The dust may never settle on the 2017 general election until the next one comes along. But the result was clear-cut in this part of south-east London – a big “up yours” to the woman currently barricading herself inside 10 Downing Street with the help of strange men in bowler hats.
So, only a few days late, and with the caveat that I spent the final week of the campaign sat reading Roger Moore’s autobiography in the Barcelona sunshine instead of attending hustings, here are a few observations on what election night meant for Greenwich, Woolwich, Eltham and beyond. (Declaration videos are from Sky News.)
1. Matthew Pennycook is now the King of Greenwich (and Woolwich)
Look at the size of that. 64.4% of the vote. Matt Pennycook scored Labour’s highest vote share since the Greenwich & Woolwich seat was created in 1997 (in Greenwich, you have to look to the 1971 by-election to see a higher share), beating anything his predecessor Nick Raynsford achieved. That’s a Lewisham-style share, for heaven’s sake. Voters evidently forgave his Brexit votes – or didn’t care that much anyway or prioritised other issues. Or maybe voters just hated the Tories.
His campaign saw him open up a little bit of space between him and his Labour colleagues – let’s call them the Berkeley Homes Party – running the council. His election literature referred to his anti-Silvertown Tunnel stance and his work in trying to amend the Berkeley Homes Party’s mistake of doing developers’ bidding at the Enderby Wharf cruise liner terminal, things Raynsford would never have done. Whatever, this win should silence his local critics and remind the Berkeley Homes Party what Labour should be about in this area.
2. Clive Efford’s return means little change at Greenwich Council… for now
The result in Eltham mattered almost as much in Greenwich & Woolwich (and Erith & Thamesmead) as it did south of the A207. Clive Efford’s stunning victory almost – but not quite – matched the levels of his first win in 1997, landing 54.4% of the vote, up from 42.6% last time. Labour didn’t just throw the kitchen sink at Eltham, it threw the cooker, fridge, microwave and cutlery to leave the local Tories badly wounded. It was aided by the Tories slashing local school budgets – sprinkling Matt Hartley’s faltering campaign with poison from the off – but most of all by hordes of activists, notably from Lewisham. (However to pay them back?)
But the win also consolidates Efford’s vice-like grip on the Eltham Labour Party, which in turn consolidates the Eltham Labour Party’s vice-like grip on the Greenwich Council Labour group. While Matt Pennycook will be much stronger as a result of last week, anyone hoping for power to drain from the stale leadership currently running the council may have to wait a little while longer.
3. Matt Hartley has himself to blame for losing Eltham
Did the Tories take Eltham for granted? It was their 29th target seat. Their candidate failed to show up at hustings, and failed to defend local schools from cuts. But perhaps the problems started a year ago, when Matt Hartley was putting leaflets through doors insisting Britain was about to be flooded with Syrian refugees via Turkey, and breezily insisting that the Vote Leave campaign wasn’t fronted left, right and centre by lies and liars.
The EU referendum ushered in a period of huge political turmoil, of which last week’s poll – “only Theresa May can make these Brexit negotiations a success” – was just a part. In the end, the chaos that Hartley helped unleash also consumed his parliamentary ambitions – in this area, at least – and it’s made the local Tories look rather silly.
Would his predecessor as council leader and candidate, Spencer Drury, have done better? Maybe not – Hartley still added 3,100 votes to the Tories’ share, while Drury saw a small fall in 2015. But for now, Eltham is Labour territory once again, and it’ll take an earthquake – or a boundary change – to shift them.
4. The Liberal Democrats blew it with bullshit
Pardon the language. In Greenwich and Woolwich, this wasn’t an election for great political literature. The Labour leaflet was too wordy, the Tory one vacuous, the Green one vague. But the Lib Dem took the biscuit for bullshit. It was unfortunate that candidate Chris Adams had to move home shortly before the poll – his old SE8 address (even if on the Lewisham side) would have looked better on the ballot paper than “address in the Dulwich and West Norwood consituency”.
However, his literature let him down. Even if Brexit turned out to be a bigger issue, most people who feel stronger about remaining in the EU tend to be a bit more engaged and would never have fallen for “Jeremy Corbyn and Matthew Pennycook back the Tories’ hard Brexit”. It even featured a dodgy graph. And while the Lib Dems’ opposition to the Silvertown Tunnel was welcome, them getting key facts about it wrong in two separate leaflets wasn’t. (As someone who’s campaigned against the tunnel, they’d have been very welcome to ask.) It was idiotic not to have featured their key electoral asset in this field – their excellent London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon, who has actually done things to help the anti-tunnel cause – and just looked like a weird vendetta against Matt Pennycook. It backfired, and deservedly so.
5. The Greens actually need to tell people to vote for them
There’s no disguising that this was a terrible election for the Greens. It was always going to be tough. They were smart to stand down in Eltham, but the problem with pushing for a “progressive alliance” was identified by former London Assembly member Darren Johnson, who observed that if you keep standing down, that’s what all the headlines will be about, rather than your policies.
