Theo's blog

No glum councillor he

2009-11-18T23:23:00.002+01:00

Talking about bringing work home with you...http://twitpic.com/pzzvv No glum councillor he...

Coming soon...

2009-11-18T23:19:00.000+01:00

Meet my army.

Chada for Darlington?

2009-11-12T15:55:00.002+01:00

What next for former leader Raj? Read Richard Osley's blog for news of the selection process in Darlington.

Mandelson's Post Office branch to re-open!

2009-11-12T15:17:00.005+01:00

Victory for local Post Office campaigners in Regent's Park ward! I have just heard that the Post Office have agreed to open a new Post Office Branch at the Londis in Albany Street, NW1 just yards away from the old branch at the Pharmacy.

As ward councillor I was very concerned to be informed of the closure of the Albany Street branch of the Post Office on in May this year

Readers will remember our campaign to "Save Mandy's Post Office", as the branch was the closest to the Minister's pad in Park Village East. The story even made national news in the Mirror!

The closure left the community of the Crown and Regent's Park Estate without any branch service, affecting well in excess of 4000 people. For many local people finding another post office meant at least a bus ride journey, the nearest alternative post office being on Camden High Street. As many people experienced, this was already very overcrowded and the source of much local complaint due to long queues and waiting times for service.

I'd like to pay special tribute to the hard work of Tulip Siddiq (pictured out campaigning on the estate) from our local Action Team, who hand delivered a plea on behalf of residents to Post Office Minister Pat McFadden as part of our lobbying, and kept up the pressure since the closure - despite some pretty nasty attacks from Liberal Democrat activists in the letters pages of the Camden New Journal (see also here).

Since May I have been in contact with our MP Frank Dobson and Post Office officials on a regular basis to find a solution. I am pleased to say that the Post Office has now written to me confirming that a new branch will open just 25 yards away from the old branch in February.

There will be a short period of consultation. You can support the proposal by writing to the National Consultation Team, National Consultation Post Office Ltd, Freepost Consultation Team or emailing consultation@postoffice.co.uk

I would like to thank everyone, especially the Regent's Park Tenants Association, for their efforts in making this good news come about...

Conservative councils cost you more

2009-11-10T16:38:00.002+01:00

Read my post on Left Foot Forward describing how supposedly 'low cost' Tory councils in facts are secretly ramping up fees and charges for services, threatening their viability and costing people who need them more.

Gamers’ voice gets louder

2009-11-09T12:34:00.002+01:00

Labour MP Tom Watson has spotted a gap in the market by setting up a pressure group to raise issues relating to the UK gaming industry in Parliament.

The Gamers’ Voice facebook group asks:

“Are you sick of UK newspapers and (my fellow) politicians beating up on gaming? So am I. The truth is, UK gamers need their own pressure group. I want to help you start one up.”

Tom has done this in response to negative perceptions in the press, particularly the Daily Mail. (To be honest the popular press has always had a go at entertainment as the source of social ills since Walpole banned Polly, the sequel to the licentious Beggar’s Opera, in the 18th century).

For a whole generation of you (and not-so-young) gaming is an important and cost-effective passtime.

More broadly, gaming is big bucks – so there needs to be a better debate about the support the industry needs. Computer games made in the UK between 2006 and 2008 generated global revenues of £4bn, and the global games market is worth £18bn and growing at 9% per annum.

Games development is an important component of creative industries, and an important part of the London economy.

Theo Blackwell is a level 80 paladin on World of Warcraft.

Primaries in Italy a success

2009-10-28T18:13:00.002+01:00

Journalist and Camden Labour member Lazzaro Pietragnoli says that Italian Democratic party primaries have been a major innovation not just for the (leftist) Democratic party, but for the political culture of the country.

Why are people so afraid of this change here?

No BBC, it wasn’t a 2009 version of Cable Street

2009-10-23T14:03:00.004+01:00

So some of Nick Griffin’s crackpot theories and bullshit intellectualism were given public airing for the first time last night on Question Time.

