Concern old town hall could be lost to community

Bill Bayliss by the old town hall

Bill Bayliss by the old town hall

First published in Waltham Forest East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

A PLAN to re-open a landmark historic building for community use is in serious doubt after claims no viable proposals have been put forward.

The future of the old Town Hall, in The Ridgeway, Chingford, is uncertain after being bought bought last year by property developer Fairview New Homes, which is seeking permission to build 88 flats in the surrounding area.

But a condition of approval is that the former town hall, built in 1929, must not be demolished.

Fairview initially said that it could be turned into a doctors' or dentist surgery, but the Guardian understands there is no such offer on the table to take over the building.

Bill Bayliss, 74, of St Egbert's Way, which is next door to the site, is unhappy his proposal to create an arts and community space did not win support from councillors and residents.

He said: "It's one of Chingford's iconic buildings but it's a real pity it won't be open to the public.

"It's just another situation where essentially a historic building becomes apartments."

Fairview encouraged bids from the public to open the town hall to the community, but there are concerns over the costs involved.

Cllr Roy Berg, who represents Endlebury ward, said: "It's a real loss. Unfortunately, I can see it going as VIP flats.

"It's a very tough situation because we can't go to the council and ask for a grant.

"The council would not have sold it if they didn't need the money in the first place." Fairview declined to comment.

Comments (55)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:11pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

This is indeed a great pity, after the failure of the arts centre proposal for Walthamstow Central Library back in 2004/5. I don't know how well-used Chingford Assembly Hall is but the magnificent restoration of Leyton LMO by Michael Polledri of Lea Valley Estates is a model of what can be achieved if the vision (and, yes, the money) are in place.
This is indeed a great pity, after the failure of the arts centre proposal for Walthamstow Central Library back in 2004/5. I don't know how well-used Chingford Assembly Hall is but the magnificent restoration of Leyton LMO by Michael Polledri of Lea Valley Estates is a model of what can be achieved if the vision (and, yes, the money) are in place. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

I'm afraid that Cllr Roy Berg reply is disingenuous ie: not candid or sincere, by pretending that he knows less about something than he really does.

At a recent well attended combined Chongford & Endlebury Ward Forum meeting I presented a paper with my proposals for use of the old Town Hall as a showcase for Chingford arts and crafts, a community centre, a local history education centre, a licensed wedding venue and a local tourist centre for Waltham Forest.

This proposal was received enthusiastically by those attending the Forum meeting and I asked the Councillors of both Wards if they would set up a steering group to progress the issue.

To my surprise they point blank refused to undertake this work and said that I should do it myself.

I pointed out that ,unfortunately, as I am 74 years old with some severe health issues, this isn't practicable. I also pointed out as elected representatives for the people in the area they were in the best position to undertake the work.

They again refused and one Councillor derisively remarked that 'You should ask you Labour Party friends'

Bill Bayliss
I'm afraid that Cllr Roy Berg reply is disingenuous ie: not candid or sincere, by pretending that he knows less about something than he really does. At a recent well attended combined Chongford & Endlebury Ward Forum meeting I presented a paper with my proposals for use of the old Town Hall as a showcase for Chingford arts and crafts, a community centre, a local history education centre, a licensed wedding venue and a local tourist centre for Waltham Forest. This proposal was received enthusiastically by those attending the Forum meeting and I asked the Councillors of both Wards if they would set up a steering group to progress the issue. To my surprise they point blank refused to undertake this work and said that I should do it myself. I pointed out that ,unfortunately, as I am 74 years old with some severe health issues, this isn't practicable. I also pointed out as elected representatives for the people in the area they were in the best position to undertake the work. They again refused and one Councillor derisively remarked that 'You should ask you Labour Party friends' Bill Bayliss Sojourner
  • Score: 0

4:50am Sun 18 Nov 12

Trevor 2 says...

I would not be a bit surprised if Fairview let the building become derelict to such a state that it was eventually demolished giving them more space for develpment.
'Developers' are worse than the **** Luftwaffe!!
I would not be a bit surprised if Fairview let the building become derelict to such a state that it was eventually demolished giving them more space for develpment. 'Developers' are worse than the **** Luftwaffe!! Trevor 2
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Cornbeefur wrote 'And pray, what did your Champagne Labour friend say?'

