Brock the Vote!

Don't forget to cast your vote in the Mayoral and Assembly elections today.


andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Already did! Much more important than being at work on time this morning!

Anonymous said...

I will be voting for Boris tonight.

b. said...

thats a shame

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tyrwhitt michael said...

Voted early doors

Diverse mix of green, conservative and liberal..........

Don't ask, even I am not sure how I arrived at that combination,
- too many similar policies?
- change from Ken?

Lets see what the results bring tomorrow

Anonymous said...

we've all just voted for Boris! Despite all the Ken posters up in our area.. probably the same folk who call their kids Moonshine!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Cmon Boris!
Sue Luxton i never heard of you until i read your opinion on this blog so you can thank this blog for you getting my number one!

Anonymous said...

My vote went to Ken plus Green for all others. Come on Ken, I can't believe how many naive people are voting for Boris - shows that you're easily led by the Evening Standard, more fool you.

Tom said...

I can't help but post this Boris link.

However, I think if Boris does get it it's mainly because of the Standard's hate campaign against him (entirely unrelated to the renegotiation of the Metro contract in two years' time - details).

(More on the Standard's shameless Johnson bias here.)

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

I hope boris doesnt get in. I will be very bad for any poorer areas like lewisham, he will champion the richer surburbs in the west

Anonymous said...

Eight years ago, I lived through (somehow) the nightmare of Bush getting the US presidency after Clinton. I moved to the UK. If you think New Labour is something to complain about.. honestly, it could have been so much worse.

That said, if Boris gets in, I'm going to have to consider moving back to (hopefully, by then) Obamaland; & take my taxable earnings with me. I just can't watch it all unravel again. Too traumatic.

Sidebar (as, inspite of not being a UK citizen, I do get to vote in local elections) -- kudos to Brockley's Green councillors for making their efforts known via this blog, and their own. I'm sure this online activity is merely an extension of a lot of listening that you do in the community. However I think your online presence demonstrates that you can tap into the bored-yet-overworked office-bound electorate. And you got my vote as a result. Keep it up.

Amanda said...

I am

Amanda said...

Whoops, I am in a right state at the moment. I think Boris is going to get in. Quel horreur!

Tom said...

My worry about Boris is that he had no positive platform of policies.

He was the 'not Ken what a laugh' candidate.

Opinion this morning is that he might well have won, and that makes me nervous given the above.

The only consolation is that Boris won't actually be in charge - a bunch of apparatchiks around him, responsible to David Cameron, will be doing so instead.

For non-Tories this might not be much consolation!

Results expected early this evening.

Headhunter said...

The Evening Standard did operate a shameless trash Ken/support Boris campaign. It's plain to see that the ES is merely a puppet with the Daily Mail as puppet master. Such sensationalism!

They also seem to be on a 1 man mission to bring house prices in London down (sorry to mention house prices again!) They have an a sensationalist article about "crashes", "dramatic falls" and general end of the world as we know it just because LIBOR hasn't fallen with BoE rates.

Anyway, I sincerely hope the bumbling buffoon does not get in. I voted Paddick/Livingstone and Green for the assembly.

Anonymous said...

Similarly Sue Luxton got my vote because of here posts on here. I otherwise would probably have gone for the Lib Dem candiate without even knowing much about them, however, Sue was clearly making an effort and showed that she was really knowledgeable and opinionated about my local area. For that reason I persuaded my partner to give Sue his vote too!

Bea said...

I voted Ken for mayor and Green for eveything else! And as mentioned by others Sue got my vote because of her voice here and the commitment she has shown to Ladywell Ward.

Anonymous said...

I've got to be honest, I'm not happy with the way that Londoners get 4 copies of the Daily Mail every day.

Get to the station, there's nothing to do other than read the Metro Mail

Get to work, and you might pick up a copy of the Evening Standard Mail

My gym hands out free copies of the full-fat Daily Mail

And on your way home, a free copy of the Mail Lite

Headhunter said...

Yes it is hard to see past the Daily Mail guff and nonsense sometimes in London - they do have a stranglehold

fabhat said...

i voted ken, then green, green, green - like lots of us Sue's presence on this website defintiely affected my vote for the local member. I think the prospect of Boris becoming mayor is pretty terrifying...

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

True, Sue does have opinions. But isn't she the lady who wanted to 'bring down the WTO'?

If not the WTO, then you need somthing else - clearly Sue should stick to chaining herself to trees.

If she gets in, I will feel sorry for all those foreign countries who have benefited from the WTO.

Anonymous said... the UK. Nice try, APP&P.

Am I the only one who conscientiously objects to the free papers? I get my news fix online instead. The papers not only turn your brain to mush, they are terrible for the Environment with a big E, and the local environment too in terms of litter all over the place. They are horrible things and i hope they die.

Anonymous said...

I voted for Sue Luxton because of reading her input on the blog.

Go Sue!

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Since when is the UK a foreign country to the UK?

Amanda said...

If Ken has lost this election. Then questions need to be asked about his campaign. I saw him in passing at Peckham about 2 weeks ago, I was on the 171 and he looked really tired. His campaign in general was lacklustre, they were no exciting ideas. Even his most ardent supporters would accept that.

If Boris gets in, I think we're gonna to see an increased political engagement in general and with the young in particular a sort of "fight the power" vibe.