In the run up to the debate the chatter around town about “watching Question Time” took on an almost pornographic quality, with the sofa-settled home audience engaged in the largest joint act of mass voyeurism in British history (or since the Ice Age at least).

This middle-class rubber-necking was awful to experience (I went to the pub).

The reality of racism and the insidiousness of its expression in communities up and down the country was completely lost in the pantomime that the BBC allowed the event to become.

Even worse, today the press are acting like it’s a televised version of Cable Street, that fascism had been seen off and that this was some form of victory.

This wasn’t a victory at all. Griffin is a canny politician. For all of his failings last night, he will undoubtedly learn and bounce back stronger.

I have some sympathy for the views expressed by Nick Cohen in last Sunday’s Observer. However, I’m not sure that just because they are the BNP (elected now, with a mandate) we can dictate which shows they go on. Sure, a better introduction into Prime Time might have been an hour long fisking by Andrew Neil, who could then throw Griffin’s carcass to the Question Time audience.

But now Question Time isn’t the end, it’s the beginning.

What next? Jeremy Kyle? Through the Keyhole? QI?

Griffin will presumably see this as a learning experience. He will recognise that the laughter and incredulity subsided when he started talking about the connection between patriotism, loyalty and Islamism.

He will know that he struck a dog-whistle, populist cord when he spoke about the impact of immigration over the last decade.

As I said, this is not the end, it’s the beginning.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Cllr. Graves

2009-10-22T00:07:00.005+01:00

Help me out here, I’m confused...

Can this 'concerned Islington resident' be the very same person as Camden Belsize ward Lib Dem Cllr Arthur Graves, who said that despite living outside of the borough he was 100% committed to the residents of Belsize until 2010?

In 2007, when it was revealed that he had moved from the borough, the local press reported that “Councillor Arthur Graves said that he would still be able to work for his constituents in the Belsize ward despite moving house beyond the borough boundaries to a new family home on the Islington side of Tufnell Park.”

Strange then, to see him doing the usual Fib Dem ‘glum’ councillor act outside of a betting shop (17th Sept, n.b. blaming the government for Lib Dem council's planning policy) in Junction ward Islington, where he lives and appears to be running for council.

I ask you, can this man serve two electorates at the same time?

This a question mused on by New Journal Deputy Editor Richard Osley in his new blog, with some juicy added information from a Town Hall leak which exposes a couple of holes in Mr. Graves' own account of things...

The people of North London cry: "Get your story straight Arthur!"

Gong for Heather Brooke and other transparency campaigners

2009-10-15T11:38:00.005+01:00

Here's a post I have done for Progress, out just now, argiung that Parliamentary transparency campaigners like Heather Brooke should be recognised for their efforts.

Council CPO on 'Mornington Monster' - finally!

2009-10-14T12:15:00.004+01:00

The long running saga of the derelict buildings at 11-13 Camden High Street looks to be resolved - finally - by the Camden Executive tonight.

Both buildings are known to everyone locally as an eyesore, having been derelict for over 15 years and now monstruously dominating the Mornington Crescent end of the High Street.

Both are not in a habitable condition and are essentially 'shells' facing the high street, vacant and with fire damage. In fact the only living things in there are rats and pigeons.

As the strong officer report notes "The south end of Camden High Street is visibly marred by these derelict premises, which in turn affects the vitality and viability of the local shopping centre..."

It also detracts from the local Conservation Area.

The reason why the building hasn't been put back into use seems to be down to the intransigence of the owner - Nicholas Eziefula - who owns the neighbouring building, a camera shop, as well.

The sorry tale of 'engagement' with the disgraceful Eziefula is outline in 18 paragraphs in section 3 of the report.