I don't understand the relevance of the seemingly inane comment from Cornbeefur because the Councillors for both Chingford Green and Endlebury Wards are all Conservatives.

I would also ask Cornbeefur to advise me who s/he thinks is my Champagne Labour Party friend?
Cornbeefur wrote 'And pray, what did your Champagne Labour friend say?' I don't understand the relevance of the seemingly inane comment from Cornbeefur because the Councillors for both Chingford Green and Endlebury Wards are all Conservatives. I would also ask Cornbeefur to advise me who s/he thinks is my Champagne Labour Party friend? Sojourner
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Cornbeefur wrote: 'How do you know what Councillor Berg knows? The short answer is that as Councillor Berg was at the meeting when I presented the paper to the Community Forum he knew the contents of my paper and he knew the reaction of those attending the meeting who endorsed the proposals..

Cornbeeur couldn't be further from the truth in his suggestion that my pen name of 'Sojourner' has a masonic connection. Indeed, many years ago I was one of those who sought to expose the influence that masons had on some local authorities.

Its also a shame that s/he can't access a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word 'Sojourner'. If he was a little more literate he might come across the name of 'Sojourner Truth'
Cornbeefur wrote: 'How do you know what Councillor Berg knows? The short answer is that as Councillor Berg was at the meeting when I presented the paper to the Community Forum he knew the contents of my paper and he knew the reaction of those attending the meeting who endorsed the proposals.. Cornbeeur couldn't be further from the truth in his suggestion that my pen name of 'Sojourner' has a masonic connection. Indeed, many years ago I was one of those who sought to expose the influence that masons had on some local authorities. Its also a shame that s/he can't access a dictionary to look up the meaning of the word 'Sojourner'. If he was a little more literate he might come across the name of 'Sojourner Truth' Sojourner
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Sojourner wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote 'And pray, what did your Champagne Labour friend say?'

I don't understand the relevance of the seemingly inane comment from Cornbeefur because the Councillors for both Chingford Green and Endlebury Wards are all Conservatives.

I would also ask Cornbeefur to advise me who s/he thinks is my Champagne Labour Party friend?
What I mean, is he a Tory really?

Champagne Socialist in my view.

How do you know what Cllr Berg know? That is even more bizarre Sojourner, and with a name like that, you must be Masonic for sure, and we all know about Masonic influences within Councils, please tell?

Masonry is rife among Government and Public Bodies and this is no secret for sure. Maybe you have gone one handshake too far on this matter?
Have you finally cracked, cornbeefur? Wading up to the waist in treacle would be easier than decoding this comment - though your knowledge of freemasonry suggests you might be one.

Bill, I saw you discussion paper on the council's website (by googling Bill Bayliss Chingford). You suggestions as to how the old town hall should be used justify exploration. I don't live in the Chingford area myself, but can any other posters suggest the name of anyone in that area who it might be worth approaching? Two or three people working together might be able to set the ball rolling.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sojourner[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur wrote 'And pray, what did your Champagne Labour friend say?' I don't understand the relevance of the seemingly inane comment from Cornbeefur because the Councillors for both Chingford Green and Endlebury Wards are all Conservatives. I would also ask Cornbeefur to advise me who s/he thinks is my Champagne Labour Party friend?[/p][/quote]What I mean, is he a Tory really? Champagne Socialist in my view. How do you know what Cllr Berg know? That is even more bizarre Sojourner, and with a name like that, you must be Masonic for sure, and we all know about Masonic influences within Councils, please tell? Masonry is rife among Government and Public Bodies and this is no secret for sure. Maybe you have gone one handshake too far on this matter?[/p][/quote]Have you finally cracked, cornbeefur? Wading up to the waist in treacle would be easier than decoding this comment - though your knowledge of freemasonry suggests you might be one. Bill, I saw you discussion paper on the council's website (by googling Bill Bayliss Chingford). You suggestions as to how the old town hall should be used justify exploration. I don't live in the Chingford area myself, but can any other posters suggest the name of anyone in that area who it might be worth approaching? Two or three people working together might be able to set the ball rolling. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Helen, Walthamstow says...

