriate in Greenwich where the police claim that an operation on the Connaught Estate “has proved to be a success” in fighting youth crime.
Spencer (who is also the Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich) said “I am disgusted that the Labour Council in Greenwich is simply refusing to take part in meetings designed to reduce crime in our borough. In an email Chris Roberts was quoted as saying about JEMS “We don’t do them”.
“JEMS are not intended to hold the local authority to account for performance, but to enable an interactive session where best practices can be shared. This refusal to be part of a coordinated approach in the fight against crime shows that Labour are prepared to let Greenwich residents suffer rather than work with Boris.”
Spencer Drury, Greenwich Councillor & Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Greenwich and Woolwich, this week issued a stark warning that Gordon Brown’s changes to housing benefit rules are harming the most vulnerable tenants and reducing the availability of affordable accommodation.
Last year, Labour Ministers introduced a new ‘Local Housing Allowance’, with housing benefit being direct to the tenant rather than to the landlord. But vulnerable tenants often struggle to manage their finances and spend their rent money on other things. Homeless charity, Crisis, has warned that this can result in rent arrears and eventually homelessness.
Landlords who were previously happy to take on tenants on housing benefit have suffered from non-payment of rent. Many landlords now routinely refuse to let to Local Housing Allowance claimants. According to the National Landlords Association, half of all landlords are reluctant to lend to tenants on Local Housing Allowance.
13,486 people in Greenwich are on local housing waiting lists, and a sizeable proportion of them are on housing benefit. Housing waiting lists have risen by 75% per cent under this Labour Council since 1997 – reflecting the shortage of affordable accommodation.
Conservatives have pledged to change Labour’s failed policy. Tenants will be able to choose whether to have their housing allowance paid direct to their landlord. This will increase the availability of quality low-cost housing.
Spencer said:
“Labour’s new housing benefit rules are failing the most vulnerable in our society. Landlords are put off from renting to those on benefit, slashing the availability of decent places to live. Some tenants struggle to manage their finances, using up their benefit money by rent pay day. They get into arrears and trouble as a result.
“Tenants should have greater choice, and be free to specify that their housing benefit should go direct to the landlord. This will help those most in need.”