And the reason for this will be, I think, that the enormity of office for Boris is going to turn him into a reactionary. I suspect he will overcompensate for the percieved non seriousness of his personality by becoming authoritarian.

Finally I suspect that the BNP will have showed better than expected, in contrast to Ken, they ran a slick, well targetted campaign.

But we'll see tonight. I hope I am wrong with everything I've said here.

Tom said...

I don't think it's very well recognised that London Lite is the Associated/Mail's spoiler to try to kill off its only competition in London - The London Paper.

It did the same way back when, when it 'relaunched' the Evening News to successfully kill off Maxwell's attempted rival, the London Daily News.

It comes to something when I'm glad it's Murdoch that's backing the London Paper - I can't see him backing off this fight.

Tom said...

Amanda, given the types of powers that the Mayor has, I'm not sure if Boris will be able to bring in particularly reactionary policies.

This is because most of the Mayor's powers seem to be bureaucratic and technical, exactly the areas where Boris lacks skills in.

Amanda said...

Tom, he has already that kids who cause trouble on buses will have their free travel passes taken away and they will have to earn it via a "payback London" scheme.

On the surface this doesn't appear unreasonable, but I suspect that the definition of what a troublemaker is apt to spread, to things that are not considered reasonable.

But this is mere conjecture...

Anonymous said...

I hope Boris will highlight the plight of the average PAYE worker in London who crams onto overcrowded trains every morning to work hard for 10 hours a day and pay into our nations coffers whilst the lazy minority sit at home in their free flat watching the Jeremy Kyle Show and living off the social welfare system. Meanwhile their hoodie-wearing kids run riot on the streets and mug the workers who pay for them on their way home from the station. Hopefully we get a zero-tolerence attitute to crime where the lazy parents go to jail with their kids if they are cought up to no good. Also I hope teachers will be again allowed to dicipline tearaway children by using the back of their hand if required. I was slapped as a kid and didn't need therapy to get 'over' it as I knew I was misbehaving.

patrick1971 said...

I'm a bit of an election night anorak, and I happily tuned in at 11.30 last night with the idea of staying up until 2 or so to see if Ken or Boris got it. Imagine my disappointment when I found out that the counting wasn't even going to start until 8am today!

I voted for Sian, then Ken, then Green on the other two forms.

What surprises me quite a lot is just how much ignorance there is about the voting process. I was talking to a colleague at work this morning, and he claimed to have voted for his local council! I said he couldn't have, and his response was, "well, there were three ballot papers. One was for the mayor, what were the other two for if not for my local council?"

I think you have to give BoJo credit for his doughnut strategy; Ken does ignore the outer boroughs, probably because they stiffed him so badly on Fares Fair back in the 80s and he's never forgiven them.

I've still got my fingers crossed for Ken to do a 1992-style John Major comeback, but we shall see. If BoJo does do something punitive about yoof on the bus, though, he'll be doing well as far as I'm concerned.

creepylesbo said...

Yes, it was annoying that Ken actually had a lot of the policies already in place but didn't mention them - such as taking away passes of any children who misbehave on buses. Frankly the children on buses issue is a big one for me - get them off their lazy little bums. They all go one stop on the 343 up Telegraph Hill and then a whole bus load of children get off and delay the bus. I then get abused by those few naughty kids on the way home as they don't pay (thus the bus stops and refuses to move until they get off), they play their mobile music (it sounds dreadful! Invest in some earphones!), spraying me with god knows what (this has happened twice to me), abusing me for looking like a lesbian and like the sort of person who would 'be going home for a cup of tea' (I'm not sure how that's an insult but it was certainly made to sound that way) and threaten to 'tool' some other poor kid (does anyone know who to report that to?). And my police pal says not to report violence on buses because the police have all been told to concentrate on 'detected' crimes which means they just go around cautioning people found with cannabis as they get told they have to meet statistical quotas and not 'help the public' at all! (She's just as bummed out about this as I was - policemen and women really do want to help but they aren't actually allowed). God, not to mention the fact they all have to share one computer between over 30 officers - it's no wonder they complain about how long paperwork takes them!
My 2pees worth
* Stop building on the green areas of London. Stop cutting down trees. Save the greenbelt and make sure places like Brockley's Nature reserve and Epsom Downs are never built on or destroyed. More green spaces - even if they are small patches of overgrowth and woodland to give wildlife somewhere safe to go. At the moment all those 'spare' patches of ground are being bought up and made into housing blocks! People shouldn't have the open space at the backs of their houses taken away and then have a block of flats looking in on them.
* Stop all this 'buying to do up and then rent out at extortionate prices that no one can then afford' business. If you buy a house you should live in it.
* Congestion charge - I think it's a good idea, charge the big cars. You don't half notice the difference in half term. My bus actually takes the time it says it will on the timetable on a half term - otherwise I have to add another 30 mins at least to the time stated.
* Let the coppers actually help the public and not be told not to because of statistics and quotas. The police should be monitored but statistics are a really stupid way of doing it.

Anonymous said...

Strikes me that quite a few of the slightly more 'knee-jerk' correspondants on this site severely over-estimate the powers of any mayor! As irritating and damaging the behaviour of a minority of kids is, the unpleasant reality is that there is no quick fix, there is no 'one answer' to make it go away. The cause is growing inequality in an increasingly aspirational world and until these fundamental issues are resolved there really isn't a whole lot politicians can do about youth behaviour, despite their tough words.