And so it proved, with the Greens getting terrible London results, even in their heartland constituencies. In Greenwich & Woolwich, the Berkeley Homes Party’s antics should have provided Dan Garrun with an open goal and a chance to hold Matt Pennycook’s feet to the fire. But their national problems were made worse by vague election literature (not living in the target Peninsula ward I didn’t see it all, but their website contained very little) and tweets that suggested they really weren’t bothered if people didn’t vote for them. So they didn’t – resulting in just 3% of the vote and a lost deposit. Pay attention next time, Greens.
6. In Greenwich borough, this was only the beginning
In inner London, Labour is an awesome, even fearsome machine. Their get-the-vote-out teams prowl the streets on election day, and the party’s stuffed full of old hands who know just how to run an election. You don’t know them, but they have a pretty good idea of just how you might vote. For them, much of this was a dry run for next May’s council election. Greenwich’s selections start now – always entertaining in a party where they largely hate each other, but with the added spice of Momentum-backed candidates ready to pounce. (There’s also the influence of the Pentecostal New Wine Church, but that’s for another time.) For Greenwich’s Labour (and Berkeley Homes Party) councillors, and those who want to replace them, the battle is only just beginning.
Bonus news from elsewhere: Millwall relegated at the polls
In 1990, Charlton Athletic fans who were enraged at Greenwich Council’s refusal to allow the club to return to The Valley formed their own political party to fight that year’s council elections. The Valley Party got 10.9% of the vote, unseated the chair of the planning committee, and forced the council to change its mind. This year, Millwall fans who were enraged at Lewisham Council’s plans to compulsorily-purchase part of the club’s land at The Den decided to follow suit.
But they cocked it up in fine style – standing in the general election (why?) in Lewisham East (some way from The Den, and – Downham/ Grove Park excepted – not really a heartland of Lions support) against Labour’s Heidi Alexander. But Alexander is a hugely popular figure locally, and has been effectively fire-proofed ever since her part in the campaign to save Lewisham Hospital from cuts. Candidate Willow Winston, an artist with a studio close to the Den, lost her deposit, netting a derisory 355 votes (0.75%) and showing that £500 is a big price to pay for securing some sympathetic Guardian coverage. Millwall may have been promoted back to the Championship last month, but their fans’ political nous remains in the relegation zone.
Your comments on the local issues raised here are welcome…
Boris Johnson, no less, once explained it: “Let us suppose you are losing an argument… Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as ‘throwing a dead cat on the table, mate’.
“Everyone will shout ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
Well, a dead cat’s been thrown on the railway line that goes through Eltham and Blackheath. And it’s stinking out any chance of having a sensible discussion about how to make south-east London’s rail network work more efficiently.
It starts with Transport for London having an idea…
Last year, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling refused to allow Transport for London to take control of Southeastern’s metro train network. TfL had correctly identified the flaws that beset our trains, and wanted to set about fixing them.
Those flaws included:
- A fares system which means we pay more for a worse service than those on the Tube
- The network is too complicated, which makes it unreliable, and needs investment to make it simpler (through altering junctions and improving interchanges) into identifiable “lines” – reducing the number of terminal stations each line serves.
- There isn’t enough capacity on the network, but making it simpler would improve capacity
- Some services aren’t frequent enough, but could be more frequent if the network was made simpler
Instead, he’s putting a new Kent franchise up for grabs, which includes local London services, There’s a consultation on right now into what to do with it.
It includes the suggestion that the network is too complicated and could be made simpler – one line, one terminal station. It’s not a million miles from what TfL proposed. But there’s been outrage.
SE London’s train service is complexThe Southeastern metro lines through Lewisham and Greenwich are fiendishly complicated. Just heading to Dartford alone there are four different routes, with three different central London terminals.
- Cannon Street to Dartford via Greenwich and Woolwich – 6 trains per hour, evenly spaced out – this one is the simplest, as it can now only run to Cannon Street.
- Charing Cross, Cannon Street or Victoria to Dartford via Lewisham and Bexleyheath – 6 trains per hour, but unevenly spaced out and heading to/from different London terminals.
- Charing Cross or Cannon Street to Dartford via Sidcup – 4 trains per hour, half go to Charing Cross without calling at Lewisham, half to Cannon Street via Lewisham and New Cross.
- Charing Cross to Gillingham via Lewisham, Woolwich and Dartford – 2 trains per hour. This is the one that goes through the tunnel under Blackheath, and a service TfL wouldn’t have taken over as it runs far beyond London.
And then there are the trains that run to Hayes and Orpington/Sevenoaks, some of which also skip Lewisham and New Cross. Confusing? Imagine if you could untie some of the knots and make this easier to understand.Already, there’s been some simplification. As we’ve dealt with already, trains through Greenwich now only go to Cannon Street. This is currently inconvenient as their London Bridge platforms are being rebuilt, but should be much less of an issue once the job’s finished next year.
