PeterJohn

I'm sorry to hear that some of the problems of school allocation that we saw last year have been repeated. When I was alerted to this issue over the weekend I asked for a complete breakdown on a ward by ward basis of where children have not been offered places in one of their preferred schools. There are a total of 175 children who have not been offered a place in one of their preferred schools in Southwark this year. I am looking into what further advice and support can be offered to parents at this time, and what steps we can take to ensure that all children are offered a place at one of their preferred schools. It does seem that the outgoing administration took a deliberate decision to delay these announcements, but I am determined that we will sort it out as quickly as possible. Cllr Peter John Leader-elect of Southwark Council

Loz, We are going around in circle on these issues! I like our proposals (obviously) and you don't. I think they could make a difference - you don't want us to try. You take a dire view of an authority's capacity to make anyone change their behaviour. I don't. The ban on smoking in public places might just be thought to have changed some habits. But maybe you will tell me that more people now smoke?! You appear to trivialise the fact that 1800 children do not take up free school meals. I think it is a real problem which we need to tackle, and that a universal policy could bring other real benefits. You see the prospect of trying to save money in order to preserve front-line services by working with a neighbouring borough as a terrible prospect. I think it's sensible and would not rule out working with boroughs other than Lambeth. The current administration seems to find that prospect scary. I'm sorry if I've lost your vote this time. At least you know what I stand for and what my policies are. I hope that you are in a position to make such an informed choice about the other parties who are more reticent to tell you what they propose, but are happy to tell you what they oppose.

Well, this is probably the first time that my politics has been described as Marxist! And as for being described as a Socialist - well, as a member of the Labour Party I take no offence and find a great deal of comfort. Huguenot, I doubt that I will ever persuade you about Labour's proposals. Your politics are clearly very different from mine and I respect that. You will have a large selection of other parties to choose from in the forthcoming local elections. However, I think it is important to recognise that it is only Southwark Labour which is actually putting forward proposals and ideas to deal with these important issues which face us as a borough. What will the other parties do to make the savings which it is anticipated local authorities will have to make? What front-line services will they cut if they are unwilling to even discuss trying to make savings in the 'back office'? And what are their proposals to try and tackle childhood obesity - which in our borough is the worst in the country? Now you as an individual voter can say "this is not my problem, let the poor and the stupid work it out for themselves." But I don't think it is credible for a political party aspiring to provide leadership for Southwark not to have any policy ideas or proposals for issues such as this. Until I've seen alternative policy proposals which provide credible solutions to these issues I will continue to advocate Southwark Labour's view.

Loz, I'm glad that I've provided some reassurance on the Lambeth and Southwark services issue. On free school meals - I have seen this reaction before and it surprises me - although I understand the debate of means testing v universal provision. I have to say that I haven't spoken to anyone who actually works in a Southwark primary school who thinks the idea is a bad one. So I'll try and offer my explanation. At the moment there are about 1800 children in primary schools in Southwark who are entitled to free school meals on a means-tested basis, but who don't take them up. I cannot tell you what they each end up eating for lunch, but I am quite sure that it will not be a balanced diet. I have heard from several teachers that some children will bring packed lunches which are full of the cheapest and least nutritious food that you can get from the cheapest supermarkets. These sorts of eating habits have led to Southwark being the borough with the highest childhood obesity rates. And this would be consistent with the study that showed that only 1% of packed lunches have the correct nutrition a child needs at lunchtime. So if we can get these children eating healthy lunches that has to be a good thing? But I have also heard from school cooks who have to deal with children whose parents are on the borderline of free school meal eligibility, and where the parents have fallen behind with the payments. Do they turn those children away when they come for their meals? Of course they don't, but it puts them in a really difficult position. By the way the income limit for free school meals entitlement is only ?16,190 - so there are many families who are not currently entitled but who I'm sure you would not regard as middle or upper class. And then there are the children who will only get a balanced meal at school. If we can do anything to improve their eating habits - again to tackle childhood obesity - this must be a good thing. There is still a real stigma which is still attached to means-tested free school meals and I think we should be doing all that we can to try and break down some of the social barriers which are enforced at such a young age. There is plenty of time to build those social barriers in later life! For a council to provide services only on a means tested basis sounds more like Tory Barnet and the 'easyjet' council model. Councils and the government provide a whole variety of services on a universal basis - education, the NHS, defence, rubbish collection, roads etc etc etc. Why is it only this policy of universal provision which you are opposed to? If it is a question of affordability - then I believe we can afford it. We proposed a shadow budget in February which provided free school meals and would have seen your council tax bill cut by 2%. So I don't believe that is a reason to oppose it. Maybe I'm being idealistic and naive in thinking that this is a policy which will change things. But pilots of this policy in other boroughs have shown really positive results - and what is wrong with a bit of idealism anyway in politics! James, Disappointed at your latest contribution to the debate! But maybe you have been flummoxed by a sensible explanation of a sensible proposal!

