By-election battle hots up
The by-election in Stamford Hill’s New River ward on Thursday 16 September is looking to be a hotly-fought contest.
It is being held following the death of Conservative Councillor Maureen Middleton on 30 July. She had been a member of Hackney Council since 1998 and was one of the most prominent and well-regarded opposition councillors, respected particularly for the energy and enthusiasm she put into holding the Labour administration to account.
Though Cllr Middleton will be sorely missed, the contest to elect her replacement promises to be an interesting one.
New River was, somewhat unexpectedly, one of the closest races in the May local elections. In the run-up to the polls, an internal division within the Conservative party in Hackney resulted in the deselection of sitting councillor Simon Tesler in Lordship ward, which abuts New River. This event provoked much disquiet among sectors of the Stamford Hill Conservative community, and Tesler stood (unsuccessfully) as an independent.
The Labour candidates were quick to capitalise on Tory disarray, plunging into the electoral breach with gusto and picking up five Conservative-held seats: two in New River, two in Lordship and one in Springfield.
In New River the votes were tightly bunched: the three top losing candidates were all within 150 votes of the winning trio.
In this month’s poll the Conservatives will thus be seeking to claw back one of their lost seats. With their numbers on the council now down to four, this by-election is a crucial event for the borough’s main opposition party.
Hackney’s main political parties have all put up young and energetic candidates for the race, and local housing issues are emerging as a prominent campaign issue.
The Tory candidate is Maureen’s former running-mate Benzion Papier, a 26-year-old student living in Lynmouth Road with his wife and two-year-old daughter. Papier hails originally from New York, and has lived in Stamford Hill for five years.
“I learned a lot from Maureen about fighting for the people of New River. I aim to put in the same energy and commitment as she did to make sure that the residents here are not ignored,” he said.
Papier is keen to give a stronger voice to the local community on issues such as housing and public facilities. “Labour have dragged their heels on the Woodberry Down development for over a decade. They are spending money now on blocks that they say will be pulled down in a few years. Residents need to be told honestly what is going on!”
Labour’s candidate is Jonathan Burke, 28, who lives in Bergholt Road, Stamford Hill, and works as a researcher for the Labour Group in the London Assembly.
Burke says: “While I have many practical proposals for how New River ward can be helped to realise its full potential, I also intend to work closely with the Labour Group and Mayor of Hackney to deliver the kind of policies which help to reverse the profound impact of London’s unacceptable and socially corrosive wealth and income divide.
“While it may only be the tip of the iceberg, I can guarantee that, in my small way, I will campaign as a local councillor to reduce these inequalities. I will do so by fighting for local economic investment, a green industrial policy for London, and an index-linked London Living Wage for those working in both the public and private sectors.”
The Liberal Democrat candidate is Ben Mathis, a communications and design professional who lives on Woodberry Down Estate. Mathis’s priorities include improving local housing. “In 2010, 36% of homes in Hackney failed the decency test up from 32% last year,” he said.
“It is time that Hackney Council was able to provide decent homes for its tenants. We will push for better standards to be achieved and maintained.
“In 2009, the Labour government withdrew the finance for the Woodberry Down and Kings Crescent regeneration.
“Tenants desperately need to know what is happening but the Council’s failure to communicate properly with residents is keeping them in the dark.”
Standing for the Greens is Stuart Coggins, a 26-year-old who works in marketing and has lived in Hackney for the past three years.
Coggins says: “My priorities will be to address the endemic unemployment in Hackney, pushing schemes such as the Green’s proposed £1 million insulation programme and a living wage of £8.10 per hour.
“I will fight for an NHS that is publicly funded, democratically controlled and freely available to all, as well as focus on proper funding and support for Hackney’s nurseries.”
One other candidate in the race, independent Darren Fraser, could not be contacted for comment.
With the Labour party in control of 50 of 57 seats on the council, this byelection represents a key test of the ability of the borough’s opposition parties to prove themselves. For Labour, the contest is a chance to increase their control from 88% to 89% of the seats on the local assembly.