Simply put this is one of the worst cases I have seen in the planning department and it is high time the Executive took action.

http://democracy.camden.gov.uk/alfresco/guestDownload/direct/workspace/SpacesStore/7f38cb55-b280-11de-b95c-4d6e69293ee3/2009-10-14-Report-Item%2015%20-%20Proposed%20Compulsory%20Purchase%20of%2011%20-%2013%20Camden%20High%20St-Executive.pdf

Support local caretaker Stuart Doran for national award

2009-10-11T19:57:00.004+01:00

I hope every reading this blog can spend a little time and support Threefields Estate residential caretaker Stuart Doran who is nominated for the Guardian's Public service awards, closing 30th October. http://publicservantoftheyear.guardianprofessional.co.uk/Vote/index/10

Stuart's sterling work on the estate helping residents has seen him nominated for a number of awards, but he has never won yet!

Please do all you can to publicise this among colleagues, friends and family in Camden... http://publicservantoftheyear.guardianprofessional.co.uk/Vote/index/10

Stuart Doran: Resident caretaker, Camden council

For many people the job of a caretaker conjures up an image of an old man in a well-worn overcoat. But as Stuart Doran's experience as a residential caretaker in Camden Town in north London illustrates, there can be much more to the job than cleaning and tidying.

In the six years he has held his post, Doran, 46, has given life-saving first aid, helped victims of crime, tackled intruders and antisocial behaviour, as well as cleaning up hazardous materials such as needles and drug paraphernalia. "I'm surprised I've managed to cope with some of it," he admits.

Perhaps the most dramatic incident he helped with came in January 2007 when a man was stabbed in a tenant's flat. "The victim was on his back on the floor with blood gushing from the side of his chest," says Doran. "It was lucky I knew some first aid. I folded over a towel and pressed that on his chest to steam the blood flow. I was there for about 12 minutes until the ambulance arrived. Looking back it was really scary but at the time I was too caught up in trying to keep him alive to think about it."

No less challenging was dealing with the aftermath of a sexual assault on one of the tenants. Some residents came to the victim's aid after hearing their screams and managed to scare off the attacker. But they were afraid to contact the police, so Doran reported the incident. He also made contact with the victim who had also not reported the crime. With his encouragement and support both the victim and witnesses went to the police. The caretaker also asked for CCTV footage from the crime scene to be retrieved, which proved vital in securing the attacker's conviction. "If I'd not been here those witnesses would never have come forward," he says. Doran, who was brought up on a local estate, stresses that daily life in the neighbourhood, where he lives with his wife and two children, is not so grim. "Most people who live here are fantastic. I love the rapport with the residents. Most of the time you just get on with cleaning and supporting vulnerable people. Because I live here I do get a buzz from making the place look nice. It's more than just a job its about building friendships. People trust me and feel they can approach me, not just to deal with problems but for a chat."

David Gingold, a resident caretaker in neighbouring Kentish Town, nominated Doran for the Public Servant of the Year award for always going "the extra mile" to help the residents of the 135 flats he looks after. "He's incredibly calm given the things he has to deal with," says Gingold. "He doesn't just pass problems on to other agencies, he tries to help wherever he can. He's a very sensitive and caring person."

Conservative threat to your council home

2009-10-10T01:38:00.001+01:00

See this Guardian video by Dave Hill http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/video/2009/oct/09/housing-london-tory-social

Play David Cameron's buzzword bingo!

2009-10-08T12:16:00.000+01:00

Rather amusing.

http://www.labour.org.uk/david-camerons-buzzword-bingo

Strengthening local democracy? Not in Camden...

2009-10-07T21:06:00.003+01:00

In a classic example of 'Gibbism' - a term coined from the name of Camden Council's Chief Executive Moira Gibb to denote opaque Town Hall managerialism - I can reveal that Camden's elected politicians were ignored when Camden Council responded to the government on strengthening local democractic procedures and important climate change targets.

On 2 October the Government's Strengthening Local Democracy consultation ended, but in a bizarre twist local elected councillors from all parties were left out of the process on how new powers to scrutinse Camden public services could or should work locally.

This included views on powers to challenge local utility companies (like Thames Water or EDF) and other 'wider' public service providers, like the Post Office, if they underperform.

But instead of gathering the views of local elected representatives, the response was written by unelected Town Hall officers!