Some thoughts from me on this subject, as I was one of those who started the debate in the first place! There are two principal motivating factors behind the proposal that Southwark and Lambeth should discuss working together after May 6th. We all know that the next few years will be incredibly difficult financially for public authorities. It is likely that we will be expected to do more; or at least the same; with less money from central government. A Labour Council in Southwark is committed to keeping council tax low - all of our shadow budgets over the past 4 years would have delivered cheaper council tax bills for Southwark residents than those actually delivered. So our commitment to keeping council tax low is clear and demonstrated. So we are going to have to look at other ways in which we can save money in order to preserve and improve our front-line services. In exploring ways to save money it must make sense to at least talk to our neighbouring boroughs to see if we can make savings. I simply do not accept that sharing some back-office costs is an impossibility or that it will bring Southwark crashing to the ground! And the idea of talking to Lambeth is not about handing over service provision to them! I simply do not understand how that follows. Southwark already buys its' communication services from Westminster Council. Southwark already works with other South East London boroughs to buy its' energy and keep costs down. I haven't seen anyone complaining about these forms of working which are intended to reduce direct costs to Southwark and Southwark Council Tax payers. There is no question that Southwark would remain accountable for the services it provides and that those services would be provided by Southwark Council. And there are no circumstances in which a Labour Council in Southwark would agree to any proposal which risked the quality of any front-line service which we provide. So the ludicrous idea of some wholesale transfer of Southwark to Lambeth is just that - ludicrous! The second motivating factor concerns those areas of both boroughs, such as the South Bank, Camberwell and Herne Hill, where residents and businesses complain about a current lack of 'joined-up' thinking by the two councils. We have to work with our neighbouring borough in a way which ensures that service provision in these areas is consistent and does not make them 'no-mans lands'. I have been in many Camberwell Community Council meetings where complaints have been raised about what Lambeth or Southwark is doing - and the unintended consequences which flow to the other side of the road, which is in the other borough. Again, I can see nothing damaging or illogical in having a relationship with Lambeth which ensures that this does not happen in future. So I think the really important question for this debate is why people think it is a bad idea to talk to neighbouring boroughs about saving money to preserve front-line services? And why it is such a bad idea to talk to our neighbouring boroughs about making life better for those areas which have cross-border problems which are currently not addressed? I am absolutely open to a debate on this issue - but it seems that either to reject it out of hand or to throw around silly scare stories does not contribute to that debate.

Hi mrs f, Welcome to South Camberwell. I'm sorry if my fellow candidates and I have not yet met you when we've been on the campaign trail or during one of our monthly mobile surgeries! Please let me know if there are any issues which you would like Stephen, Veronica or myself to look into. Regards, Peter John

I was sorry to hear from Gordon Nardell that this has happened - and horrifed by the what has been done! It can't really be classed as sympathetic restoration - but does have the appearance of a well intentioned but poorly executed clean-up. There appears to be a real will to properly restore the mural, and I hope that this happens. A lesson the Council could usefully learn - if you are going to undertake work like this in East Dulwich, start a thread on this forum first. Things like this can so easily be avoided if you trust the community to help provide a solution. Cllr Peter John Labour Councillor for South Camberwell