Results of the May 2010 election in New River ward
Sean Mulready, Labour (elected) 1,659
Michael Jones, Labour (elected) 1,574
Maureen Middleton, Conservatives (elected) 1,489
Yusuf Kilinc, Labour 1,450
Harvey Odze, Conservatives 1,380
Benzion Papier, Conservatives 1,353
Martyn Sibley, Lib Dems 693
Aled Fisher, Green 584
Mark Smullian, Lib Dems 456
(Turnout: 56%)
The vacant seat in contention at this by-election was held by Cllr Maureen Middleton at the 2010 local elections so that clawing back is an impossibility unless one is describing Labour’s clawing back of the final seat in this traditional stronghold. One final but unmentioned point is that the 5 candidates are all men and that if any of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, or Independent candidates win then all the opposition groups in the Council will be completely 100% male. I must assume that women are not aware of the merits of Party membership, organising, selection, and election, or of their power, value, and responsibility to supply effective governance and positively affect all of our social, economic, and environmental outcomes. But as Council Officers will say; it ain’t our responsibility to improve our democratic offer, but then again they are not in a position to be pragmatically audacious and ‘promote or improve of the economic, social, and environmental well-being of our area’. But then again we are:
Local Government Act 2000
PART I
PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL WELL-BEING ETC
Interpretation
1Meaning of “local authority” in Part I.
In this Part “local authority” means—
(a)in relation to England—
(i)a county council,
(ii)a district council,
(iii)a London borough council,
(iv)the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority,
(v)the Council of the Isles of Scilly,
(b)in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.
2Promotion of well-being.
(1)Every local authority are to have power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects—
(a)the promotion or improvement of the economic well-being of their area,
(b)the promotion or improvement of the social well-being of their area, and
(c)the promotion or improvement of the environmental well-being of their area.
(2)The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to or for the benefit of—
(a)the whole or any part of a local authority’s area, or
(b)all or any persons resident or present in a local authority’s area.
(3)In determining whether or how to exercise the power under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to their strategy under section 4.
(4)The power under subsection (1) includes power for a local authority to—
(a)incur expenditure,
(b)give financial assistance to any person,
(c)enter into arrangements or agreements with any person,
(d)co-operate with, or facilitate or co-ordinate the activities of, any person,
(e)exercise on behalf of any person any functions of that person, and
(f)provide staff, goods, services or accommodation to any person.
(5)The power under subsection (1) includes power for a local authority to do anything in relation to, or for the benefit of, any person or area situated outside their area if they consider that it is likely to achieve any one or more of the objects in that subsection.
(6)Nothing in subsection (4) or (5) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1).
3Limits on power to promote well-being.
(1)The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to do anything which they are unable to do by virtue of any prohibition, restriction or limitation on their powers which is contained in any enactment (whenever passed or made).
(2)The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise).
(3)The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, by virtue of section 2(1), anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order.
(4)Before making an order under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.
(5)Before exercising the power under section 2(1), a local authority must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State about the exercise of that power.
(6)Before issuing any guidance under subsection (5), the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.
(7)In its application to Wales, this section has effect as if for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.
(8)In this section “enactment” includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of theM1Interpretation Act 1978).
4Strategies for promoting well-being.
(1)Every local authority must prepare a strategy (referred to in this section as a community strategy) for promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area and contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
(2)A local authority may from time to time modify their community strategy.
(3)In preparing or modifying their community strategy, a local authority—
(a)must consult and seek the participation of such persons as they consider appropriate, and
(b)must have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.
(4)Before issuing any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.
(5)In its application to Wales, this section has effect as if for any reference to the Secretary of State there were substituted a reference to the National Assembly for Wales.
5Power to amend or repeal enactments.
(1)If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment (whenever passed or made) prevents or obstructs local authorities from exercising their power under section 2(1) he may by order amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that enactment.
(2)The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to—
(a)all local authorities,
(b)particular local authorities, or
(c)particular descriptions of local authority.
(3)The power under subsection (1) to amend or disapply an enactment includes a power to amend or disapply an enactment for a particular period.
(4)In exercising the power under subsection (1), the Secretary of State—
(a)must not make any provision which has effect in relation to Wales unless he has consulted the National Assembly for Wales, and
(b)must not make any provision in relation to legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales without the consent of the Assembly.
(5)The National Assembly for Wales may submit proposals to the Secretary of State that the power under subsection (1) should be exercised in relation to Wales in accordance with those proposals.
(6)In this section “enactment” includes an enactment comprised in subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978).