In the document for the new Southeastern franchise, there is a suggestion for a natural progression – that maybe all trains via Bexleyheath should also go to Cannon Street.
And it’s all kicked off, because people like their direct trains to Charing Cross and Victoria. But hang on…
Shoddy service on the Bexleyheath line
The current train service on the Bexleyheath line is pretty crap compared to what Greenwich line users enjoy, which (outside rush hours) is a train every 10 minutes in both directions. (Note: I’ve tweaked the examples here as I’d got the directions wrong earlier.)
At Lewisham, there are trains to Kidbrooke at 02, 08, and 14 past the hour – then nothing for 18 minutes before another flurry at 32, 38 and 44 past each hour. Then another 18 minutes with nothing, and so on. Not much fun if you’ve just got off the DLR and you’ve missed the 14 past. (It’s more even in the other direction, granted.)
If you’re coming from central London, then one train leaves from Victoria, one leaves from Charing Cross, one from Cannon Street. You’ll have to plan your going-home time pretty carefully, compared with Greenwich line users who can just rock up at Cannon Street (or London Bridge from next year) and be on a train within 10 minutes. (This is also useless if you want to start a business in this area – where will your staff/clients go if they want to come to you by train?)
So, making the service consistent and basing it around Cannon Street means our passenger at Lewisham waiting to go to Kidbrooke would benefit from a train every 10 minutes. That makes train travel attractive and takes pressure off local buses. And someone coming home from central London can just turn up at Cannon Street or London Bridge and be on their way home reasonably quickly, rather than pick one of three terminals and hope they get there on time.
The trade-off is that if you were heading into central London from Kidbrooke and you didn’t want to go to Cannon Street, you’d have to change at London Bridge for Charing Cross, and Lewisham for Victoria.
Let’s assume – and this is a big assumption here – that all Sidcup line trains end up being routed into Victoria via Lewisham. The Sidcup line is only just down the road. If you live in Eltham and have a hospital appointment at King’s College Hospital, you can get a train from Mottingham or New Eltham to Denmark Hill. Or you can change at Lewisham. It shouldn’t be too bad.
Unfortunately, the Department for Transport has offered no detail, so it’s tough to come to an informed decision. But the principle isn’t a bad one – it needs investment to do right, though. And this is what TfL wanted to provide.
How do you solve a problem like Lewisham?Why simplify? Go to the London ends of the platforms at Lewisham and the answer will stare at you in the face – a junction where two sets of lines (from Blackheath and Hither Green) cross and go different ways (to Victoria/Charing Cross, and to Cannon Street).
A couple of years ago, this “diamond crossing” failed and services were disrupted for four weeks because the parts had to be specially-made.
So, if you’re Network Rail, you don’t want to be depending on it too much. Simplify the service, and if things do go wrong with this junction, there are fewer repercussions.
Transport for London talked about rebuilding this junction in its bid to take on Southeastern’s metro lines – which would enable more trains to get through, although it’s likely the flexibility of the current arrangement would go.
But the Department for Transport have no plans to rebuild this junction – this is essentially doing a chunk of what TfL wanted to do, but on the cheap. (Bidders for the new franchise are being told “no significant infrastructure projects are planned”).
And Lewisham station is, let’s be honest, a crap interchange. Some of the internal walls were knocked down a couple of years back to make things easier, but it needs flattening and rebuilding (and hopefully with the dangerous gap in the Hither Green/Ladywell-bound platform sorted out), with the interchange tunnels widened. Not a peep from the DfT about this either.
The TfL proposalTfL’s suggestion wasn’t quite one line, one terminal. But it did involve pulling Charing Cross trains from the Bexleyheath line (except during peak hours). With a rebuilt Lewisham, it planned to offer six trains to Cannon Street and three to Victoria each hour.
The Sidcup line would have six trains to Charing Cross and three to Victoria, with extra rush hour trains to Cannon Street.
A rebuilt Lewisham would mean changing trains wouldn’t be a hassle. But this row means nobody’s demanding that.
The problem isn’t simplifying the lines – it’s that TfL isn’t doing it
So there’s a genuine problem that TfL has tried to solve – it even gave it a name, “metroisation” – and the DfT is also pondering it, albeit in a more cack-handed, tight-fisted manner.
So cue the outrage. Early out of the traps were the Bexley Tories, launching a campaign to Keep Bexley On Track – even though Bexley Council leader Teresa O’Neill wrote a foreword to the document proposing what she is opposing. (The tweet below also pictures Labour’s Teresa Pearce, representing Erith & Thamesmead.)
All this achieves is to shield the Tories from being criticised over Grayling’s refusal to let TfL have the train service.
