Thoughts on the Hustings...

My first thought is: "Great! We have hustings, and they're well-attended."

One of the great things about Levenshulme is how engaged its residents are. We might disagree, squabble, snark and sneer, but ultimately we all love where we live, are proud of it and will defend it when outsiders look down on us. We go out on the streets, we campaign loudly and effectively and we speak up when we think something's wrong. So where other areas fail to engage voters in the electoral process (especially at local level), we have hustings, organised by the Levenshulme Community Association, which packed out one of the few secular meeting spaces in the area (that, in itself, is an issue) on a warm spring night when people could have simply stayed at home enjoying the weather. Thanks are due to the LCA for organising it, and to the Klondyke for being excellent hosts.

Many of us already knew each other socially; others, I suspect, will have been putting faces to names from social media pages. Some of us are overtly political, others defiantly non-aligned. The evening was designed to allow us to get to know the candidates who seek to represent us on Manchester City Council from next month, with written questions and some from the floor, addressed to all candidates in turn. We have five candidates, UKIP perhaps wisely recognising that they stand little chance in an inclusive multicultural area such as ours. 

The Conservative candidate was a no-show - pretty disgraceful, as the (admittedly few) Tory voters in the area deserve to be represented, just as the other parties were. To be fair, he did have a bit further to travel, I suppose - from a street just over the border in the Gorton South ward.  It seems that like their leader, though, Conservative candidates don't feel the need to turn up to debates.

The LibDem candidate was the veteran former councillor John Commons, eager to distance himself from his party, and emphasising his credentials as a longstanding Leve resident and activist. He gave a barnstorming performance (aided by knowing pretty much everyone in the room, residents and 'visitors'), and it will remain to be seen whether he can distance himself from his party sufficiently to win back the seat he lost a few years back.

The Trades Union and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) candidate was Fiona Higgins, a Leve resident and care worker who spoke with passion and integrity from a position of having experienced the effects of austerity cuts and zero hours contracts in the care sector. 

The Labour Party's candidate was Basat Sheikh, the owner of a care company (the only candidate present not to live in the ward). He was loudly supported by (as John Commons pointed out) a sizable number of Labour councillors and assorted supporters, who were both very vocal and combatative (one criticised the chairing of the meeting, another heckled and interrupted while others were speaking). The enthusiasm for Mr Sheikh appeared to be confined to this section of the room, though, and it begs a question as to why it was felt he needed so much partisan support, including a question from the floor from his campaign manager? 

Things got particularly tetchy around the issue of zero hours contracts (the widespread use of which the Labour Party has committed to ban), when he was tackled on whether his care company does (or did) offer such contracts to staff. He stated that he does not, and has never done so, a statement which was queried by several of those present, including one voter who had a copy of a letter which seemed to indicate otherwise.

The final candidate was Dick Venes of the Green Party, who also stood in 2014. Sadly, although I recently scored 97% Green on one of those 'Which party are you most aligned with?" quizzes (a bit embarrassing for a Labour Party member and former branch official*), I find, 24 hours on, that I can't recall any of his answers in any detail. I have the same problem with the Foo Fighters...

There were a range of questions on local issues, and most of the candidates acquitted themselves well on them. I'm sorry to say that 'my' candidate was severely underwhelming. Not having even an estimated completion date for the new leisure centre (possibly the biggest issue in the area over the last year or so), suggesting an Eric Pickles-style 'grace period' for those parking on yellow lines, telling us that he wants to make Leve "the kind of place you move to because you want to, rather than because you can't afford Chorlton or Didsbury" (which was met with a concerted response that many of us already ARE here because we want to be, and have no desire to live in Chorlton or Didsbury). He then compounded this by telling us that it really doesn't matter if the candidate lives in the ward (Yes, it does!) and telling us that "Sir Gerald Kaufman doesn't live in Levenshulme." It had to be pointed out to him that Sir G. might not live in Leve, but does live in the constituency he serves! So, factually irrelevant and very disrespectful to a much-admired MP who has served this community with great distinction for 45 years. It was not a high point.

