Perhaps, Floodplain, for the same reason/s you didn't. You do not support Labour so we will assume your political leanings are to the right of that party, how far right we don't know but a good reason to put up for election to try and reduce Labour's power in Southwark. Or is it asking too much of you ?
At the time, Peter John reckoned "This new deal with Lend Lease amounts to little more than throwing Heygate residents out of their homes and building new luxury housing which they won't be able to afford". The similarity with current criticisms can only be a coincidence because, almost as soon as Labour took control, that same deal was promptly signed. And now it seems he was right.
Yes, a big thank you to PROS who have worked hard for so long and the other groups too. And the genuine independent press.
PeterJohn is on twitter, or by email, making remarks about individuals / gcoups and therefore dishes it out, so can expect replies in kind. Some remarks have been pretty nasty and exchanges reflect the gutter that Peter et al like debate in. The division making, "rightwing" "anti-council" etc anything to ridicule and belittle those who rock the boat, carries on unabated. They are incapable of doing anything else.
We could all stand for election and we could all seek to be selected to be elected because without the party political machine brand its pretty hopeless in elections.
BUT what PROS and others do is a different useful function.
We are not gagged by party whips or petty control freaks
We are not captured in cosy relationships with officers
We have not shackled ourselves to a code of conduct that requires us to trust officers or not comment on legal matters
We do not propagate the illusion that councillors make decisions when actually officers do
Or the illusion the we have a "Labour" administration
We do not succumb to hospitality
We do not have to collaborate in a culture of corruption
And so on...
There are clearly advantageous to be elected (e.g. slush, hospitlality, allowances etc) however the disadvantages are mammoth.
Without the party they have little power. And with the party they are subordinated to it. And in Southwark the Southwark Magazine videos clearly show that big business property developers now run the show and Southwark Labour is in turn subordinated to them.
Obviously Peter changed his mind for a 20million pound health centre deal to drive "Labour" on in 2015 and 2018 elections. A stunt to be repeated at Canada Water although not at the Housing Revenue Account's expense this time.
We should all be grateful to Peter uniting so many diverse people around Southwark in resistance to Peter's Cabinet that believes forced resettlement of residents is a reasonable way to behave.
What a bizarre kind of socialism. Even Boris gave more recognition to the harm and distress caused by some of these policies.
Even if the deals did yield hundreds of millions for Southwark there is not justification for some of what has been done whatsoever.
Southwark says that complaints are goood, an opportunity to makes things better. Then it wants to compare itself with low complaints volumes. The Council just makes things up.
And it was all so unnecessary. But then some of Peter's bunch barely hide their contempt.
Thank you pros and hhrca for your informative posts.
Like you, hhrca, I sense a feeling of contempt for the people of Southwark. How else could we explain what has been happening.
I will be going along to City Hall this evening to hear Peter John speaking at the Leader's Public Question Time.
"A Fairer Future. Delivering Our Promises"
The Leader's Public Question Time at City Hall started 15 minutes late. PJ mentioned wanting to improve democracy in Southwark, building eleven thousand new council homes, and talking about free gym and swimming.
The first questions concerned loss of diversity in the borough as local families were being priced out, social cleansing of tenants, and PJ's siding with Lend Lease on the Heygate development and how people had been treated "appallingly" over this. PJ denied this, and described it as a good deal. (For whom, I wondered) It seems that many more homes have been sold or demolished in the borough, but only a very few built. Businesses are finding recruitment difficult due to a lack of affordable housing.Due to time constraints we then had to move on to matters of health, free swimming, cycling, smoking in parks,obesity, trees, dog poo, housing management, families and young people, squatters, street lighting, police and crime, fire safety with the closure of two fire stations, and new schools.
Less would have been more, I feel.
Fewer topics discussed at greater length.
For a first Public Question Time it served the purpose of a good public relations exercise, but was unsatisfying as many questions, particularly about regeneration, were skimmed over or fobbed off with the "eleven thousand new homes" mantra.
I would welcome a Public Question Time devoted to regeneration alone, and with a host who was willing to probe more deeply into the issues affecting the residents of Southwark.
i was talking to someone the other night, saying the first thing the council said about the aylesbury was that 'it's not going to be another heygate' & this person, as he's not been neck-deep into the entire saga for years, said 'so they admitted the heygate was a disaster' (for what it's worth & i now think it really isn't 'worth' anything, cllr peter john himself somewhere said sth along the lines of they'd 'do the heygate differently' if he could turn back time)