Headhunter said...

Oooh Anon 12:34, someone's been diligently reading their Evening Standard! In fact do you write most of their articles?

Creepylesbo... Loved your post... So you look like a lesbian on her way home for a cup of tea... So I'm picturing a middle aged lady with twin set and pearls, paired with Doc Martens black tights and a radical hairdo... Sorry if that's stereotypical.

Know what you mean about the kids on the buses though - annoying little b'stards sometimes. And I fully agree with the need to keep greenbelt, although I do see that there is some pressure on housing availability in London.

Don't really agree that people shouldn't buy to let though, if rent prices were impossibly high, people wouldn't rent these places. Investment from landlords is what keeps some buidlings in shape. If there's no investement from landlords along with the usual punters looking to buy flats, I'm sure buildings in areas like Brockley would just fall derelict. I seriously wonder if there would be high enough demand.

Tressillian James said...

Voted Paddick for Mayor, Sue and the greens for everything else.

It will come down to second votes on the mayor though.....

Agree with everyone else on here re Sue - does this mean we all want involved councillors more than anything else?

Anonymous said...

I think all the candidates, parties and election machinery have done a terrible job of letting people know what the mayor does & doesn't do. Its a unique job, after all. From what i understand, the mayor has a degree of control over:
- the police
- transportation
- planning
and that's about it. S/he can't do anything directly little issues such as, oh i don't know, child poverty, or really anything that takes a holistic response. For that, S/he has to haggle with the London Assembly and 40 local authorities, all with their own political allegiances etc. Its a miracle anything gets done; personally I think Ken's done a great job and I don't understand why everyone's so down on him. I voted for him this time; in the past (when it was clear he'd win) i voted green - just to nudge him in the right direction. Tactical voting, after a fashion.

patrick1971 said...

"As irritating and damaging the behaviour of a minority of kids is, the unpleasant reality is that there is no quick fix, there is no 'one answer' to make it go away."

There is an easy answer to make it go off the buses, though, and that's to get rid of their free passes if they misbehave and make them earn them back with a bit of good old community service.

Not meaning to mock your ordeal, creepylesbo, but I love the idea of "you're going home for a cup of tea" being shouted at someone as an insult. Sounds more like heaven to me!

Just checked the counts coming out from Alexandra Palace; BoJo slightly ahead on first preferences.

Anon 12:34 said...

Headhunter - i have never bought the Evening Standard in my life but i might start. They must be very well read if i sound like them ;)

In all seriousness, I just dont think it fair that PAYE workers should support the long-term 'depressed' and their litter of 10 dilinquents. Do you? Especially when I cant even afford a kid of my own, so why should i support unemployed people who keep having more children or single people who cant stop reproducing? To me thats a form of social-welfare abuse - you ever seen 'Shameless'? Instead i reckon the taxpayer should give childrens-allowance to parents for the first 2 kids and after that they get nothing extra. This removes the incentive to sprog up.

I believe it would be fairer to support those who are made redundant through no fault of their own and need some temporary help until they can find another job. Or help for those who are genuinely long-term ill such as cancer suffers etc...

Under Labour i think this country has started to suffer from an incredibly soft approach to abuse of the social welfare system which drains resources destined for schooling, policing or healthcare. This contributes to the problem of it taking 45 minutes for the police to answer a 999 call. And this soft approach has seeped to other areas such as dealing with the street thugs and crime; the diciplining of tearaway children who are denying good kids an education; illegal immigration etc.. We should do what they did in NYC and have a zero tolerance attitude to law breaking. Not a "hug-them-till-they're-good" approach.

This is merely my humble opinion, and guess what, I actually voted for Tony Blair in the last election. I am not some 'conservative till I die' supporter.

PS - just in case you are interested - 27 year old white male, working in West End, living in SE4 for 3 years, GSOH.

Anonymous said...

gay or straight?

Tom said...

I think we are seeing (12.34 Anon), the emergence of a new form of right-wing populism.

I keep on reading and hearing these kind of views. I don't agree with them - there's a lot of ignorance bundled in there (since when was Shameless a documentary?!) - but I hear a kind of ennui with the form of crypto-technocratic-statism espoused by the current lot in power.

I'm just not convinced illogical authoritarianism will be any better!

Anonymous said...

At some point we need a sensible, adult debate on just who should and shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

fabhat said...

have I missed something? Are we going to start on eugenics? Didn't notice that as part of any of the mayoral candidates - even Boris...

Tom said...

Any sensible debate on eugenics would be very short.

Anonymous said...

Probably yes, but what's the alternative? Letting people carry on regardless? We set (some) limits on immigration based on what you bring to the country but none at all on what you can do if you're already here?

Anon 12:34 said...

Tom if you can see a "lot of ignorance" in my comment, please let me know where? Its q pretty rude thing to say so i would like to hear some justification if possible.

And yes, I know Shameles isnt a documentary but it is based around a segment of society which actually exists if to a lesser extreme - did you see Shannon Matthews mother?


fabhat said...

astounding. Because eugenics/population control has always been so successful in the past.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

I think it comes down to people knowing their 'responsiblity' to society as well as their 'rights'.

As i mentioned before, there are alot of people who have lived in the UK who know their rights and have a tie to the community around them. For the same reason, they also know their responsiblity. Imigrants to the UK will not have this tie but will champion their rights based on what they hear before coming here. They would not care less about their responsibility.

