Homes4People

Former London mayor needs to exorcise his past mistakes

To a degree unusual even among politicians, Ken Livingstone gives a wide berth to the words, “I was wrong”. I guess he has his reasons: over decades he’s proved himself right by confounding conventional wisdom, from “fares fair” and gay rights in the 1980s to winning the London mayoralty as an independent in 2000 and introducing congestion charging in his first term. It’s no surprise, then, that displays of contrition over his defeat by Boris Johnson in 2008 have not been a feature of the start of his campaign to take back the mayoralty in 2012. Look closer, though, and there are signs that certain lessons may have been learned.

Exhibit A is a launch piece he wrote for the London Evening Standard, which is once again a newspaper, as opposed to the unofficial Boris propaganda organ it had become. “I will speak for the whole of London,” he declared, criticising Johnson for shelving transport schemes for Dagenham and Croydon. Both are examples of the outer London areas that swung behind the Tory candidate two years ago – and that Livingstone needs to woo back.

His peroration asked all non-Tory Londoners to get behind him and for “black, white, Jewish, Asian, straight [and] gay,” to work together. The composition of that list is worth dwelling on: many Jewish Londoners have become furious with Livingstone over the years and while the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland was prepared to set aside the reasons for that fury two years ago, many others were not; a lot of gays (and Jews) have not let him forget his very public embrace of the Muslim cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Where Islam is concerned, Livingstone sometimes plays with fire.

Warm words about unity and protecting ordinary Londoners are only a start, of course. Livingstone will need imaginative yet practical policies too, especially on the core areas of mayoral responsibility and power. He should be careful about what he promises and has been so far. In his Standard article he pledged to “hold down” public transport fares, rather than freeze them. Transport for London’s strained finances would make such a promise reckless. How, though, can he significantly resist the huge upward pressure on fares?

Linking his revived plan for an extra-high congestion charge for gas-guzzler vehicles to the wellbeing of voters in the outer London boroughs of Bromley, Barking or Barnet is a cute ploy, but can he be sure that the policy “would raise millions to protect the fare-payer”? If the higher charge deterred those motorists from entering the congestion-charge zone in substantial numbers, revenue would reduce accordingly. Would Livingstone bring back the C-charge zone’s western extension, which Johnson is (reluctantly, if truth be told) seeking to abolish by Christmas Eve – a move that will cost £75m a year in precious revenue? Back in January he said he would.

In his Standard article he says nothing. That might be sensibly cautious for now, but the question will require answering before long. The issue of roads and road congestion in London is divisive and fraught, largely along inner-outer lines. The wrong move could cost him or any other Labour candidate dear.

On policing, Livingstone pledges to protect all safer neighbourhood teams, but while calling for a “halt” to the coming reductions in Metropolitan police numbers, he doesn’t say how he’d secure one: doing so would mean getting more money from a budget-cutting government (unlikely) or raising the mayor’s share of Londoners’ council tax (unpopular). He is measured in a different way on a third core mayoral responsibility of housing, promising to seek powers from the government to raise money on the bond markets to build more homes. With housing minister Grant Shapps announcing that the public money for affordable house building has run out, Livingstone wouldn’t be alone in looking for finance from such sources.

A judiciously pitched start then, shall we say. Importantly, it’s one that seems to recognise while not, of course, admitting – perish the thought – that candidate Livingstone needs to replenish those parts of the voter coalition that carried him in to city hall in 2000 and 2004 and shrank on him in 2008. These crucially include the middle classes in general, many white working-class voters (whose four-year revolt against London Labour politicians was, encouragingly, ended at in the recent general and borough elections), and of course the residents of those outer London boroughs in general, a point well made by his campaign chair David Lammy.

Much of this looks fixable: some big reassurances about any future stewardship of public money, clear policies to show that his commitment to fighting inequality is not limited to London’s ethnic minorities and a sustained love-bombing of the suburbs in partnership with Labour activists on the ground would go a long way to repairing Livingstone’s appeal.