Then Eltham MP Clive Efford joined the angry brigade. This became about “Tory cuts” – not about Grayling’s refusal to work with Sadiq Khan to give us all a better train service.
None of this screaming and shouting is going to get anyone to work on time. It’ll just perpetuate a run-down, knackered network that needs a revamp. None of this is going to take a single car off the road or relieve pressure on buses and other forms of transport. It won’t cut our fares to the level that the rest of London pays.
And none of this is going to get any more trains through Lewisham, which is what’s badly needed here. And the only people who were going to get this done were TfL. And this row has neatly distracted attention from Chris Grayling’s failure to give Londoners control over our trains.
I would have expected our local politicians to have seen through this and taken the opportunity to campaign on this and tell us all to tell the DfT to just hand them over. But instead, with one exception (Greenwich & Woolwich’s Labour candidate Matt Pennycook, who has taken a more nuanced view) they just went on about trains from Blackheath, Eltham and Bexleyheath. It’s disappointing, to put it politely.
A more sensible answer would simply be to demand no simplification takes place until Transport for London is given control of the Southeastern Metro network.
Rowing over trains at Blackheath allows the government to dodge more serious issues
In any case, there are a heap of more serious issues that aren’t being addressed. In effect, the “no trains to Victoria” issue is a dead cat, stinking out issues that are more pressing.
- Why can’t we have TfL control our trains?
- Why are south-east Londoners paying more to use trains than those who use TfL services? Deptford to Slade Green is £2.80 off-peak – the equivalent journey on a TfL service would cost £1.50.
- Why is the Greenwich line’s rush hour service so unforgivably crap – it’s less frequent than the off-peak service, and is set to remain this way in 2018’s timetable – and what are the plans to fix this?
- Why on earth is the DfT working with out of date housebuilding figures?
- What planet is the DfT on when it expects passenger growth to be so slow?
- Why can’t we have TfL control our trains?
- Why can’t stations be staffed from first train to last, as happens on London Overground?
- What on earth is happening with the Gillingham to Charing Cross service? Is it going to be switched into a Thameslink service to Luton – as TfL’s business case for Southeastern suggests it may be – possibly cutting a rail link from Woolwich to Lewisham (and – incredibly, which is why I’m sceptical about this – leaving a huge piece of infrastructure, the Blackheath tunnel, little-used)?
- Are there any plans to cut service frequencies on any of our lines?
- Can we have the Bakerloo Line to Lewisham, then through Catford to Hayes as soon as possible, please?
- Why can’t we have TfL control our trains?
But no, the conversation has been derailed because of a row over where trains go from Blackheath and Eltham.
Have your say, and do it now
So there’s a consultation about all this, and a long questionnaire. It’s worth taking some time to read and respond. Replies need to be in by Friday 30 June (the deadline has been extended).
If you want to reply yourself, feel free to add to and play with this version of the response I’m sending. That’s if you want to try to shoehorn in as many references to TfL as possible, which is something you should be doing. The actual online form is restrictive, so it’s better if you send your response to the email address given.
In short, tell the government not to simplify Southeastern services unless they are handed to Transport for London, so the necessary improvement works can be carried out at Lewisham.
Oh look, a Tory candidate claims to be saving the day
On Wednesday, Bexleyheath & Crayford’s Tory candidate David Evenett posted that he had written to Chris Grayling. And guess what Grayling’s response was?
“To be clear, we are not proposing to reduce or change specific services.”
So, yes, dead cat. Of course, it’s only a consultation – any proposal to change services would come later. But this row has served its purpose in getting Chris Grayling off the hook for not devolving our trains so that Londoners can make decisions about their own trains. And MPs, councillors, passenger groups and amenity societies have fallen for it.This isn’t about you – or me. It’s about the neighbours we don’t yet have
It’s easy to see how this came about. There have been various consultations and documents about rail in south-east London (and Kent) over the past year or so, and many have been poorly and ambiguously presented.
Add this to the fact that many of our local politicians are simply clueless on infrastructure matters and are happy to parrot whatever they’re told, then you can see why a poorly-explained proposal can suddenly become a smokescreen for others to avoid scrutiny for their own clueless and dangerous decisions.
And frankly, this is about fairness. These campaigns are often led by people who have never had to avoid zone 1 to save money, or traded down to the bus to avoid Southeastern’s fares altogether. The vitally-important issue of TfL taking over and making our fares fairer often doesn’t even occur to them.
We may get a new transport secretary in the reshuffle that will follow the general election. And that may put a TfL takeover back on the table. If you don’t ask, you don’t get.
The future of transport in our part of London isn’t about your right to get an uninterrupted journey from Blackheath to your well-paid job near Victoria, nor is it about my right to cruise to from Charlton to Charing Cross. Even if you live in Eltham or Blackheath, you’ll be getting new neighbours soon, who’ll want to travel just as you do. It’s about the coping with fast-rising populations – and shifting me, you, and our new neighbours around the capital as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The days of gentlemen turning up in pin-stripes to get one of the three daily trains to Holborn Viaduct have long gone. We need frequent and reliable services that don’t rely on junctions that are shot to pieces.