All in all, it was a good evening but I have to say that, with a few notable exceptions, the clacque of Labour politicians present was a bit of an embarrassment. Do they consider their candidate so weak that he needs the support of so many councillors from other wards? Where were the Levenshulme Labour members who selected him for the candidacy**?

As I've said, Leve residents are intelligent, committed and engaged. We don't take well to being talked down to by someone who'd barely set foot in the ward before last year, or being told our area is a second choice stepping-stone to Hipsterville. We want to know who our candidates are and what their values are, which is why we turned out in pleasing numbers last night.

I will be voting again for Sir Gerald Kaufman on 7 May, but the local elections are another matter.



*that's a whole other blogpost....
** and that's another....

[Full disclosure: I was one of the unsuccessful nominees for the Levenshulme candidacy. If anyone would like to see my candidate statement, I'll happily post it and folk can judge for themselves whether the best man won.]

Labour on the Rampage (or maybe not...)

Yesterday, I noticed a tweet by our one remaining LibDem councillor in Levenshulme, trying to reinvigorate his "No More Takeaways" campaign. The article it linked to was pretty much a re-hash of a recent Manchester Evening News article, but this caught my eye:

“I was heavily involved in the first ever ‘Levenshulme Means Business’ Week aimed at promoting business in our area. Secretary of State for Business – Vince Cable MP even accepted my invitation to come and speak at an event – unfortunately ruined by Labour protestors including local Labour Councillors.”

Now, regular readers may remember that I blogged about this visit, and it occurred to me that Councillor Hennigan's version of events didn't quite accord with what I remembered of it. There was a small, if vocal, group of protestors outside the Hennigan-owned M19 Bar where the event was held - no more than one might expect a year into a deeply unpopular coalition government whose LibDem members had voted through savage cuts to local authorities which were having (and continue to have) a serious impact on local people.

There were very few "Labour protesters" there, and certainly no "local Labour councillors" that I recognised (it was 2011, when Leve still had 3 LibDem "local" - by their definition - councillors).

The event was briefly disrupted when a local man tried to gain access to the venue and a short scuffle ensued before things continued as normal. This was not a "Labour protestor", but a local resident who had recently been made redundant due to coalition cuts. 

So, Councillor Hennigan's assertion that the event was "ruined by Labour" is at best disingenuous and and at worst simply untrue.

To make sure I hadn't entirely dreamt the whole thing, I went back to the press reports at the time and looked at the photographs that were taken. I could only spot one Labour Party member that I knew. There were a few people who are - or may have been then - members of other left-wing parties or organisations, and some really dangerous radicals like mums trying to protect their Sure Start Centre!  It seems Councillor Hennigan, along with many UKIP politicians, cannot distinguish between "Labour Party" and "people who may hold left wing views."

This is, of course, just an attempt to smear Labour in the run-up to the election, but it seems pretty desperate. I'd be interested to hear from Councillor Hennigan which "local Labour councillors" were in attendance and what actions they took which "ruined" the event?

Things (including Food) Are Hotting Up...

It's election time again.

The emerging issue in Levenshulme appears to be that of takeaway food outlets. The incumbent councillor, James Henningan (LibDem), has launched a Facebook campaign, "Say No to Levenshulme's Takeaway Mile", asking people to sign a petition with the preamble:

"Stockport Road has changed beyond recognition and everytime one of our independent shops close - it seems to be replaced by another fast food outlet."

Now, it's a catchy petition title, and taps into local concerns about the main Stockport Road (A6), Levenshulme's "shop window" to the rest of the city (and the country - it's the main route out to Stockport and Cheshire, which is presumably why UKIP tried placing billboards on the southbound carriageway last year). His assertion is that we already have 'enough' takeaways (currently about 12% of the total commercial properties in the area).