But there’s another issue too: attitude. Perhaps the biggest barrier Livingstone faces is the feeling among London voters that he’s old news and has “had his time”. This is related to his being on the crinkly side of 60 but mostly, I suspect, it’s a perception that he’d got ratty and weary inside Norman Foster’s glassy orb. He needs to keep a sharp eye on his angry side.

Oona King’s decision to play the age card has not gone down well with him, but the senior politician needs to keep smiling alongside her through the coming hustings. He should suppress any remaining urge to continue pointless feuds with critics – he gains nothing from them but trouble and avoidable strife.

The toxic parts of his history need to be remediated by Livingstone if he’s to fully rebut King’s case that it’s time for a change and maximise his chances of a remarkable comeback in 2012. He should embrace this as an opportunity. That may be the sort of thing conventional politicians say, but in this case that wouldn’t make them wrong.

Originally published here

Land Registry figures show house prices have risen by 8.5% over the past 12 months, and by 0.2% in April

Houses in Brighton and Hove produced the highest annual price change during April, rising by 16.8% year-on-year, according to latest figures from the Land Registry.

Bristol also experienced big price rises with an average annual increase of 15.9%, but Middlesborough is still in the grip of a house price crash, suffering the greatest annual price fall of -9.5% and the biggest monthly price fall of -2.9%.

Overall, house prices rose slightly by an average of 0.2% in England and Wales during April and 8.5% over the past 12 months, the figures showed. The sixth consecutive monthly rise takes the average property value in England and Wales to £165,596.

The north-east experienced the biggest monthly rise with an increase of 3.1%, followed by the east Midlands with a 2% increase.

However, house prices fell in some regions during April: properties in the north-west fell by 0.3%, in the East by 0.6%, in Wales by 1.6%, and in Yorkshire and the Humber by 2.2%.

Although all 10 regions in England and Wales experienced increases in average property values during the past year, there were big variations.

London showed the biggest increase with a 14.8% annual change, followed by the south-east (11.5%) and the south-west (10.7%). This is the seventh consecutive month that London’s house price rise has been above zero.

The regions with the smallest annual increase were the north-west (3.5%) and Yorkshire and Humber (0.7%).

The Land Registry figures, which are based on completed transactions, follow mixed performance figures from other sources. Howard Archer, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, said: “The Nationwide reported a 1% month-on-month rise, while the Halifax data showed a 0.1% month-on-month fall. House prices were up 10.5% year-on-year in April on the Nationwide measure and by 8.8% on the Halifax measure (but by 6.6% in the three months to April).”

He added: “The Land Registry data for April is consistent with our view that house prices will struggle to make significant gains over the coming months. The economic fundamentals – high unemployment, still falling employment, low earnings growth and looming tighter fiscal policy – are still far from robust for the housing market, credit conditions remain tight, and house price/earnings ratios have moved back up.

“There are also growing concerns that the Bank of England will have to raise interest rates before the end of the year due to higher-than-expected inflation.”

Volumes up

Sales volumes in England and Wales averaged 53,137 a month from November to February – a big increase on the average of 32,089 a month for the same period a year earlier, but still way below the peak of about 120,000 a month in the spring of 2007.

The highest number of sales – 8,997 in the 12 months to February – were for properties costing between £100,001 and £150,000, followed by those costing £200,001 and £250,000 (7,775 sales), poular price bands for first-time buyers which benefit from the stamp duty waiver.

The Land Registry warned that price volatility is greater in areas where recorded sales are low, such as Merthyr Tydfil, which showed the strongest monthly growth in house prices with an increase of 10.2%.

Archer said: “Very significantly, more properties are coming on to the market thereby moving the supply/demand balance more in favour of buyers. This is particularly relevant as a shortage of properties has been a key factor in the recovery in house prices from their early-2009 lows.

“Furthermore, if household confidence suffers from widespread significant doubts about the stability and longevity of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition governments, this could impact negatively on the housing market.

“On balance, we believe that house prices are likely to be erratic over the coming months and at best will make very modest gains over the rest of the year. Indeed, we would not be surprised if they were only flat overall through the rest of 2010.”