This means they are more likely to 'sponge' off the state. I hate saying it, but I think its a likely scenario.

mljay said...

voted ken for mayor, 2nd paddick. totally dreading the possibility of boris being elected mayor, not only because he is a bit of a joke, cannot string a sentance together, but mainly as he ran a "i am not ken" platform. what use is he going to be.

Tom said...

Anon 12.34 - I didn't think your post about the long-term depressed and unemployed and their 10 children depriving you of the ability to spawn was the most factual article I have ever read.

Sorry if I offended.

Maybe next time you should include academic references?

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

I also question the net benefit to having alot of immigration to the UK.

If a unskilled labourer comes to the UK then even if they get a job it means they are competing against other unskilled labourers - thereby depressing the salaries for both.

The interesting aspect is that the new immigrant will probably send a proportion of their income out of the UK to their own country where things are cheaper, to lead a more luxurious lifestyle for themselves and/or their family.

This means money is leaving the UK. This results in a reduction in the capital value of the UK asset base and a reduction in taxes collected (if the person will leave the UK economy).

The salary for the remaining worker will, however, still be depressed due to competition from new immigrants.

Whilst the immigrant is here they will enjoy the benefits from a progressive taxation system, free NHS etc. They, or their kids, will not be here in the long term to pick up the pieces and eventual higher taxes neccessary to pay for the addtional benefits initialled received.

There is a strong economic arguement to encourage 'permanent' immigration and that needs to be assessed alongside the cost of integration. e.g. How many langauges are used to print council leaflets/newsletters?

The other problem is, is that english people tend to be more reserved and insular. We would not even think that some of things non natives would do, just to get ahead, would be possible. We as a nation are rich, we have not experienced the desperation some non-natives have in their own countries.

Headhunter said...

Anon 12:34... Yes you need to pick up the ES, or have a butchers at their website I know what you mean though, it can feel frustrating that people might be living the life of riley off your taxes, but I think there is certainly a level of hysteria, fuelled by the likes of the Daily Mail and the ES surrounding this issue.

BTW, flattered that you seemed to be trying to pick me up, but I'm male and you're straight, so I don't think there's any future between us....

Anonymous said...

Anon - you can't afford your own kid? I'd like to know how much were you intending to spend on one.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

you can get a 'made in china' version at low cost, they manufacture them at the dozen over there! :o)

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

@headhunter, honestly mate, buy a cat!

Anonymous said...


Maybe we need an exchange system where we can trade our indiginous Shameless types for hard working immigrants.

Could be a difficult one to sell, though it has been done in the past. The Australians got wise to it.

Anonymous said...

Bit of an about-turn for them then - seeing as we populated that particular country with our indigenous, Shameless types

Anonymous said...

Oh god. I just feel really sad and very embarassed that London has really gone and voted in Boris. What chaos will he cause Crossrail? What catastrophe will happen at the Olympics? And he will never achieve push forward as many of the Green policies that Ken would have done. Those people who voted Boris have lost all right to ever ridicule or question America voting in Bush.

Headhunter said...

Andy, I don't get it, you keep telling me I need a cat! What's a cat going to do for me! I'm a dawg man....

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

no idea. Cats are really nice, friendly, never spiteful.

.. and i happen to 'maybe' have some kittens on the way...!

Headhunter said...

I see, so it's a marketing ploy to offload a kitten...

Anonymous said...

Well despite their non-appearance on this blog I decided to vote for Ken and Len Duvall..

Better and more bus services, overground rail to come under Mayoral control, continual lobbying of Southern to get oyster to our stations and the biggest investment to transport since the second world war.

More police on our streets and a commitment to dedicate resources to reduce crime and to increase youth provision... Whilst the Tories have voted against the budgets that have delivered these.

Fifty percent of new homes must be affordable... a target to be scraped by Boris.

Oh and Boris opposed Kyoto, thinks Ken's policies to reduce pollution from lories are "draconian" and it has taken him eight years to understand it is not acceptable to refer to black people as "piccaninnies".

Oh but wouldn't it be hilarious if this right-wing pillock becomes mayor!

I agree with Charlie Brooker. I wouldn't trust Boris to operate a mop let alone a £10bn Crossrail project.

Apparently the counting is going very slowly so there's a chance that I'll be asleep and will miss the unbearable pudge-faced smuggery (again thanks to Charlie) on the telly later tonight.

Anonymous said...


Before you know it there will be fox hunting on Hilly Fields and he will send his game keepers to cull the feral parrots with their shot guns.

We will enter an era of rule by a man in tweeds, a neo-feudal party animal.

Amanda said...

Apparently bookies are now paying out on Boris win, despite not all the votes counted yet. Ken usually does well with the second vote but it looks not even this will save him. I feel uncomfortably numb at this moment.

Anonymous said...

Well, to elaborate, the Evening Standard are saying that bookies are paying out on Boris. Not quite sure why they wouldn't wait till tomorrow.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

that, and just making conversation!

So, what are people doing this weekend? supporting local business in brockley or leaving london?

Anonymous said...

I'm off shooting watermelon-mouthed piccaninnies

Anonymous said...

yep, ho ho ho, I suppose the above is an example of the kind of 'humour' we're to expect in the London political discourse in the coming years.

Sam said...