If the price of extra trains and extra capacity is you or I having to wait five minutes at Lewisham for another train, then so be it. Our train network will be simplified eventually because it’s the only way to cope with greater demand. The real battle is over who’s in charge of it – people who understand London transport, or people who don’t.
So, please make time to read the document and respond to the consultation (here are some points worth making – please customise and add your own concerns – will work better if you email your response rather than use the online form). Demand TfL runs our railways, and gets the chance to sort out the tracks at Lewisham. It’s not the sexiest of rallying cries, but it might make all our lives easier in years to come.
Update 21 May: I’ve made a few tweaks to the response as the online form is very restrictive in how you can answer (and seems to think we all live near the high speed line…) Incidentally, below is an example of a well-meaning politician campaigning on this issue but getting it hopelessly wrong; Lewisham East Liberal Democrat Emily Frith prioritising the demands of well-heeled Blackheath over the needs of Hither Green and Lee.
Update 22 May: Lewisham East Lib Dem candidate Emily Frith has been in touch to say she has responded to the consultation and said TfL should take over Southeastern’s London services. See also her comment below.
It’s just a shame, though, that candidates seem to be prioritising the demands of narrowly-focused amenity societies in their campaigning rather than taking a broader view. What’s this? Oh, no, not the Greens as well…
Greenwich borough’s Green Party has withdrawn plans to stand candidate against Labour’s Clive Efford in Eltham at the general election “to protect a marginal seat from falling into Conservative hands”.
Efford is defending a slim 2,693 majority in the highly marginal constituency, which is 29th on the Tories’ national target list. Council opposition leader Matt Hartley is hoping to take the seat back for the Conservatives, 20 years after Efford first won Eltham.
The Labour win in 2015 was aided by Ukip scoring 6,481, denying Conservative candidate Spencer Drury victory.
Ukip is not standing here, so now the battle is on to secure those votes – and those of any other party. Labour volunteers have been flooding over the border from Lewisham and elsewhere to help Efford, while Hartley has been tapping up top Tories such as Liz Truss and Priti Patel along with neighbouring MPs David Evenett and Jo Johnson.
Now the Greens have made a last-minute move to drop their candidate, Bromley-based campaigner Ann Garratt, to try to stop Eltham being part of any Tory advance. This follows the example of Green parties in other London marginal seats such as Ealing Central & Acton, Brentford & Isleworth and Ilford North, where Green candidates have also been stood down. Party co-leader Caroline Lucas has been actively encouraging local parties to come to deals.
The move comes after talks with local Labour representatives, although no deal was made and the Greens say the decision was theirs alone. Last week, local party co-ordinator Dan Garrun cited Labour’s poor local elections showing in saying: “It’s essential we give people the opportunity to vote for a genuinely progressive party.”
But a party statement released half an hour after nominations closed said: “Members of the Greenwich Green Party have voted to stand aside their candidate in Eltham and will not contest the constituency in the General Election to be held on June 8th.
“The decision was not made as part of a so-called electoral alliance but to protect a marginal seat from falling into Conservative hands.
“In our discussion with the local Labour Party, we were pleased to elicit a promise that they will push for a better electoral system based on proportional representation. Clive Efford MP has also assured us of his intentions to stand up for the environment, protect the NHS and oppose a harmful Brexit. We will hold Labour to it.
“The decision was not an easy one and we urge our supporters in Eltham to rally around our candidates in Greenwich & Woolwich and Erith & Thamesmead. We look forward to campaigning as usual after the election and in the run up to the 2018 council elections.”
The Greens scored 1,275 votes in 2015, so a close Tory win this time around would have left the party in line for criticism. Since the party also lost its Eltham deposit in 2015, it also rather handily saves them £500 – an important consideration for a smaller party.
It remains to be seen whether the Greens’ move sweetens relations in a borough with a remarkably sour political atmosphere. The departure of ex-council leader Chris Roberts has left Efford in a hugely influential position over the way the area’s Labour politicians conduct themselves. Indeed, he’s credited with getting current council leader Denise Hyland involved in politics.
Efford’s slim majority – and a recent council by-election defeat in Eltham North – goes some way to explaining why those around him can often seem to be in fight mode, which can look out of place from over the fence in Greenwich & Woolwich, where the Tories ceased to be a threat three decades ago. So this could be a bitter battle.
On paper, this should be Matt Hartley’s to lose. Some simple analysis – taken together, the wards that make up the Eltham seat recorded more votes to leave the EU than remain in last year’s referendum, with Hartley an enthusiastic leave campaigner. (Efford abstained in February’s vote to trigger Article 50.) So you might expect him to be the rightful inheritor of the 6,481 votes Ukip got in 2015, which would take him to victory.
