Harriet Harman's comments on East Dulwich

[macroban]

Harriet Harman's comments on East Dulwich.

[RosieH]

Hear hear

[FrustratedLawyer]

I must take issue with her comments as a whole and in particular the following:

?You shouldn?t just give an equal amount of money to both sites for improvements, you should put the one that will benefit the most first."

This surely goes very much against classical socialist thinking and thereby the inherent doctrine of the Labour Party, which if followed faithfully would allow all parts of society unfettered access to resources on an equal basis according to need. What Harriet Harman seems to be suggesting is that resources be allocated to so-called 'deprived' areas regardless of actual need at the expense of other areas that are perceived to be more 'affluent'.

It seems unclear from the article whether the resources she is referring to are what may be called maintenance funds or development funds intended to re-develop areas in need of redevelopment. If it is the latter her whole argument is nonsensical political point scoring in perceived Labour strongholds. However if Harriet Harman is referring to the former, then she is effectively advocating mis-implemented communism of the worst kind, where the 'rich' are impoverished for the alleged improvement of the 'poor' which of course never happens.

Whilst I would be the first to admit that Peckham, Camberwell, Wolworth and the like are areas of frightful gripping poverty and under-development that are in much need of greater investment, launching such a campaign by implicitly seeking to demonise perceived affluence is politically cheap and irresponsible. In the exceptionally unlikely event that Harriet Harman's suggestions are implemented in such a manner the overall result will not be the redevelopment of underdeveloped areas but the collective impoverishment of the Borough as a whole.

What we can see in these comments is not a concrete workable proposal but simply a play on inter-area jealousies for cheap political points.

[macroban]

In a recession even pork barrels sometimes must have to stand naked.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

What a ridiculous argument she uses. It's about 15 minutes' walk to the Pulse from Artichoke Road.

[Huguenot]

Good heavens FrustratedLawyer, to accuse Harman of being unclear or of being against "classical socialist thinking" is completely disingenuous of you. The series of quotes in this article is absolutely explicit.

I'd even go to the extent of suggesting that it is you that's deliberately creating confusion and 'jealousies for cheap political points'!!!

What part of the following is unclear...?

"When it comes to the Government spending money, it should go where the need is greatest."

"Camberwell is an area of much greater need: it is deprived, so it should be first choice for funding, in front of somewhere like Bromley."

"Funding should be based on need not just spread around automatically."

?North Cross Road market is in an area of East Dulwich where people are pretty well-off and it?s thriving. Whereas East Street in Walworth is an area that needs to be regenerated and is struggling."

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying whether or not I agree with her, just pointing out that she is absolutely clear, and is absolutely socialist:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" Karl Marx, 1818 - 1883

I mean, how socialist do you have to get? To consider that the readers of this fair forum are so stupid that you could obviously misinterpret these quotes and expect to get away with it says more about you than about them or Harriet Harman.

[DGB]

Well said Huguenot.

Harriet's points are clearly in keeping with 'classical socialist thinking', and I think suggesting that she is 'implicitly seeking to demonise perceived affluence' is absolute crap.

All she said is that where the availability of funds is limited, it should go to the area of greatest need; that the idea that NCR market should receive the same developmental funding as East St market, is flawed.

Her comments provoke no class rivalry, whereas FrustratedLawyer's do exactly the opposite.

[Marmora Man]

Harriet H is part of a government that was elected to help the socially excluded, the poor and the marginalised. At least that was the rhetoric.

After 12 years in power she has just seen the light? I would argue that the socially excluded, poor and marginalised of British society are worse off now than they were in 1997 when the Blessed Blair entered 10 Downing St to the psuedo applause of a manufactured crowd.

[snorky]

Shes a politican.

words are cheap innit.

[Mick Mac]

Perhaps ED would be better served moving boroughs to be a poor man in a good borough rather than a rich man in a poor borough as we are now. I'll petition Kensington and Chelsea council to let us in and then someone can feel sorry for us and give us loads of money.

Its all relative - I don't think we have many quality amenities; schools, swimming pools etc are poor - why should we not be prioritised to receive funding, just because Southwark is a poor borough. We pay equal if not more council tax, based upon more people in work than these other areas.