HH and APP&P, thank you for making me laugh! I'll be supporting local business in Brockley this weekend and drowning my sorrows that we have voted in Boris... but as they say, you get the leaders you deserve.

Amanda said...

I've just heard that we have to wait until midnight for the final result, and to think I was moaning about Mugabe taking his time.

Anonymous said...

Wheyhey bring on Boris! They reckon he's done it - delighted!

Amanda said...

Hold on, it's not quite in the bag yet. Sky news is reporting that it's still close 40, 42 in Boris' favour.

Monkeyboy said...

Greenwich & Lewisham voted Ken. Perhaps we can declare independence?

andy pandy pudding & pie said...


What have we done!?!?!??!?!!?!!!??!?!?!!

(boris wins)

Anonymous said...

Jesus wept. We have elected a clown of monumental proportions!

Monkeyboy said...

having just heard Boris's speech compared to Ken's I think it's clear that we've voted out a flawed but great leader and voted in a twat.

Amanda said...

Oh dear, I knew it was going to happen, but I had hoped that maybe something could have been pulled out of the bag. Oh dear.

I think I am going to go on a media blackout for the next week. I don't think I can take the crowing and or stomach seeing Boris' grinning features all over the place. Oh dear oh dear.

Anonymous said...

Dear Andy, Pandy Pudding & Pie,
you are making some embarrassing comments about immigrants which are highly misleading. I can understand your angst, given the poor education you have clearly had which has burdened your shoulders with large chips.
You say that migrants are "more likely to 'sponge' off the state. I hate saying it, but I think its a likely scenario".
Out of sympathy, I would like to arm you with some facts based on comprehensive research carried out by the IPPR think tank.

Basically, its report on economic migration shows that foreigners are far, far less likely to claim benefits than "indigenous" Brits. They come here to work not to slack off. (Well they are not here for the weather, are they).
Do something useful and follow the link below. In fact, more than half the Poles who arrived in the UK since EU enlargement in 2004 have gone back.

Anonymous said...

I'm saddended to read some of the comments on this notice board. One of the biggest reasons I chose to live in SE4 was because people seemed to be level headed, seemed to understand what living in London is all about. Where do people get these stupid facts about crime from?! How can people vote in a man that has no experience and no understanding of what it means to be a londoner. A truly truly sad day for London.

Anonymous said...

Look at it a different way.

Mayor of London is a noddy job compared with the power that role has in other great cities. For example New York and Paris mayors are very powerful, can make great changes and it is seen as a stepping stone to the Presidency.

In the UK, this role is a recent innovation with limited powers over transport, police and planning. Ken was frustrated by not being able to fully control transport which is stitched up with PFI deals.

The buses and the congestion zone, were about all he could do.

Boris may be a chump but we might get some cycle lanes and tarted up routemasters out of him.

The government holds many of the cards with respect to London. I do hope the work continues towards an integrated transport system.

It will be highly damaging to the Conservatives if Boris screws up. While Ken was always a maverick outsider, Boris is Camerons old school chum. Tory central office will be very worried and the newspapers won't take long to find Boris up to some silliness and take the mickey right up to the general election.

Ken screwed up. His cronyism caught up with him. I believe the Lee Jasper affair damaged him greatly and many suspect it was the tip of the iceberg. He had to go.

London mayor is just a side show in UK power politics, though quite entertaining.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

oh dear, poor anonomous:

Firstly i doubt very much that millonaire poles have suddenly come to the UK and welcomed paying higher taxes here.

It is those in Poland who are looking to get higher salaries that benefit by migranting to the UK. These people tend to be at the lower end of the income distribution - hence the need - to travel away from their domestic country.

The point I was making about 'sponging' from the state was not just to do with state benefits. It is also to do with taxation levels.

Justto educate you abit (you obviously need it), we have a distrubtion of wealth from the rich to the poor via different levels of taxation. Those paying lower taxes will benefit from this distribution whilst being in the UK. (in various ways - indirect funding from central government to councils, etc..).

The interesting fact is that your research backs up part of my concerns:

"In fact, more than half the Poles who arrived in the UK since EU enlargement in 2004 have gone back".

THIS IS THE PROBLEM! The immigrants gain the wealth then leave - this REDUCES The wealth of our country, and limits future taxation of the assets.

It is what i call TEMPORARY IMMIGRATION - And i think it is very damaging unless there is a clear lack of supply of a particular labour in the UK.

Now please anon, think about what you say. Your half-baked, illogical arguments really destory whatever in the UK we have left to fight for.

Anonymous said...

The Tories simply will not allow Boris to make any major gaffes. they'll throw all their resources at keeping him out of trouble.

Without wanting to be rude, I think most of those who voted for Boris have been conned. Bullingdon Club Tories don't govern as progressives, they cut back vital services and do whatever they can to extend elitism and privelige.

If you're a right-wing Tory and you voted for him, that makes sense. If your on the Left and you voted for him, you are a naive fool.

Meanwhile, I'll try to enjoy the rest of this Bank Holiday weekend given to me by a Labour Government . . .

Anonymous said...


You are making an argument for protectionism. Keep the capital and labour localised.

That is a daft idea, it leads to skill shortages and low investment. Fastest way to a recession.

Governments are not good at centralised planning of the economy. That was the big lesson of the twentieth century.

The US economy with its single currency and free mobility of labour makes it a powerful economic power.