Let's leave aside the negative tone of Councillor Hennigan's campaign - telling us what we don't want rather than asking us what we do (he's also a bit reluctant to engage with people who disagree with him on this), and the spin that the local Labour council is somehow encouraging takeaways to come to Levenshulme to bring its 'quota' of them up to the citywide limit of 20%, and consider whether the campaign has any real merit beyond it being something he can get in the papers with. He can't point to LibDem success in dissuading the Tories from the worst excesses of national policy, and the alleged economic recovery certainly isn't being felt this far north of Westminster....

Judging by the comments his campaign has attracted, it seems as if it's the general appearance of the area which people feels lets us down, rather than the alleged preponderance of hot food outlets. Now, I'm a naturally curious person and have lived in Leve for over 25 years. I know that a number of independent shops have closed in that time, and we no longer have, for example, the shoe shop, Poysers motor shop, Grace Fabrics (?) curtain and haberdashery, and at least two greengrocers and three more butchers that were here when I moved in. Not to mention the pubs that have closed - The Railway, The Pack Horse, The Church Inn, all of which are either empty or gone completely.

But in a previous life I analysed statistical data for a living, and every "fact" I see on a topic like this makes me say, "Ah, but...." and go looking for an explanation, confirmation or refutation.

With this in mind, I spent a happy evening last weekend doing a virtual trawl of the A6 on Google maps, making a note of each of the premises in the ward. I even included a small section on the east side that falls within our neighbouring ward (itself a bone of contention - why is half of Levenshulme in Gorton South ward? Ask the Electoral Commission!). I wanted to see if we really are overrun with takeaways (especially, the 'chicken shops' which seem to get cited on local discussion threads). 

As a result of this, I found that we currently have, as Councillor Hennigan suggests, about 12% takeaways (this goes up slightly to around 14% if you include those in the Gorton South ward).

In today's Manchester Evening News is an article on the subject which states that Takeaway Owners Back Crusade to Tackle Levenhulme's Fast Food Mile in James Hennigan states that "it's getting to the stage where there are just too many." and that "many have their shutters down during the day, hampering efforts to revitalise the high street."

In support of his case, two local takeaway owners are quoted. One says that he is "now struggling as rival outfits have begun to pop up at an alarming pace" and another that "It has been over the last two years. Before that everything was running right, but everybody is just surviving now."

This piqued my interest even more. The Google images I had scoured were all taken in 2012.  Maybe things had really changed over the last two years. So I decided to walk the whole of the A6 from one ward boundary to the other. I deliberately excluded premises away from the A6 - after all, it's a positive thing if residential areas are served by local takeaways rather than everyone having to pile on to the A6 for them, and because it was the impact on the A6 'high street' that I wanted to assess (not least because referring to a 'Takeaway Mile' suggests the long - nearly 2 miles - main route from border to border).

I found some interesting things:

There have been some changes of business, but in the main fast food outlets aren't chief among them. Most new businesses since 2012 have been health and beauty or solicitors/accountants. Some food outlets have changed hands but have remained selling the same or similar products. Several of the takeaways from 2012 have now ceased to be fast food outlets.

A major fast food restaurant right in the centre of the high street  had its shutters open at mid-day today, whereas many of the hairdressers and barbers did not (it being Monday, a traditional day off for them), and including one of the takeaways mentioned in the article.

Notably, we only have three national chain takeaways - McDonalds and KFC at the southern end of the ward, and the ubiquitous Subway. Many of the other takeaways and restaurants are independently-run family businesses providing livelihoods for local families, which is somewhat different to Councillor Hennigan's assertion that they "bring nothing to the area."

So whether we have "too many" takeaways already, or whether we can't/shouldn't absorb any more,  it's clearly not the case that there has been a massive expansion over the last two years. I would argue that if we want a more varied high street, we have to be positive about the businesses that are already there and actively encourage others to join them, which is undermined by headlines about "crusades" to deter certain businesses - if I were a potential investor in the area, I would think twice if I thought I would get a hostile reception. Levenshulme is by no means unique in having a 'challenged' high street - it happens all over the country, but the problem goes far wider than any one kind of business, and the solutions are more complex. Whatever commercial pressures local businesses are subject to, competition from an increasing number of rivals wouldn't appear to be the whole story.