When I questioned why only officers responded to Strengthening Local Democracy, I received this response from the Asst. Chief executive Sarah Mullen:

"The Camden response was drafted over the August/early September period by officers in my department with input from relevant stakeholders across the council. You are probably aware that we have moved away from routinely sending every consultation response to the Executive for sign off over recent years as the feedback was that this was felt to be overly burdensome, and in the same vein it did not formally go to scrutiny committees for comment.

"However I understand it was suggested to relevant officers that they might want to make scrutiny chairs aware of the consultation and to give an opportunity for them to express views so I apologise if this did not happen. The main drafting process took place over August which is never ideal with summer leave. So unfortunately I think this was an oversight on our part."

The Communities and Local Government consultation document, launched in July, was an attempt to beef up local government scrutiny power so that local councils have more of an ability to scrutinise all other public service providers impacting on peoples' lives. It consults on what powers authorities should have, and importantly how independent scrutiny should be funded. This is an important question for opposition parties - and backbench councillors outside of the powerful Executive - as scrutiny is one of the only opportunities to get stuck in to decision-making.

It also consults on new targets for climate change – important given 10:10 commitment to reduce carbon emissions and the council's longstanding green credentials.

This says a lot about backbench scrutiny today versus the power of the Town Hall Executive. No wonder backbenchers on all sides are peeling off and not standing again!

Hilariously, it doesn’t seem to have been passed by the elected leadership of the council either...So Camden council has just responded to a report on local democracy by ignoring local democratically elected councillors altogether!

Forwards Gibbism! More examples soon...

Justice for Tony Blair

2009-10-07T13:58:00.001+01:00

Justice for Tony Blair blog and petition to end Blair-baiting.

Labour keeps fighting for Camden

2009-10-05T12:15:00.004+01:00

Camden Labour last week at Labour Conference in Brighton

Camden Labour activists were out in Brighton last week, as reported in the Camden New Journal.

Party Conference for us is a time when we lobby for Camden issues, not play political stunts, so we used the opportunity to lobby housing minister John Healey about his plans to reform housing finance so that local tenants could see more of their rent money used to repair their homes (rather than go to the government).

The issue is currently being consulted on, and could see real benefits for local people - it's an issue long lobbied for by groups like Defend Council Housing.

This week is Conservative Party Conference, while the Lib Dems have been silent and even supported Tory policy on housing (e.g. watering down of 50% homes target), Labour is the only Camden party to question what a Conservative Government would mean for the borough:

Where do the Tories stand on council house sales? Labour warned tenants of a 'Tory threat to your home' in 2006, and council house sales have started. In nearby boroughs Conservatives have agreesively pursued the redevelopment of estates without securing the rights of people who live there. Where do they stand now?

Will they bring extra affordable housing to tackle the 18,000 strong waiting list? In addition to supporting council house sales, at the September Full Council meeting the Camden Tories watered down the 50% affordable housing target in the new Local Development Framework, so it won't apply on the vast majority of developments.

How can the Tories support affordable homes when they have thown away their best cards? The 50% target was a really powerful negotiating tool with developers. They have just thown it away.

Recycling I'd like to see more of in Camden

2009-09-24T17:37:00.000+01:00

Tales from the Academy

2009-09-23T16:23:00.001+01:00

Here's a new blog by former Camden teacher and comrade Mari Williams: http://talesfromtheacademy.blogspot.com/ worth a read if you're interested in a perspective from someone who actually works in the public sector!

Skidelsky attacks Osborne-economics

2009-09-21T14:11:00.003+01:00

This is really quite a devastating attack on George Osborne from Robert (Lord) Skidelsky in the Daily Telegraph, Skidlesky is a founder member of the SDP and biographer of Keynes, who at one time served as Conservative peer and opposition spokesperson. He now sits on the crossbenches.

George Osborne fails to mind the output gap

There is a hole at the heart of Conservative economic policy. It is called the "output gap" – the gap between an economy's actual and potential output.