The EU countries want some of that. The UK is keener than most, with a history of free trade. It is leading the way in Europe, in this respect. We benefited from an influx of thousands of the best people from from Eastern Europe at little social cost. Nicely spread around the country.

All those East Europeans worked in businesses that got richer, acquired wealth and capital. Growing businesses attract investment from abroad.

So what if the workers take their savings home. They will have spent a lot of their salary here anyway, just to live.

The economic case for free mobility of capital and labour is sound and we are ahead of the game.

I think I disagree with just about everything you say.

Anonymous said...

don't worry, AP&P your views are now articulated on the London Assembly.

"He said he believed immigrants who have arrived in the past 15 years were taking more than they were giving"

Just join the BNP, log onto their site and stop polluting this one with your ignorance.

By the way how's the planning for the 'England Day' going?

Anonymous said...

anonymous - whats wrong with having an England day please?...given that we live in England then i think its a great idea to celebrate English culture and hertitage. We could all drink bitter, dress as morris dancers and have a good old laugh. Every other country celebrates their identity but if you should about being English your OTT somehow.

Tamsin said...

The Week in Westminster this morning was quite interesting - discussion of what would happen with Boris as Mayor, by those who know him and have employed him in the past. (probably catch-up-able with on the radio 4 website) According to them, underneath the buffoonery there is an original genius and a strong but maverick ambition. Also, although he is Oxbridge elite there is an imaginative empathy with others. Also, and this sounds good news, an impatience with beurocracy and self-serving cover-up politics.

Genuinely interesting times ahead...

Tamsin said...

@ anonymous 12.49. But an England Day is so totally un-English! Anything as vulgar as blatant patriotism just makes us squirm with embarrassment. Napoleon, Hitler and Galtieri all misinterpreted the English penchant for deprecating undertstament. They would not ever publicly vote for the declaration that "This House would Fight for King and Country" - but they joined up to be parachuted into Franch at the risk of being shot as spies if they were caught, to die on the D-day Beaches and to go that bridge too far at Arnhem.

Anonymous said...

'Impatience with self serving politics?' Genius!

The pillock lied to Michael Howard and to the press over the Petronella Wyatt affair!

Instead of just fessing up he just came up with toff nonsense about inverted pyramids of piffle!

And the speech he gave earlier was dreadful - no maverick genius there!

Fines from the congestion charge are the worst crime against civilisation? What a twat. Or perhaps that's the "imaginative empathy with others"?

Tamsin said...

Just quoting the programme contributors who know and have worked with Boris Johnson and personlly I am prepared to wait and see. I know it was a blatant campaign against Ken Livingston conducted by the ES but there has to be some truth in the allegations of jobs for the relatives and minor misappropriations surrounding his henchmen.
And Boris Johnson is undoubtedly brainier than he appears to be - which is not, admittedly, hard.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Galteiri "misinterpreted the English penchant for deprecating understament". He misinterpreted the English definition of the phrase "exclusion zone".

Sue Luxton said...

Many thanks for all the kind comments from those saying they supported the Greens - much appreciated. Sian and I didn't quite get elected ;), but the strong showing in Greenwich & Lewisham for Greens on the assembly list (strongest constituency for us after North East London) has helped us to get our two assembly members re-lected (Darren Johnson and Jenny Jones). Boris. Humph. Interesting times ahead indeed.

Sue Luxton said...

APP&P: the WTO in its current state favours developed countries to the detriment of developing nations and is lacking in transparency, accountability and democratic process. Green Party Policy is to "seek international agreement to replace the World Trade Organisation by a new General Agreement on Sustainable Trade, which would favour the local over the global and give back to individual states their right to discriminate over the type and quality of trade they engage in.” Clearly that’s something of an aspiration, given that we don’t yet have an MP, let alone a Green government ;), but Greens at an EU level continue to push to make the WTO more democratic and transparent than as it currently stands. Green MEP for the South East Caroline Lucas knows her stuff on international trade and sits on the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee.

I will stop there, as I suspect I am going somewhat off topic for this thread, not to mention potentially out of my depth ;).

Tamsin said...

@ anonymous 20.38
but he did also seriously misinterpret what the English would do about it.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

Sue, does that mean the greens are against globalisation? sounds like it from you comments above.

I think the globalisation needs to be controlled, as for the developed nations benefiting at the expense of the poor, well, I'm not qute sure how you are measuring it. The interesting thing about economics is that everything in the long term needs to balance - i.e. income = expense, assets = liabilities. You may have interpreted a short term negative against the developing nation without looking at the eventual positive side.

If yuou give me an example, i'll try to explain.

And thanks for engaging us Sue! I'm not a green, but its very important politicians engage the community, so well done!

Tamsin said...

Not presuming to answer for Sue who presumably has other examples, but I did hear on a documentary a few months back that the WTO principles of free trade in foodstuffs, providing cheap food for the poor, were - iroincally - damaging the local economy in Brazil. It was cheaper to eat imported foodstuffs from the USA, peppers and the like - either subsidized or produced with the economies of scale - than for local farmers to grow them for the local market. Not what it should be about.

Hugh said...

Hi Sue. I always thought you were quite fit for a politician.

ALI KATI said...