And while I hear some of you saying "Well, she would say that. Just another Labour activist toe-ing the party line and point-scoring at election time" this is not one of my political blog posts. I am quite capable of holding opinions of my own and - occasionally - disagreeing with the Labour Party! I would be interested to hear a a detailed explanation of the rationale behind the 20% takeaway limit; how it was arrived at and the reasoning behind it. Then I can decide how many is "too many" without reference to Councillor Hennigan.


ALL OPINIONS IN THIS POST ARE MY OWN AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF LEVENSHULME LABOUR PARTY

Community, Dissent and Cupcakes

I wasn't going to post this blog, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that keeping my thoughts to myself isn't the way to do things these days. I dislike being talked about (indirectly) on social media, by people who don't know me or anything about my political philosophy, without a proper right to reply (short of getting involved in one of the very ugly pile-ins that happen on Facebook or Twitter. There appears to be a lot of misinformation out there and the loudest voices aren't always accurate or representative, so this is my take on what's going on locally.

It's odd how 'community' is defined.

When you grow up in the largely monocultural provinces, inner city suburbs can be a breath of fresh air. Ours certainly was. Constantly heralded as the next  up and coming neighborhood over the course of the twenty plus years we've lived here, it never quite did 'up-come' and as a consequence retained the slightly bohemian quality which drew us here as students in the late '80s.

The area has seen a lot of initiatives to reinvigorate it recently, but that's not to say that it's not still without its problems (the highest incidence of obesity in the under 5's in the country, for example). It's a very mixed area in terms of demographics, socio-economic groups and ethnicity. The locals, possibly understandably, are a little wary of incomers (I've been described as a Guardian-reading Southerner by someone who probably wasn't born when I moved here!), but thankfully we don't have some of the ethnic tensions experienced elsewhere. In fact, we were recently highlighted as an area that had coped pretty well with its influx of Roma families.  It's not, though, an affluent area. 

A few weeks ago I came across a typically splenetic piece in The Guardian by Ian Martin, in which he addressed the issue of gentrification. He was pretty strident, as ever (he's one of the writers for The Thick of It and Veep, neither of which are known for sparing feelings), but it did strike a chord. 'Urban Vibrancy' can sometimes be a little on the exclusive side and, yes, established communities can get supplanted. I retweeted the piece and commented (to Ian) that I recognised some of what he'd said and referred, lightheartedly I thought, to a 'Cupcake Tendency.'

(It's just me, but I don't find the whole cupcakes/Cath Kidston/GBBO scene my kind of thing, but others enjoy them so hey, I'm fine with that). 

Later that day, I noticed a tweet to our local Labour Party branch Twitter account, stating that the tweeter had always thought the party was supportive of local initiatives and was upset that our branch chair (me) and vice chair (a friend) had been posting "nasty tweets" about a local venture. I was a little perplexed, as I hadn't voiced any opinion on said venture. As it didn't specify how I was supposed to have been nasty, I was at a bit of a loss, and then I remembered that Ian Martin's original tweet. Checking back on the Guardian website and Twitter, it appears he hit a nerve, and a number of related groups in the country piled in to 'correct' him. Now it made more sense.

Now my Twitter rule is "Never Knowingly Offend", so I was concerned a) that I had offended and b) that my role within a political party was being conflated with my views as an individual. A subsequent tweet (not addressed to me) described me as a 'friendly neighbourhood troll', which now appears to mean 'anyone who holds a contrary view.' I've not sought to engage with the tweeter (pretty much the modus operandi for trolls), so the extent of my 'trolling' seems to be tweeting/retweeting something that a third party (who doesn't follow me and who I don't follow) doesn't like. (My friend had simply seen the piece and retweeted it without comment, which doesn't seem especially nasty).