The people who have worked hardest never get anything for free - always paying out...local services are so poor people end up paying for schools, swimming pools etc.

[kristymac1]

I'm feeling a bit torn regarding this - whilst I agree with the sentiment that Government funding should be placed in areas of assessed greater need, I am a little uncomfortable with the assumption that East Dulwich is totally affluent. Over the last few years we're all aware of the changing demographic of ED but there are still a significant proportion of ED residents for whom NCR market and many of the shops on LL are unaffordable, and so using those as examples of typical East Dulwich is possibly wrong. This doesn't detract from the greater needs of parts of SE5 and SE15 but there is a danger of the needs of many SE22 residents being overlooked.

Apologies I think my writing is as confused as my thinking at the moment......

[DGB]

Marmora Man

That's a particular political debate, I personally would disagree with what you say, but I was only taking up opposition to what FrustratedLawyer had said about HH's comments not being classicly socialist, and demonising affluence.

They were socialist and didn't demonise affluence. (Although I'm sure some people would say that sentence contradicts itself).

[DaveR]

I'm more concerned with whether the money is well spent and actually makes a difference. Harman is a classic modern 'soundbite' politician - announce the money (at least three times), get the good press, and move on, rather than hang about for 5 - 10 years and see whether anything much has been achieved.

[Michael Palaeologus]

La Harman is playing to the gallery and seeking votes and popularity. What has our own dear MP, Tessa of North london got to say on this matter?

[TJ]

I am torn both ways by this.

While I agree more areas of london need support and funding, removing this from areas which have self-invested is very unfair.

For example, is it not the local population who look after their homes, shop in local stores, educate their children locally, invest their time and efforts in the community who make the area 'desirable'. I believe it is the residents of ED who have made this a place we all want to live in.

It is also a folly to invest in infrastructure which cannot be supported. I will get off the fence to say that you look after your own back yard, and friends who live off the walworth road bemoan the fact that the local residents simply don't look after the place or put any effort in. When someones does try to help (putting tree in) they just wreck them. North cross is a success as is sells the products the local population wants. Put Northcross market in Peckham and i can only guess what the response would be. Look at the pathetic farmers market in Peckham - it simply isn't doing enough business to sustain itself.

Harman has also selected a very odd area to point her finger at - surely Dulwich Village would have been more appropriate?

I choose to live and invest my time and money in ED because I like the people and like the area. I first lived her 15 years ago and a lot had to change to make we want to return. This chage was due to locals investing as well as the government. To reduce funding because we are the 'have's' will send a very strong signal that taking pride and care of your area serves no purpose. Surely local endeavor should be rewarded.

[SimonM]

Has Ms Harman ever visited either/both of East Street & NCR markets I wonder? They are vastly different in size, nature, history, days open etc. She's not going to have a go at Dulwich Village though is she? I mean, estate agents (remember them?!) love to claim those ?1.5 million and upwards houses in Herne Hill are really on the fringes of the Village....and isn't this where the MP for Peckham still lives?

[dulwichmum]

Raises large glass of Chablis to TJ. "You really are infinitely sensible you know." (worship, worship, worship)

[bigbadwolf]

One point that I've noticed is missing from Harriet Harmans piece is that the areas she wants to improve have a very transient population compared to the middle class areas such as (lets face it) east Dulwich and Dulwich village who's residents are in the position of owning the property they live in so are going to be sticking around for longer. Also I think that some consideration should be given to the Aesthetic appeal to places such as Camberwell and Walworth which have very little green space and as a consequence very little trees. Dulwich and it's neighbours Forest hill and Honor oak have alot of green spaces and in the last few years Lewisham council has encouraged it's population to make the place alot greener and pleasing on the eye which has seen it win several London bloom awards. Basically what I'm saying is that if you give the population something nice to look at then perhaps they'll take more pride in it compared to the concrete behomoths that Camberwell and Peckham have become. Just my opinion.

