merging of services between Southwark and Lambeth Councils

[PeterJohn]

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.

[Huguenot]

But free school meals for every child isn't a proposal to make savings is it...?

In fact, because of this increase in expenditure on school meals Labour are going to have to cut back other services even more than the other parties!

It's even possible to argue that free school meals for all is forcing a merger with Lambeth to free up funding. I don't believe that is a sacrifice most people are willing to make.

I don't think they're helping yourself with this strategy, because it's clear that not all school children need this service at all, but you're going to give it to them anway.

That's kind of the definition of waste.

As for childhood obesity, I think it's somewhat totalitarian to imagine that you can tackle it by enforced dieting in our school system. Crazy stuff.

I do think the government has an obligation to educate, inform and inspire our citizens - but we cannot and must not ever impose a diet through the state.

If you think the threshold is too low, then lets have an honest debate about that - but there will always be borderline cases wherever you put it, and it's clear that not everyone needs it.

My own politics are predominantly socialist, but with meritocratic distribution of resources and empowered workforces, not the blunt oafishness of government intervention.

[SteveT]

Must we absorb another bunch of improvident lack wits which we have to fork out for, they (Lambeth) have the highest rates in the land because of their dire performance and weird and corrupt political outlook.

[Loz]

PeterJohn,

Thanks for your reply. Like Huguenot, my politics are left of centre, but I too cannot fathom how your policy fits in that framework.

From a post I made on another thread a while ago (based on some figures from other Labour counsellors):

Current number of free school meals: 7000

Number of free school meals proposed: 20000

Number of "too embarrassed" to take up school meals children: 1800.

Current cost per meal: 94p

So you are proposing to feed for free - needlessly - 11,200 children just because 1800 aren't taking them up, with no guarantee this will get them to take them up anyway (having seen the "burgers through the fence" scene on Jamie's School Dinners).

It's ?2M wasted on a poorly thought-out theory, Peter. It's not going to solve childhood obesity - hell, it won't make an iota of difference. The kids you are allegedly trying to help will still be munching in chips after school, eating high-salt/high-fat meals in the evening and playing sod all sport. (And, not your fault, but how much has the Labour government done to kill off grassroots sports for kids? Can they make it any more bureaucratic?)

Also, regarding service merging: it's all very well saying that Southwark is a poorly performing borough but as any businessperson will tell you, merging two failing businesses does not give you a successful business. Why Lambeth? Can't we merge services with a borough that isn't failing?

Sorry, but my ballot is in an envelope downstairs (being a postal voter) and it's not looking good for you. The X that went in your box last time (as I am in your ward) looks like going somewhere else this time.

[BigOne]

God help us all !!

I don't think you can contain that much incompetence in one large building, can you ?!!

[dc]

Pugwash Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Since the LDs lost control in Lambeth Labour Party seem to have made a bigger hash of managing the borough

Palpable and demonstrable nonsense. Lambeth has, according to the independent Audit Commission, gone from being a 1 star 'performing poorly' borough under the Tory/Lib Dems to a 3 star 'performing well' borough since Labour were elected in 2006. Southwark meanwhile has gone backwards to become the worst rated borough in inner London. These are independent assessments carefully made and therefore much more relevant than anecdotal, ill-informed, unresearched, title tattle.

Oh and, by the way, there are no plans to run Southwark services from 'Brixton' (sic) Town Hall. It's made up by the LibDems who are relying on you having the same misplaced prejudice against Lambeth as Pugwash.

Duncan Chapman

[PeterJohn]

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.