Globalized free trade is a myth anyway. Isn't the US, one of the biggest proponents of free market policies, also incredibly protectionist of its own markets? Local markets of developing countries should be able to grow their own local businesses without being swamped by other countries before they're ready to compete.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

I dont think they would be completely swamped. For an exporter to sell in a different country then there is transport costs, inmport duties to pay etc, all of these still add to the cost of trading, let along the manufacturing costs (which in the western world would generally be higher than in poorer countries - hence the shift to places like China and India). Domestic produce would not pay these costs. Only if the domestic country has artifically high wages (due to socialist policies that are not free market based) then yes, a domestic producer would not be as rich as they were. This isn't neccessary a bad thing.

The flip side of this is that the supply of skilled labour imported into the UK (rather than manufactured produce, as we dont manufacture in the uk) has actually depressed the wages in the uk for the whole labour market. This comes down to controls on immigration levels.

If you agree globalisation should be limited, then it means implicitly you agree that markets should be protected - whether in a poorer country or not. This also means restrict labour immigration in developed countries.

What really annoys me is that you get certain politicians - often those uneducated in economics who advocate protecting developing countries markets WHILST advocating the benefits onf increased immigration - this is EXTREMELY damaging to the UK, people cant compete for jobs in the UK labour market AND our UK companies cannot export.

Its 2 sides of the same coin, the question is, whats your preference?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Well I can tell you that if it wasn't for the free mobility of labour across the EU I would have been held to ransom by Brockley tradesmen especially the plumbers.

Moreover, my Doctor and Dentist both are from the EU. They seem to have too many in other countries and not enough here.

Somehow, I cannot see the Olympic projects being built without large amounts of labour from other countries.

I cannot see why people moving around like this is a bad thing. gives us time to train more of our own people and still get the work done when we have a temporary shortage of skilled labour.

That is part of having a fit economy and a benefit of being part of the EU wide free trade club.

I think the effects of immigration are over stated. It is a small porportion of the labour market in the UK. Maybe 1m out of 22m workers.

It simply acts to balance out the demand for labour quickly. Ensuring the slots are filled. This is a good thing.

We also have a minimum wage so wages don't go too low.

Globalisation is more to do with the trade between big trading blocs. The bigger the club you join, the more your bargaining power.

The UK has a foreign aid policy that emphasises debt reduction for states with weak economies and targets poverty reduction. The UK has led the way in this area for which Blair and Brown deserve some credit. The way forward is to increase the bargaining power of underdeveloped economies.

Sadly there is a limit to how much developed economies can do without harming their own interests. But it is in no-ones interests for under developed states to fail through bankruptcy, war and famine.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
andy pandy pudding & pie said...

And just for the record, I have 2 degrees in economics plus a professional qualification under my belt. Can you say the same mr anon?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, he is waving his diplomas at us!

Anonymous said...

He should certainly be awarded another qualification. A double roundabout degree from the University of the Brockley Cross. A first in spouting vexatious trollworthy drivel.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

and i would take it with pride!
Its an honour to be associated with such a famous institution, that being the brockley cross roundabout!

Anonymous said...

AP&P....Universities churn out lots of people with specific qualifications but who are woefully ignorant about anything outside their own subject. Try reading a few more books about stuff outside your narrow little mind - you know big papery things without pictures but lots of words. Something other than Dan Brown, Jeffrey Archer or Harry Potter though.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I for one don't see a problem with what he's saying (and no, I am not he posting under an anonymous tag)

Typical hippyish "yeah but ur wrong" slanging matches coming from the usual suspects though.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...

I dont really want to go in more detail on here, after scrolling up and reading my entries I don't think I have come across very clear but the arguements put forward against what I was trying to say do not hold weight.

The general point is this to illustrate:

Uk Labour (lets say. plumbers)

UK: 1000 of them, each getting paid £100 a year.

Rest of world: 10000 of them, each getting paid £10 a year.

Globalisation removes barriers, therefore instead of being two seperate markets there are now one:


Labour supply = (1000+10000) = 11,000.

Average wage: (1000*100+10000*10) = (100,000+100,000)/11,000 = £18

This is the LONG TERM average.

The substantial lower wage in the UK (£100 vs. £18) will NOT encourage new UK workers to train up. Any wage greater than £18 will encourasge more immigration to the UK. If anything new domestic labour supply will decrease.

Now, I dont have a problem with PERMANENT immigration, i.e. those that wish to stay and contribute to the UK, but my argument is concerned with TEMPORARY imigration.

With TEMPORARY IMMIGRATION, foreign workers will enter the UK market, and leave after a period of time. The LOWER wages that they get in the UK (compared to the UK as a whole) means that the income tax distribution effect (higher tax payers vs. lower tax payers) subsidises there income whilst they are here. i.e. they do NOT pay a tax equal to what they consume.

...But they leave... therefore they receive a net benefit whilst those left in the UK, receive a net cost.

Its a bit like renting a house, compared to a house owner, they will not care about the appearance or maintaince of the house as this is the landlords problem. Similarly, temporary immigrants will not care too much about he states finances as its 'their problem',

they are going back home, why wouild they care!?!??!

Sam said...

APP&P, I understand the academic theory of what you are saying (also having two degrees under my belt plus practical experience of working as an economic analyst), but I think you might be forgetting that economic theory is only theory, it is not gospel. There are as many reasons to support globablisation economics as there are to reject it. Much depends not on the facts, but on the socio-political perspective of the individual. Stating simplistic economic equations cannot change someone's politics, particularly when they have good experience of the positive side of the argument, in this case, a good Polish plumber etc. None of that makes your economic arguments "wrong", but nor are they necessarily "right". It's a subjective area, no matter how much economists would like to believe that it's a factual science.

