Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
LAMMY CAMPAINING IN SLOUGH
Mr Lammy was campaigning in Slough yesterday, how arrogant is that. Does he really think it's all sawn up in Tottenham. This is the third election he has stood in this constituancy and i have never seen or heard he has done any canvassing. Now he does'nt even live here'
Career politician, that's all he is.
Career politician, that's all he is.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Katey on
-
David Lammy has definitely been out and about in his constituency - was at the hustings on Clarendon Road on tuesday along with the other candidates, and was there for a long while after it ended making the time to talk to local people, etc. I asked a question during the Q&A bit, and he took time out afterwards to apologise to me for not having answered directly (there were a number of questions being asked at once) and gave me some useful info.
More importantly from what I can see he has always been very active within the local community BETWEEN elections - does lots of work with CONEL, was at a big event for third sector (voluntary/community) groups earlier in the year giving his support to third sector organisations in the borough, discussing some of the huge issues these groups have regarding premises, recognising and supporting the work these groups do, etc.
If you really give thought to the amount of work involved in being an MP, particularly in a constituency like Tottenham, there are literally thousands of different individuals, groups, organisations,causes, all wanting and needing your help and support - just taking the third sector alone there are in the region of 1400 TSO's in Haringey, and most of these are in the east of the borough (ie, in the Tottenham Constituency) ...and let's not forget that constituency work is only part of what an MP does!
Not everybody likes or agrees with everything David Lammy does - I know I don't ...I'm sure he gets some things right and some things wrong - he is after all only human! Seems to attend as many things as is possible for one person as far as I can see - but can you imagine how many invites these guys must get, and how many different people/organisations want and need their help and support. Perhaps it is 'all sewn up' in Tottenham votes-wise for Labour ...but if the unthinkable happened and Lammy didn't get re-elected personally I don't doubt that he would continue to work hard for the people of Tottenham
-
-
Perhaps I'm old fashioned but if one thing winds me up is politicans saying they are from and for a place that they have don't live in. It really drives me potty that David Lammy chooses to migrate to Crouch End ( nothing against Crouch Enders) but you know how lovely to sit in an affluent part of the Borough and sing lullabies about the strengths of Tottenham alternating with being very very concerned about Tottenham. He might be reassured to know schools here are lovely he could check out Chestnuts for instance. Not good modelling - Lammy- one message from New Labour is we all need to integrate and put the commuinty we live before the places we came from- well may be Lammy should stand in his new area instead.
As for what kind of MP has he been- well don't get me going... after the death of Victoria Climbie we wrote to him asking him to support a public enquiry and he batted it away as if the request was an irritating fly. Strangely, he changed his tune and did a very good job of sounding outraged once the Govt was forced to set up the Enquiry. His dubious attempts to sit on the fence about Shoesmith ( prior to Ed Balls sacknig her) reinforced my dislike of this chap. I think lack of interest in our most vulnerable being failed except when there was a political gain is a disgrace.
Sorry, haven't quite finished my rant: there is then the matter of the Whittington and Lammy daring to say he opposes closure and will fight it. I'm almost gobsmacked- either he is limited in his capacity to think or he thinks I'm limited in my capacity to think- because it is the Governement that he is a part of that appointed the bureaucrats who want to make these cuts. If he was genuine about fighting for the Whittington then he should have protested to his Prime Minister and resigned from the cabinet over this issue. But no - of course not its nothing to do with him - he's outraged... Nor am I suprised when council officials don't like to be held responsible and in fact they think they are the greater victims they learn at the feet of politicans like Lammy. So I just wish anyone ( well perhaps other than the BNP) would come to Totttenham and put up a real fight for the seat so we can kick him out. Oh, just one more point, if Lammy is not elected I don't see him working for Tottenham other than if he thinks he has a chance of winning next time around.
-
-
I agree it's definitely preferable for MP's/ local councillors to live in the area they represent - however if there is no one who would do a better job than Lammy standing this time it is surely better that he wins again, rather than just 'anyone' coming to Tottenham and winning for the sake of kicking him out.
There are certainly some really lovely schools in Tottenham - lots of teachers doing a fantastic job and being given very little credit for it due to the short-sightedness of Ofsted.