Originally published here

Former mayor targets ‘last political role’ and pledges to protect Londoners from recession and cuts

Ken Livingstone today launched his bid for his “last political role” – a comeback as the mayor of London.

The Labour veteran, who was ousted by the flamboyant Tory Boris Johnson in 2008 after eight years in City Hall, officially opened his campaign to be the Labour candidate in 2012 by attacking his successor over steep rises in public transport fares.

If selected to be the Labour candidate, Livingstone, who indicated that he had intended to make a comeback bid early last year, would be entering his fifth decade in political life.

He said his priority would be to “protect” ordinary Londoners from the recession and government spending cuts, and promised to freeze his own and senior advisers’ pay for the full four-year term.

In a nod to critics who accused him of having focused on inner London as mayor at the expense of the rest of the capital, Livingstone launched his campaign in a shopping centre in Croydon, outer London.

He turned his fire on the incumbent mayor and released a list of high-profile Labour politicians from across the capital backing his campaign.

“I want to be mayor for one overriding reason: if I am elected, my focus will be to do everything I can to protect Londoners from the recession and the effects of the government’s policies,” he said.

“The global economic crisis, a fragile recovery that may go double-dip, and a government removing billions from the economy and planning cuts on a scale that Britain has not seen for decades, mean the mayor’s priority must be to protect Londoners.

“I will use every lever to make sure our quality of life is protected and improved. Not a mayor who spends his time defending bankers – instead, one who will use mayoral budgets and powers to protect ordinary Londoners.”

He said his top priority would be transport fares, which saw above-inflation rises in January to plug what Johnson described as a “massive black hole” in the finances of Transport for London, which the capital’s mayor chairs.

Livingstone added: “Under Boris Johnson, a single bus fare by Oyster [the smart card travel payment system] has risen by a staggering one-third, as has the price of a weekly bus pass.

“Instead of wasteful projects, the obsession with academy schools, the zany floating airport in the Thames Estuary, we must concentrate on defending public services and holding down fares.”

The mayoral hopeful also vowed to tackle “scandal” of the lack of affordable housing in the capital, which results in long waiting lists.

He intends to press the government for powers to raise money on the bond markets to build affordable homes, including for rent, and cut energy bills by improving insulation in every building in London over 10 years.

He entered the contest days after the ex-MP Oona King announced her intention to fight him for the nomination and promised “a breath of fresh air” for the capital.

Livingstone said he and King presented a “straightforward left/right contest”, citing as an example King’s support for the 2003 Iraq invasion – expected to play badly among some of the 30,000 Labour members in London who will have a say in the candidate selection process.

Livingstone, a vocal opponent of the invasion, said he would not make Iraq a feature of the contest against King unless “she wants to get into negative campaigning”.

The 64-year-old has been angered by thinly-veiled attacks on his age by King at her campaign launch last week.

Referring to the choice facing voters at the last mayoral election as “between a man with blond hair and one with grey hair”, King said Londoners did not need a “popularity contest based on who’s wacky or who’s stale”.

Livingstone said: “It is not a question of age. It is a question of politics. She stands on the right of the party and I stand on the left. I don’t think my hair colour is a relevant feature. It if was, I would start dyeing my hair.”

He insisted few candidates would put their hat in the ring because he is standing, adding: “I am sure if I dropped dead lots more people would run.

“A lot of people in politics do not want to stand unless they are certain of winning. My view is that the worst thing that can happen is that you do not win. I don’t see that as a personal rejection, just that someone is better or it’s a bad time.”

Livingstone is hoping for a rematch with Johnson, who beat him after securing 53.2% of votes in 2008, although the latter has kept his options open about a standing for a second term.

The former mayor is a regular attendee at the monthly City Hall question time in which Johnson is put in the hotseat.

He blames the double whammy of Labour’s unpopularity at the last mayoral election and critical coverage of his mayoralty in the run up to the 2008 election by the Evening Standard for his defeat.