For the record, the local party does support local initiatives from all sections of the community. One can support local initiatives, though, without necessarily wanting to take part in them. I fully support women's participation in sport, for example, while struggling to comprehend how anyone over the age of 16 has any desire to play netball! That's just my personal taste (borne of a school PE career which has left deep scars) and I wouldn't want to stop anyone else playing.

It's perfectly possible as a party official to admire and support the drive and determination that has converted a disused church into a thriving community venture while personally still having concerns about the lack of secular community space in the area. Equally, while we welcome all the new local initiatives, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't consider the views of those who can't or don't want to access them. There are many people in the area for whom a community market isn't a priority when they're struggling to pay their rent and utility bills. That's not to say that it shouldn't be there; it's very successful and brings welcome 'inward investment' to the area. It's simply that one person (or group)'s ideal community may not suit everybody. And as long as people recognise that, we can all rub along together quite happily.

Much as Manchester's corporate drive to become a world class city has lost us some of what made the city unique, so a little of the old Leve will undoubtedly disappear. Some of it won't be mourned, but I hope it never becomes just Hoxton on the A6. It's beginning to appear,though, that one is not allowed to express a view that contravenes the view that 'everything is lovely in Levenshulme'.  It seems very odd that people who extol the virtues of the Leve 'community' seem averse to any alternative views of how that community should develop, and see perfectly innocuous comments as criticism. 

I'm far from being the only person locally who's felt the wrath of 'the community'. Facebook groups dealing with local issues have become so poisonous that some people have abandoned them altogether; alternative groups have been set up, others have had changes of Admins (not always for the better), people have found themselves repeatedly, inexplicably blocked from groups; others have been found 'guilty' by kangaroo courts. One of Leve's strengths is also one of its weaknesses. There is a small band of 'spoilers' locally, members of minor parties who like nothing better than dividing the community, especially if they can undermine local politicians (Labour and Lib Dem) at the same time. So what should be proper grass roots community campaigns get hijacked. I've spoken to a number of people who happily marched to save the baths/library, but who dropped out of campaigns as they felt there was too much point-scoring and bog-standard (in every sense of the term!) nastiness going on.

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm going to mention here that I am one of the Admins of the Levenshulme Labour Party Facebook page [BOGEYPERSON ALERT!!]. There has been an ongoing discussion on there over the past week which has led to criticism of the local Labour Party on other groups and pages, with accusations of censorship and arrogance. For the record, there was a comment on there which, with the benefit of hindsight, we agreed wasn't entirely appropriate. It was discussed between all four Page Admins and it was agreed that it should be withdrawn. An apology, and an offer to meet and discuss in person with the recipient of the comment, was issued. 

Now, I make no apology for being a Labour Party member and activist. Should that mean I'm barred from having personal opinions on local matters? No. (I disagree with some national Labour policy, too). As I mentioned earlier, I never set out to cause offence, and am willing to apologise if I do. That goes for my personal social media accounts and when I'm representing the Labour Party. The anonymity of being a Page Admin, though, has meant that I've had to see myself smeared by people who've never met me and know nothing of my politics, without being able to respond. "Disgusting", "troll", "moron" are just some of the choice descriptions I've seen of myself online, but I've not risen to the bait because I didn't want to do anything to bring the Labour Party into disrepute.

Do I care about my community? Yes. All parts of it.

Do I dislike the 'new' Leve? No, it's just not all to my taste.

Do I wish our local councillors could do more to help local residents? Yes, but given coalition cuts, the help they can give is under severe pressure.

Is the Labour Party perfect? No, far from it, but it's still the only hope of stopping the vindictiveness of the Tories and the duplicity of the LibDems.

I like to think that the hard work I've put in to the LLP page has raised the profile of the party locally, and shared information and articles on local and national matters that will inform people. If anything I've done has genuinely brought Levenshulme Labour into disrepute, I will happily step down. Then, perhaps, I can have my opinions back.