[Marmora Man]

In response to DGB:

Labour have failed the poorest people in this nation - they use spin to try and cover this up:-

Some quotes from New Labour:-

"One million children lifted out of poverty"

Labour party manifesto 2001 page 29

"We have lifted one million children.....out of poverty"

Gordon Brown, 27 September 2004

"We have lifted over 2 million children......... out of abject poverty"

David Blunkett, October 2005

The facts

Since 1998/99 there are 700,000 fewer children in poverty"

DWP press release 17 October 2006 This was mostly due to the general rise in income levels during the decade from '97 to '06 rather than any specific action by the Labour Government since the preferred definition of poverty is that portion of households that live on less than half the median income. Everyone benefits from a rising tide.

When Labour politicians talk about their record on poverty they are spinning you a line. Check it out for yourself.

Severe poverty has got worse after 12 years of Labour, don't believe Harriet Harman when she says that she is going to sort it out in one year before an election.

* severe poverty = households on the lowest decile of income + absence of one parent + child deprivation (some / all of the following: poor schooling / clothing / feeding / care / abuse)

[Louisa]

Harriet Harman really should just keep her mouth shut to be frank. The amount of money this government have pumped into supposedly deprived areas like Peckham and what is there to show for it? ED has just as many deprived families as any part of Southwark, just because the number of shops along NCR or LL no longer reflect the population does not mean that somehow we are now Kensington and Chelsea. The same goes for Bromley, it is NOT a wealthy part of town exclusively, the large council estate at Grove Park in Bromley has been left to ruin for years and no one from government has helped, at least Camberwell and Peckham get some cash, even if it does nothing at all. Why not just keep your mouth shut in future I say to politicians of all colours, especially someone who has been involved in a government which has done nothing but isolate and put off the genuine working class vote for the best part of the two decades.

Louisa.

[Huguenot]

Not willing to be completely incoherent Louisa. Politics is of course your opportunity to debate. Your point is...?

You're working class? Last time I heard you wanted to live in Devon?

You value local flavour? Last time I heard you wanted to live in Devon?

Peckham? You want M&S as a demonstration of local values?

Bromley? Devon?

You say... "to politicians of all colours, especially someone who has been involved in a government which has done nothing but isolate and put off the genuine working class vote for the best part of the two decades..."

...erm what? what do you say?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

BBW - have you actually walked round Peckham & Walworth? Lots of green spaces last time I looked.

[Louisa]

Yes Devon is preferable for living in later life as many rural locations are for people considering retirement or moving out of the big city in later years. As for my class, since when were working class people excluded from Devon? Have you ever been to Barnstaple or Ilfracome? People on here who know Devon will know EXACTLY what I am talking about. What is your point?

Bromley is preferable for shopping because it has a shopping centre that suites my needs, it has variety, just as Peckham used to have, unlike ED which seems almost exclusively aimed at one small section of the local population who moved in within the last decade. What is your point here?

M&S is a decent shop, I have always liked M&S and that is in no way reflective of class. Let us not forget that the so called deprived Walworth Road has an M&S unlike the over qualified ED. Again what exactly is your point?

This Labour government has isolated working class communities for years, the Peckham example is a fantastic one whilst we are on that. Harriet Harman suggests certain areas deserve investment over others, from what I see all the EU cash and government funds stuck into that area have created nothing for local people. The shopping centre remains s*it, and the place still stinks. Where has all this wonderful cash gone? All on a new library? (I think not). This woman has the damn right cheek to turn around from the comfort of her lovely salary and suggest some deprived communities are more deserving than others, what a f*cking cheek (pardon my French). I have no respect for her or any politician who sits up on their high horse making ridiculous comments about things they do not understand.

Louisa.

[Huguenot]

So let's work this.

You want M+S, Dixon's, WHSmith, HMV, Boots and...?

[Louisa]

Before we "work this", how about you answer the responses I have given you in respect of some of the apparant contradictions you suggest I make based on what I say here.

ED does not have the space for any of the above stores you mention (with the exeption of a Simply Food), but it does seem a little bizarre that in under a decade the vast majority of shops now only seem to reflect a small proportion of the local population. If anything, working class people are even more deprived in an compared to Peckham because many are elderly and cannot walk the distance to Peckham or be able to catch the bus.

Louisa.