By Robert SkidelskyPublished: 8:00PM BST 19 Sep 2009

It was John Maynard Keynes who first pointed out its importance, and its consequences for policy. Keynes said that policies which are sound and necessary when the economy is fully employed, are unsound and destructive when the economy is shrinking. He knew what he was talking about. He had lived through the Great Depression of 1929-32 when governments did what they were supposed to do in normal times: balance the budget and hold fast to sound money.

The result was the greatest economic disaster in modern history. Keynes's crucial distinction between full employment and subnormal employment was totally ignored by George Osborne in his speech "The Conservative Strategy for Recovery" last week.

At no point in his speech did Osborne mention that UK output has fallen by 5pc since last October and unemployment has risen by over one million. The gap between what we can produce and what we do produce has grown to more than £70bn.

This is because, as a nation, we are spending £70bn too little. Almost all that Osborne said is right and sensible in conditions of full employment; most of it is wrong and wrong-headed when there is heavy and persisting unemployment. Although he understands that we have been in the deepest recession since the war, his strategy for recovery assumes that there is nothing to recover from – except a Labour government!

His sole policy to counter recession is low interest rates to reduce "our enormous private and public debt burden". Low interest rates require "tight fiscal policy". Tight fiscal policy requires cutting government spending now.

What is the argument? Osborne is right to say that low interest rates are necessary to fight a recession. But they are not enough. They reduce the burden of existing debt; but, even when combined with the recapitalisation of zombie banks and guarantees on old debt, they may not lower the cost of borrowing enough to stimulate new investment.

For the volume of investment depends not just on the cost of borrowing but on the expectation of profit. Recessions are the result of a collapse in profit expectations. And it may be that no feasible reduction in interest rates can revive profit expectations sufficiently to produce a robust recovery.

Today depressive forces are rampant both on the lending and borrowing sides.

Commercial banks have seized the opportunity offered by the lower Bank of England rate to rebuild their balance sheets by increasing the margins on their own lending. Since October last year profit margins measured as the spread between swap rate and the mortgage rate have more than tripled.

The volume of private investment has also shrunk. Not only has it decreased in absolute terms by almost £60bn but, crucially, by 2010 we are projected to invest 25pc less than before the crisis relative to GDP. We're investing a smaller portion of a smaller cake. This is the context in which a fiscal stimulus – deliberately increasing the size of the budget deficit – becomes not just relevant but necessary.

Osborne's main argument is that Britain couldn't, and can't, "afford" a fiscal stimulus because the Government's finances were already deranged before the recession started.

Criticism of Gordon Brown's handling of the public finances in his 10 years as Chancellor is certainly valid: like home owners who banked on the prices of their properties going up for ever, he banked on permanent boom to bring his budgets back into balance and like them, was caught short when the boom collapsed.

But Labour's fiscal record from 1997-2007 has no bearing on the question of what we can "afford" today. We couldn't afford not to have had a stimulus in the past year and we can't afford not to continue with it now.

The reason is quite straightforward. If output is falling, the Government's revenues fall automatically and its social spending rises automatically. If the Government tries to reduce the deficit by cutting its spending, it reduces total spending in the economy still further. This causes the recession to deepen and makes the deficit even larger. It is like a cat chasing its own tail.

In these circumstances a discretionary increase in the deficit – the deliberate injection of extra spending power into the economy large enough to reverse the fall in output – is the best way of reducing the deficit in the medium term.

The logic of this seems to have escaped Osborne. He is on sounder ground in criticising some of the actual measures taken. The temporary cut in VAT was useless. Further, some forms of fiscal stimulus, like spending on infrastructure programmes, take a long time to work their way into the economy. But this is an argument for a quicker-acting stimulus, not for no stimulus.

Had the Government given everyone a spending voucher of £500 last Christmas, the chances are we would have had no output gap and full employment today! And we would be facing a much smaller prospective budget deficit.

The idea that, in present conditions, a rising budget deficit is bound to drive up long-term interest rates is moonshine. Increased household spending, diffused through the economy, would multiply the volume of bank deposits, which would have the effect of reducing the rates banks charge on loans.