But there’s more to it than that. The Eltham constituency narrowly awarded more first choice votes to Sadiq Khan than Zac Goldsmith in the mayoral election.
Drilling down to ward level, you can see the divide. Coldharbour & New Eltham, Eltham North and Eltham South plumped for Goldsmith, the remaining wards – Eltham West, Middle Park & Sutcliffe, Kidbrooke with Hornfair and Shooters Hill – preferred the Labour man. Expect a huge Labour “get the vote out” operation in those four Khan-backing seats as polling day approaches.
Clapham-based academic David Hall-Matthews, a former senior lecturer in international development at the University of Leeds, is representing the Liberal Democrats this time around after previously standing for seats in Leeds and Bradford.
John Clarke is standing for the British National Party with the slogan “Local People First”, despite having a Croydon address.
7.45pm update: While the Greens have given Clive Efford a hand, Jeremy Corbyn-backing group Momentum doesn’t seem to be doing the same. A new website, My Nearest Marginal, directs keen activists to their nearest marginal seat. But if you enter an Eltham address, it sends you to… Croydon.
Eltham consituency candidates: John Clarke (BNP), Clive Efford (Labour), Ann Garratt (Green), David Hall-Matthews (Liberal Democrats), Matt Hartley (Conservative).
Need to register or get a postal/proxy vote? Get all the details.
Eltham Labour Party has been given a warning over flytipping after a councillor’s personal documents were found dumped by the side of its offices on Westmount Road.
Election posters and personal documents in the name of Peninsula ward councillor Chris Lloyd were found dumped on Greenvale Road, Eltham, by the side gate of the party’s constituency HQ.
Lloyd vehemently denies any involvement in the incident, and says he believes a “good Samaritan” left the items outside the party office after finding them in a previous home of his.
This website has seen correspondence which confirms Greenwich Council has written to the Eltham Labour Party to remind it of its responsibilities when dealing with rubbish after repeated complaints over items being left outside the office.
Eltham North, the council ward where the incident took place, faces a council by-election this Thursday, with the Conservatives aiming to regain a seat they lost to Labour in 2014.
The incident happened in August, when local resident Nick Craddy – who acts as an “environment champion” for the area – discovered piles of items left on Greenvale Road.
They included a bilingual election poster for Lloyd’s attempt to become the MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, mid-Wales, in the 2010 general election.
Lloyd, who is originally from Knighton, a town in the constituency, came third in the election; a result he repeated in the Welsh Assembly election the following year, where he failed to unseat then-Welsh Liberal Democrat leader Kirsty Williams. The former Greenwich University student was elected Peninsula councillor in 2014.
The items also included correspondence about a TV licence in Lloyd’s name, addressed to him at a student halls of residence in Deptford, as well as an induction pack for those halls.
Craddy told 853 he had spotted rubbish dumped on Greenvale Road “for quite a long time” after a tenant had moved into the flat above the Labour office.
But after Craddy arranged for the tenant to be supplied with recycling bins, the problem continued. He said he had spoken to people in the office, who “got sniffy” when he suggested they clean the rubbish up.
“One day, I walked down there, and lo and behold, there was a wodge of Welsh Labour posters out there,” he said.
‘I phoned [local Conservative councillor] Spencer Drury up, he came down with his camera, and we thought ‘gotcha’.
“Someone in the Labour office must have spotted us, because when I walked back from the shop after, there was a man taking it inside.
“The rubbish must have been there for 24, if not 48 hours.”
‘I’m not in the habit of leaving TV licences in the street’
Lloyd, who lives in Thamesmead, vehemently denies any involvement in how the items made their way to Eltham.
He told this website he believed someone who moved into an old address of his left the box there in an attempt to get his belongings back to him: “I used to live in a place in west Greenwich – I haven’t lived there for six years – and must have left a box of stuff in the attic.
“This person has tried to get it back to me, and it’s found its way to the Eltham Labour office. The day it was put out there, it was taken inside. But not before Cllr Drury walked by and got a picture.
“I had a call from someone in the Eltham office, telling me they came into work and found a box of my stuff. It was taken to the Greenwich office and it’s now in the boot of my car.”
Asked how the items were taken to Eltham when he lives in and represents a ward in the Greenwich & Woolwich constituency, he said: “Why it ended up in Eltham, I have no idea. I’m not in the habit of leaving old TV licences and bank statements in the street.”
The incident came as Greenwich Council launched a crackdown on flytipping in the borough. The council can now fine offenders £400 – a power first used in September on a trader based on Plumstead Road. Two more fines have been issued since, also in the Plumstead area.
More resources have also been put into street-cleaning services in Plumstead, Charlton and Abbey Wood.
Correspondence seen by this website states that a senior Greenwich Labour councillor gave council officers the name of an individual who it was believed had left the items at the side of the office.