“I could not think of a worst background for an election,” he said, pointing out that 200,000 more Londoners voted for him in 2008 than at the previous poll in 2004.

Livingstone quipped that his only regret as mayor was not to close down the Standard a year before the 2008 election.

But in a sign of rapprochement with his old foe, now under different management, Livingstone set out his stall in the London paper beneath the headline “Comeback Ken”.

“I will use every lever to make sure our quality of life is protected and improved,” he wrote. “Not a mayor who spends his time defending bankers – instead, one who will use mayoral budgets and powers to protect ordinary Londoners.

“I would overhaul London’s budget priorities in favour of Londoners as a whole, not hedge fund managers or polluters.”

Labour’s decision to run the selection timetable for the mayoralty almost parallel to the party leadership contest will give the candidate at least 18 months to campaign and shadow Johnson.

Hopefuls have until 18 June to put their names forward, and will then be whittled down to a shortlist by a panel of national and London party representatives on 24 June before a series of hustings across the capital.

An electoral college, made up half of votes by London party members and half by members of affiliated organisations, will then pick the candidate.

The result will be announced on 24 September – the day before Labour reveals who has won the race to succeed Gordon Brown as the party leader.

Originally published here

The BNP leader seems to have abandoned the people of the North West for a bigger goal – the parliamentary seat of Barking

Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, has decided to run for a parliamentary seat in Barking. Too many puns, not enough time.

But my first thought is: what about the people of the North West region he wanted to represent in Europe? They’ve already been ditched in favour of Griffin’s bigger dreams, exposing him as the power-hungry politico that he accuses members of the Westminster establishment of being.

My second thought is: what about poor Richard Barnbrook?

The BNP’s sole London assembly member came third in Barking at the last general election and had fancied running again. In fact he even unveiled massive posters claiming “Barnbrook for Barking” only weeks ago, with one picture in the style of Superman.

Bizarrely, there’s no mention of the fact that the leader of the BNP has decided the area would suit his own plans to represent the people of Britain, and pushed out Barnbrook. The latter will now run for leader of the council in Barking instead.

And what will the election be about? Barnbrook said he would fight to clean our streets of knife crime, a nice but unfortunate sentiment given he was recently caught lying about murder claims in the area.

Griffin, on the other hand, wants to fight on the bread and butter issues: housing and education. Last time, they circulated a leaflet in the area called “Africans for Essex”, claiming that the council leader was paying £50,000 to Africans to move into the area to buy votes. It was a blatant lie.

On the surface, Griffin’s decision looks like a good once since that part of east London is seen as a stronghold for the BNP. But there are good reasons why the BNP will be even less successful this time.

First, Griffin is clearly banking on his increased media profile to give the BNP a boost. At the press conference he said “people vote for someone they recognise … and respect”. But his last media appearance, which brought a tonne of coverage, brought no bounce to the BNP.

Second, BNP councillors elected in the area since 2005 have received tonnes of bad press. That alone should depress some enthusiasm for their claims to improve the local area.

Third, the Conservatives are widely expected to win the next election. Given the party’s hardline immigration stance – voters passionate about that issue are likely to vote Tory or not at all.

Fourth, the area has since 2005 become more racially mixed, which usually depresses BNP votes. Most BNP votes come from areas that have very low percentages of ethnic minorities.

A factor in favour of Griffin, however, is the local Labour MP Margaret Hodge. Her voting record was in favour of the war in Iraq, student top-up fees, ID cards, foundation hospitals and a range of issues that traditional Labour voters oppose. A percentage of them will stay at home. Her record for claiming expenses brings her down further and will be used by Griffin.

But worst of all she has repeatedly pandered to the BNP’s talking points, once claiming the political class was not engaging on the issue of race (unless of course you read the entire rightwing press), and another time blaming new migrants for housing shortages (which also turned out to be untrue). With his narrative of white victimhood already legitimised by the sitting Labour MP, Griffin only has to repeat her words to point out that the only obvious solution is the BNP.

Either way, Griffin is looking ahead. The people who elected him as an MEP can get stuffed, clearly.

Originally published here