So a policy of expanding the budget deficit is perfectly consistent with low interest rates when aggregate spending is severely depressed. The Osborne effect – to coin a phrase – would occur only if there is a fixed money supply.

Then, it is true that if the Government borrows more money from the public the banks will have less to lend the public. However, the Bank of England can always create the money for additional government spending by printing more money.

This is the meaning and purpose of "quantitative easing" – to enable interest rates to stay low even as the Government is increasing its own spending, and thus avoid "financial crowding out".

At full employment, "printing money" is the royal and pretty immediate road to runaway inflation. But one cannot repeat too often that when there is heavy unemployment the injection of additional money into the economy will arrest the economic slide and bring about a recovery in output and employment.

This will increase the resources available to the banks for lending, and enable the Bank of England to reverse the "quantitative easing" in due course.

The dodgiest part of Osborne's argument is that "fiscal tightening" (during a recession) does not reduce output because "what you lose in government spending, you gain in exports". But you gain in exports only if the exchange rate depreciates.

Osborne does not explain why "fiscal tightening" should cause the pound to sink against other currencies (the usual argument is that it is fiscal loosening which has this effect), and he does not begin to consider how far, in the absence of a stimulus, the pound would have had to depreciate to plug the output gap.

To fill a 6pc output gap with increased revenues from exports, British exports would have to grow by about 25pc. Between January 2007 and December 2008 the trade-weighted value of the pound depreciated by 27pc. In the same time exports only grew by 13pc. By this reasoning, and keeping everything else constant, the pound would have to lose another 50pc against its major trade partner currencies for exports to fill the output gap.

In fact, the pound has recovered by 7pc since January 2009. All the arguments for a stimulus go into reverse when the economy ceases to need stimulating. Then, as Osborne rightly says, fiscal responsibility is the condition of low interest rates.

And it is more than just a party point to say that Labour mismanaged the national finances before the recession, and that as a result the "size of the fiscal adjustment" needed to get the budget under control will be greater than it need have been. But as a guide for what needs doing now his analysis is way off target.

By contrast, the TUC general secretary Brendan Barber was spot on when he told the Congress at Liverpool that to "try and cut a deficit during a recession and you make it worse... But in the medium and long term it must start to come down. And that is going to mean some hard choices."

Yes, our Government, like all governments, should have an exit strategy. But it is too early to take our currently traumatised economies off their life-support systems just because bank profits have started to recover. That should be the message Gordon Brown takes to Pittsburgh for Thursday's meeting of the G20.

Shocking example of death penalty in US

2009-09-17T12:18:00.000+01:00

As a long-standing American immigrant in the UK, the issue of the death penalty (along with the excellent NHS) is one that really stands out as a moral differentiator between here and the States.

This shocking example, reported in the New York Times, where State of Ohio plans to try again next week after failing to execute a convicted rapist-murderer. A team of technicians spent two hours on Tuesday in an unsuccessful effort to inject him with lethal drugs.

Public sector pay: false choices

2009-09-17T11:29:00.002+01:00

I wrote a letter in response to Simon Jenkins' (that's Sir Simon Jenkins) piece in the Guardian yesterday, where he argued for a cut in public sector pay to pay for the bank-debt we all face.

I have long been concerned about the economics of contracting-out for basic low-skilled services, as much of the cost is labour. Lower wages, terms and conditions don't necessarily mean savings for the taxpayer, looked at in the round - low wages are topped up by benefits paid for by the taxpayer.

While there is a strong argument for the contracting out and sharing of services for back-office functions, cashable savings for cleaners, school dinner staff or caretakers are much more virtual.

Guardian letter on Productivity in the Public Sector.

Balls to bat left

2009-09-16T16:37:00.003+01:00

According to Paul Waugh, Ed Balls is to set out where New Labour went all wrong in the New Statesman.

According to Waugh’s blog former Treasury adviser Balls is to say:

"We did not always strike this balance right: in public service reform, we sometimes sounded as though private sector solutions were always more efficient; and who can now doubt that, despite the tougher measures we brought in, financial regulation was not tough enough?"