But the individual concerned denied all knowledge of the incident, leaving council officers to conclude they had no evidence on which to take any further action beyond sending a letter to the Labour office and residents in the accommodation above “reminding them of their responsibilities in relation to managing their waste”.
Spencer Drury, who has been pursuing the incident since it took place, said the way it was handled cast doubt on the council’s ability to deal with those who dump rubbish.
He told 853: “The warning is fine if you’re consistent. But if every single person says ‘it wasn’t me, it was someone down the road’ – how will they fine anyone? If we all use that as an excuse, presumably you can’t fine anyone.”
What does Greenwich Council say?
A spokesperson for Greenwich Council said: “Back in the summer there were some incidences of flytipping and discarded waste around the Greenvale Road area of Eltham.
“At the time the Council wrote to local businesses and residents in the immediate area reminding them of how to dispose of waste correctly.
“We continue to regularly inspect the area and are pleased to report that there have been no further incidences of discarded waste that have come to our attention.
“No one local business/proprietor was singled out when the group of locals were written to at the time.”
Eltham Labour did not respond to a request for comment.
The row adds spice to a rare thing in Greenwich borough politics – a genuinely close by-election in Eltham North. While Labour seized two out of three seats in 2014 – their first ever success in the area – Eltham North voters backed Zac Goldsmith in May’s mayoral poll, and sided with leaving the European Union in June’s referendum.
The poll was called after Labour’s Wynn Davies – one of the few on the council to openly support Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election bid this summer, and by all accounts a hard-working councillor – moved out of the area due to a change in personal circumstances. This website understands he resisted pressure to stay in the seat and represent voters from his new home in Shropshire, avoiding the awkward poll.
Labour is standing popular local party stalwart Simon Peirce, who came fifth in 2014’s poll. The Tories have gone for youth in the shape of 22-year-old activist Charlie Davis. Ukip, who split the vote in 2014, have picked Lee-based Barbara Ray. The Liberal Democrats will be testing their hopes of a revival by fielding Sam Macaulay, who only joined the party in July.
But it’s the Greens who have raised eyebrows by fielding someone who stood as a Conservative candidate in the Glyndon by-election in May.
Matt Browne, who used to be involved with Tory thinktank Bright Blue, says he decided to jump ship after the EU referendum. “Over six years, as a very, very small cog in the Conservative machine, I saw that warm words weren’t enough,” he said. “On the grim morning of June 24th, I had definitive proof.”
Do a few dumped election posters matter?
While few will make as huge a political leap as Matt Browne, the ongoing consequences of the EU referendum will probably have a bigger impact on those who turn up to vote in Eltham North on Thursday than a row about some stuff dumped outside the Labour Party offices.
But you would expect the borough’s governing party to be a little bit more careful with its rubbish.
Thankfully for the residents of Greenvale Road, Nick Craddy (pictured above) remains an environment champion. The voluntary role sees him help pick up rubbish, liaise with the council and talk to neighbours about litter problems.
“I enjoy it – I’ve lived in this street for 30 years and I’ve spoken to neighbours I’ve never spoken to before. And once the street’s clean – it stays clean.”
And despite the embarrassment for Labour politicians, there has been a good result from all this – Craddy says the flytipping has stopped in Greenvale Road. “You could eat your dinner off the pavement now.”
This has been kicking around for a few days, but as this website’s gong through a bit of an infrastructure phase, it’d be daft to ignore it – Transport for London’s commissioner has said the Bakerloo Line could be extended to Lewisham by 2030, running via the Old Kent Road and New Cross Gate. (See original London SE1 story and page 38 of the TfL commissioner’s report.)
But Mike Brown’s preferred plan is to build only a first phase to Lewisham – instead of extending the route over National Rail lines through Catford to Hayes.
It’s mixed news for Lewisham Council’s campaign to bring the Tube to the borough, as while Lewisham itself – undergoing rapid redevelopment – would get a much-needed Underground link, its southern neighbour faces being stuck with inferior overground services, despite also being home to big regeneration schemes.
On first sight, it appears a remarkably short-sighted proposal. If you consider how congested North Greenwich is now, a Bakerloo terminal at Lewisham – attracting passengers from all points south and east – could make that look calm and peaceful.
Furthermore, the really big costs would be in tunnelling to Lewisham – converting the old Mid-Kent rail route through Ladywell, Catford Bridge, Lower Sydenham and out to Hayes would be relatively cheap.
(Readers with very long memories will remember we’ve been here before – the original 1965 Jubilee Line (then Fleet Line) proposals would have seen the line extended in phases to run to Hayes by 1980.)
But as mentioned last year, Bromley Council has long been unhappy about losing direct trains to the City from Hayes – even though the Bakerloo can shift far more people, and is likely to be at least as quick for suburban travellers than existing services.
If Bromley’s rather inexplicable opposition continues, it’ll also remove one of the key benefits of the scheme – freeing up extra National Rail routes through Lewisham after the Hayes line is transferred to the Underground.