Anonymous said...

Well, one of us tried to engage AP in a sensible discussion. I must say his responses certainly did not suggest he possesses an intellect sharpened by years of academic rigour.

More like a brain befuddled by years of quaffing and gassing down the Brockley Barge.

There are a lot of good reasons to be anonymous on a local site like this. Just because some of you lot have chosen daft names, that hardly confers any sort of added credibility.

Anonymous said...

So all temporary migrants are paid less than the locals?

All jobs are permanent rather than temporary labour requirements?

All workers will/can move to whichever labour market pays best?

Lots of assumptions there professor, it ain't the real world.

max said...

APP&P, your theories hare half-baked, that's the word.
That means that you use half of the argument and disregard the other half.

As workers can move so capitals can, this means that if capitalists don't like what they find then they will move their money away and the jobs will leave with them.
This means that for jobs that depends from large investments that can move around the world (large scale industry and manufacture) what the job market offers determines the investments, not the other way round. In turn those jobs create micro-economies that feed other jobs that although not directly dependent from those investments they derive from them.

A few comments above you said that you didn't believe that producers from industrialized countries wrecking developing countries' economies because of the added costs of export and transport compared to their competitiors in the developing countries.
I've got news for you, those are the only costs, those are surplus goods that would otherwise be disposed of as rubbish and it's cheaper to ship them to Africa than to destroy them. It's dumping, not competition!

But I'm sure you knew this as you have two degrees.

Conan said...

Great news- Boris is straight down to business today,
''As part of Boris Johnson's agenda, he is preparing to unveil a crackdown on crime which could be adopted nationwide if the Tories win the next election.

The new London mayor will order hundreds more policemen to patrol the streets and pledge to introduce weapon scanners at Tube and railway stations.

He will also set out plans to ban alcohol on the Underground and confiscate travel passes from young thugs.''
Well done!

max said...

Well, I'd rather say that Boris's PR team is down to business.

andy pandy pudding & pie said...


Yes, i know my example was theoretical but my last post before that one wasnt very clear, so i tried to make it clearer by removing all the extra dynamics (i.e. barriers, costs etc...) so people can at least see where i am coming from. Obviously in reality the extra bits need to be considered.

Sam also makes a good point about economic thought being judgemental, i.e. there are different views to different things (depending on how you model them and what political pursuaion you are).

My political view point is that I thoroughly believe in re-distribution of wealth, so that poor young children can aspire to better themselves and become rich and highly productive, if thats what they choose to do. I also believe 'diversity is a source of strength' to quote the Lib Dems party motto.

I cannot see a re-distribution of wealth in one state, with no barriers to protect it, successfully working in a world where people are free to travel in and out of that country with ease (not i say with ease, i am not advocating permanent long term barriers).

I understand the bit about the EU, and i support it - as we all have a similar sense of history that we want to preserve. But further beyond that our culture becomes more and more different.

I welcome diversity, and I feel the world should remain diverse (this is a factor that promotes innovation amoungst other things) but I do not want to see the UK becoming very similar to other countries, with similar wages, a similar taxation structure, as we have uniquely different cultural needs that should be preserved. - This is because I believe diversity is a source of strength.

Obviously there are many many other factors to consider, which I havn't mentioned for the fear of boring people to death, but I'd certaintly welcome a good civil debate with someone who knows abit as I really do feel, no matter how much I think about it, that we are going the wrong way economically.

Yes, we get short term benefits through globalisation, but in the long term, where is the world going? Are we still going to be diverse? What about innovation? What about different cultures? Will there be different cultures?

@Max, yes you are right. I think its wrong to say my ideas where 'half baked' but 'financial' markets obviously need to be in equalibrium with the 'real' markets.

The economic thought on whether or not financial markets should be open or closed is not directly linked with the real market.

Marisa said...

I wonder if Boris will continue where his predecessor left off and take the government to court over the Post Office closures?

Or whether Londoners in the lowest income bracket will benefit from the generosity from Hugo Chavez?

I fear not!

Anonymous said...

Couldn't care less about Post Offices myself - and their close tends to suggest that most people agree.

Anonymous said...

I think Boris will bring back a logical approach to dealing with problems in this city. Not just a pathetic 'hug it' better strategy which focuses on not offending anyone rather than delivering tangible results.

Labours knee-jerk reaction to the battering at the polls was to abandon plans to charge over-consumers who dump tonnes of rubbish. This was the first good policy they had proposed since the smoking ban yet because they assume the only reason people voted Conservative this time was financial this is their reaction. How shortsighted.

Conan said...

A great first appointment from Boris Johnson, much better than Lee Jasper!

''London Mayor Boris Johnson marked his first day in office yesterday by appointing a black deputy to work "night and day" on a crime crackdown across the capital.

The appointment of Ray Lewis, a former prison governor, as Deputy Mayor for Young People was a symbolic first move by Mr Johnson to dispel allegations of racism that dogged him throughout the election campaign while serving to highlight his manifesto priority of reducing crime.

Mr Lewis is a director of the Eastside Young Leaders Academy, a project that helps young men heading towards a career in crime turn their lives around.''

Brockley Central Label Cloud