“We need to continue to get this balance right as we prepare our manifesto - and be clear about the limits of but also the proper role for government"

“The biggest global recession in our lifetimes has not only required unprecedented action, it has also shattered some of the assumptions the right have clung to for decades…

“Who would now dare claim that financial markets, left to their own devices, are efficient or inherently stabilising? Or that financial market regulation is always to be reduced wherever possible?

“The global financial crisis of the past year has underlined the importance of our defining philosophy: while markets are powerful drivers of growth and innovation, there is a vital role for the state in making sure they work fairly and in the public interest.”

I have some problem with the clumsy jockeying of position and ‘batting left’ of ministers so closely associated with New Labour policies (especially those from the Treasury), who now are attempting to rewrite history with what looks like early shadow leadership bids.

Post-election leadership contest my view? The gloomy choice is best summed up by paraphrasing the end of Hamlet Act 2 Scene II:

“And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Balls delights not me: no, nor Harman neither…”

Prayer break used for political stunt by Lib Dems

2009-09-15T17:09:00.002+01:00

Insensitive Lib Dem council leader Keith Moffitt used Ramadan prayers as a chance to get one over on his Labour opposition leader last night at the Town Hall.

All political parties agreed a short break in proceedings so that Muslim members of the council could ‘break fast’ – or Iftar - at 7.29pm.

Iftar, refers to the evening meal for breaking the daily fast during the Islamic month of Ramadan. Or a meal served at the end of the fasting day during Ramadan, to break the day's fast. Literally, "breakfast." Iftar during Ramadan is often done as a community, with Muslims gathering to break their fast together, usually 12 to 15 minutes after sunset.

The next item on the Council Agenda was the Leader’s address to the council, an item which is immediately followed by a shorter address by the main opposition leader, Labour’s Nasim Ali.

But while Nasim and another councillor went to break fast, and then do short prayers, Cllr. Moffitt decided to start his speech even though Ali wasn't there and was mean to respond to it.

Thereby seemingly using a religious break for some sharp political practice.

When Cllr. Ali returned to the chamber (shortly after but at the end of Moffitt’s speech), he was rudely challenged by a Lib Dem councillor – asking how he could respond to a speech he wasn’t present for.

Not to make too much of a fuss on this, but the whole tone of this was bang out of order and insensitive – and you got the sense that the Lib Dems thought they were being clever pulling some fast political trick.

Clearly councils either respect the different traditions of their diverse communities or they don't. Last night was embarrassing for Camden.

Notably, no apology was forthcoming from Keith Moffitt.

"David and George got the big judgements wrong"

2009-09-14T16:48:00.003+01:00

Peter Mandelson goes on the offensive, painting clear dividing lines on public services and the economy for the election ahead of us.

Key passages:

On the economy:

Look at the Tories' response to the recession. Whilst Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling took the decisive action needed, their opposite numbers were left floundering. David and George got the big judgements wrong.

If we had followed the course the Tories urged on us, the recession would have been deeper and longer, and the costs to our public finances far worse. We would have seen Northern Rock, its savers and mortgage-holders, go to the wall. There would have been no funding for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme that has given real help to small businesses. There would have been no VAT cut to stimulate demand. There would have been no money for the car scrappage scheme.

It is no use the Tories claiming different. They opposed the fiscal stimulus and wanted to take £5 billion out of the economy straightaway in the middle of a severe downturn.

On public services:

The Tories will spend less on public services. But in return less will be expected of public services. Less will be required of those who work in public services. Less spending, less real reform is what the Tories offer.

On the NHS, the cave-in to producer interests has been craven. They have sided with the BMA against extended GP opening hours. Difficult NHS reforms undertaken by the Government have been opposed every step of the way by David Cameron.

...In schools, the same principle is being applied where the Tories are proposing to drop the Sats test in the last year of primary school. Accountability to parents is to be sacrificed in favour of the producer interest. It's part of the same unspoken pact.

And the big claims made for Michael Gove's school reforms are undermined when the small print reveals that at the heart of them lies a £4.5 billion cut to the funding of school building projects.