Of course, this does open up the opportunity for others to belatedly come in – last year the Eltham Labour Party agreed a motion backing a Bakerloo extension along the Bexleyheath line, a slightly more sensible proposal than the DLR on stilts on top of the A2.
Lewisham Council studied a variety of different options in a report five years ago, but its findings were largely ignored this side of the border. More recently, Greenwich Council has lent its backing to a Lewisham extension. Local Tories are also supporting the idea.
Bakerloo campaigners will now look at persuading London’s next mayor to look afresh at the scheme so he/she opts to implement the whole extension, rather than just a link to Lewisham. But with TfL losing all its government grant from 2019, the future of the whole scheme isn’t fully guaranteed yet.
17 December update: TfL has now published its full report into the Bakerloo line extension, confirming the above – and indicating that a route through Catford has not so much been kicked into the long grass, but booted into the pond, but also opens up the possibility of a route through Eltham and Bexleyheath to Slade Green. “Planning and engineering work for options to Lewisham will be undertaken on the basis of avoiding preclusion of a future onwards extension including to Hayes and potential other locations such as towards Bexleyheath. This will include working with stakeholders to safeguard necessary delivery of the infrastructure that may be required.”
Greenwich Council is considering whether or not it should buy the University of Greenwich’s Mansion site in Eltham, according to a written answer given at Wednesday night’s council meeting.
The university announced last December that it planned to sell the campus at Avery Hill Park, home to the historic Winter Garden, a Grade-II listed Victorian conservatory on English Heritage’s “at risk” register.
Student halls will remain at the nearby Southwood site, but many of the teaching departments have moved to the university’s new accommodation in Greenwich.
The university has already started looking for a buyer, and it’s been reported that 300 new homes could be built there. Greenwich’s regeneration cabinet member Danny Thorpe says he and council leader Denise Hyland have met the university to discuss the situation.
The question came from Eltham South councillor Nuala Geary. (It’s question 21.)
Is the Royal Borough of Greenwich exploring the possibility of acquiring University of Greenwich’s Avery Hill Mansion site, which has recently been put on the market, and can the Leader confirm that discussions have taken place between the Council, the University and potential developers, prior to the formal sale literature being published?
I can confirm that the Leader and I, with the Chief Executive, have met with the University of Greenwich to discuss the proposed sale of the Avery Hill Mansion site.
At the meeting, the University confirmed that it had undergone some soft market testing in advance of the formal sale.
During 2014 the Council met with a developer and advised them of the current planning status of the site. The Council were also approached by the University and their agent GVA Grimley and again advised them of the current planning status of the site.
At this stage, the Council has not made any decisions on whether or not to acquire the site and continues to talk to the University.
Cllr Geary wasn’t at the meeting, and none of her Conservative colleagues followed the issue up, so nothing was spoken on the issue last night.
The Mansion Site and Winter Gardens were once owned by the old London County Council, so going back into local government ownership isn’t so far-fetched.
Greenwich recently spun off many of its heritage assets – including Charlton House and Eltham’s Tudor Barn – into an independent charity, Royal Greenwich Heritage Trust, but last month Denise Hyland indicated its finances may not be strong enough to bid for the site.
It’s striking, though, that at a time of cuts that Greenwich Council is considering stepping in and buying the site itself.
But compared with other London boroughs – particularly neighbouring Lewisham – Greenwich’s finances appear in fine health, with a usable surplus over £360 million (out of an eye-popping £1.2 billion) put down to a decade of frugal spending.
This graph prepared for Lambeth Council’s cabinet compares the inner London boroughs’ reserves with what they spend, with Greenwich second only to Kensington & Chelsea.
That said, it’s not clear how much of Greenwich’s reserves are committed to other projects, such as the Woolwich Crossrail station. Nothing to do with Greenwich’s finances are ever clear.
But considering the affection locals hold the mansion site in, few will complain if Greenwich does end up splashing the cash. It’s one to watch.
The Friends of Avery Hill Park are holding a public meeting on the Mansion Site’s sale on 19 March.
9am update: I’ve tweaked the surplus figure to reflect the true usable sum (you can see the full accounts here).
A little postscript to May’s Greenwich Council election. The highest-profile scalp was that of Conservative Nigel Fletcher, who lost his Eltham North seat as Labour advanced – due at least in part to Ukip taking suburban votes from the Tories.
Nigel’s written well about his experience of losing. Sadly, others couldn’t be as classy. On Saturday, Nigel got this leaflet through his door.
Ouch. Not nice.
Still, at least Nigel can count himself lucky – up here in the north of the borough, hearing from your councillors after an election simply doesn’t happen.
In the meantime, let’s keep a special eye out for how Linda Bird and Wynn Davies shake things up…
2.45pm update: Nigel has now written about the letter himself.