And as for him not working for Tottenham if he doesn't win ...well if that should happen time would give us the answer to that one. I disagree with you on that one Perdeep, but we'll see!
-
-
...to add to that I would have to say I think there are actually a couple of interesting candidates standing aginst him this time - however the reality is that without party backing no matter how hard they fight for the seat they are unlikely to win.
However, the very fact that they're standing, appearing at hustings, speaking publicly and increasing awareness of areas where they feel Lammy has failed has gotta be a good thing. I don't know enough about them to say whether I would personally give them my vote if I lived in Tottenham now, but they're certainly raising some interesting points
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
How come (forgive me for being a narcisist) you did not comment on my blog post?
-
-
:-) ...sorry John - I hadn't had time to read your blog post properly yet ...but I did see it there and thought it looked really interesting. On a course all day today, but will make it my lunchtime reading on the iphone!
Sometimes the activity on the forums is so fast paced and changes so quickly I don't get time to read the blogs too ...actually perhaps I should have put that on that other discussion about 'thoughts about' HOL ...I really don't know what the answer to that one is though - there's so much to say/think about/report on in the area, and so many people posting interesting things!
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Hi Perdeep. Agree with all of what you said (except the residency bit!) I can't comment on Mr Lammy's performance as a constituency MP, but I do observe that he seems to be conflicted on some major issues. I suspect his personal ambitions cause him to hove to the official government line. Does he see himself as a future PM? But his biddable-ness by the whips does seem to put him in conflict with at least some of his constituents' concerns.
The Manifesto Commitment: manifestly non-commital: Mr Lammy is so proud of his party's manifesto "commitment" to do try to do some things in respect of betting shop proliferation, that the "Office of David Lammy" posted that announcement to HoL in breathless prose. But what is that Manifesto paragraph really worth? Some people are already more than satisfied with it.
But to me, at best it seems aspirational; at worst it misleads voters into thinking that the proposals will make a difference. A cynic might say it was merely PR, enough to satisfy local discontent but lacking measures that would dare to have bite and that would risk offending either the gambling 'industry' or their friends in government. From Mr Lammy's government, the gambling lobby received the Gambling Act of their dreams!
Any meaningful changes to Mr Lammy's government's Act will take real guts, leadership – because whoever wants change is up against a powerful lobby. Can such changes be led by someone who is partly a party to the flawed Act in the first place and who is compromised? Why has Mr Lammy proposed only weak measures, aimed at the symptom of the problem and destined to fail – and avoided mention of the provisions of the Act that have caused the problem? I suspect that a flawed Act of the government can only be fully corrected by an opposition party.
If Mr Lammy had the courage of his convictions, saturation gambling is another important issue that he might have stood up for, on principle and possibly threatened to resign over. But it seems career comes first.
-
-
It's the betting machines. Surely it's straightforward to ban them from the high street. The Gambling Act acknowledges that these machines can be a problem as it limits the number you can have in a betting shop. That's why we end up with nine betting shops (and therefore 27 betting machines) on our high street cum casino. Ireland are addressing the machines, we should too.
Clive, would you like a less ambitious politician to represent you? I doubt it.
-
-
John, I take your point about the undesirablity of the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) but they're not the whole problem. They are certainly one of the most socially damaging aspects of saturattion betting shops. I don't think it would be straight forward to ban them, even thought they're described as the crack cocaine of gambling, and obscenely profitable to the gambling companies.
But if we are concerned with premises proliferation – which is the most obvious symptom – then we need to ask why (and how) has the government so hamstrung the courts and councils in saying enough is enough? The number of premises is important, because even if you banned one type of gambling, in time another type would replace it: and remember that those premises are going to be around for a long time, because its hard to lose a gambling premises licence, once granted.
Proposed oppostion to "clustering" (Mr Lammy's solution) will be null and void while the principle remains in force that only market demand shall dictate the numbers of betting shops. The anti-clustering proposals will give false hope to anti-proliferation citizens, generate more heat and argument in court ... and make little or no difference on the ground.
(A politician's personal ambition shouldn't be a criterion on which to vote. I respect principled disagreement more than whip obedience. When an MP votes against a three line Whip, you know its not a career move. Am I better represented by a more ambitious politician who puts their own interests before their constituents? Some MPs have been so personally ambitious they now face criminal charges!)
.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