And don't diss Bill Bayliss, cornbeefur. If you had any real knowledge of the area, you would have heard of him before. Among other things, as a long-serving foster parent, he served for years as their representative on the council's social services committee and he is a noted local historian as well as a Labour party activist.

Anyone less likely to attach himself to freemasonry I can't imagine.

Just butt out. Your comments make no sense and are now bordering on the extremely offensive.
And don't diss Bill Bayliss, cornbeefur. If you had any real knowledge of the area, you would have heard of him before. Among other things, as a long-serving foster parent, he served for years as their representative on the council's social services committee and he is a noted local historian as well as a Labour party activist. Anyone less likely to attach himself to freemasonry I can't imagine. Just butt out. Your comments make no sense and are now bordering on the extremely offensive. Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
'Cllr. Berg is innocent in all of this and Sojourner is abusing his good name and on a forum where he may not be awre of. Why does Sojourner bot notify Cllr. Berg first before launching such allegations?

In my post I was replying to Cllr Berg's comment in the Guardian. I have already shown that Cllr Berg knew a great deal more about the situation than than his comment to the Guardian suggests.

Thank you Helen for your support. However, I take it as a compliment to be dissed by idiot trolls like Cornbeefur who think that they are being funny when, in fact, they are simply stupidly mischievous. If you look at his/her contribution to this and other threads you will see that its a lot of nonsensical gobbledegook. Do you think that he has worked out what 'Sojourner' means or who Sojourner Truth was ?
Cornbeefur wrote: 'Cllr. Berg is innocent in all of this and Sojourner is abusing his good name and on a forum where he may not be awre of. Why does Sojourner bot notify Cllr. Berg first before launching such allegations? In my post I was replying to Cllr Berg's comment in the Guardian. I have already shown that Cllr Berg knew a great deal more about the situation than than his comment to the Guardian suggests. Thank you Helen for your support. However, I take it as a compliment to be dissed by idiot trolls like Cornbeefur who think that they are being funny when, in fact, they are simply stupidly mischievous. If you look at his/her contribution to this and other threads you will see that its a lot of nonsensical gobbledegook. Do you think that he has worked out what 'Sojourner' means or who Sojourner Truth was ? Sojourner
  • Score: 0

11:25am Mon 19 Nov 12

acidbob says...

Cornbeefur = Troll

How this person hasnt been banned yet i do not know

Guardian moderators can something please be done about this person, on every posting there is a stupid and sometimes rude comments made by Cornbeefur.
Cornbeefur = Troll How this person hasnt been banned yet i do not know Guardian moderators can something please be done about this person, on every posting there is a stupid and sometimes rude comments made by Cornbeefur. acidbob
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Unfortunately, Cornbeefur's facetious comments has succeeded in his real aim of diverting any sensible discussion about the issue in the same way that he has done the same thing with other issues.

Frankly, I don't care a jot about whether he lives in Marylebone, has an English degree is a mason groupie, What is quite evident is that he doesn't have any knowledge or understanding of any of the issues wheN he make his childish interventions.

Perhaps he needs to be reminded of what happened to the big bad troll when he met Billy Goat Gruff.
Unfortunately, Cornbeefur's facetious comments has succeeded in his real aim of diverting any sensible discussion about the issue in the same way that he has done the same thing with other issues. Frankly, I don't care a jot about whether he lives in Marylebone, has an English degree is a mason groupie, What is quite evident is that he doesn't have any knowledge or understanding of any of the issues wheN he make his childish interventions. Perhaps he needs to be reminded of what happened to the big bad troll when he met Billy Goat Gruff. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

Once again an interesting story completely hijacked by this utter nutter. I have reported the gratuitously offensive comments about Mr Bayliss and hope the editor will take note of my, and others', comments in this regard.

Back to the story: I don't find it hard to believe that the local Tory Councillors refuse to help Mr Bayliss. After all, we all know how hard-worked they are in opposition! I hope local people will bear this failure to support an interesting local scheme when it comes to the next council elections in May 2014.
Once again an interesting story completely hijacked by this utter nutter. I have reported the gratuitously offensive comments about Mr Bayliss and hope the editor will take note of my, and others', comments in this regard. Back to the story: I don't find it hard to believe that the local Tory Councillors refuse to help Mr Bayliss. After all, we all know how hard-worked they are in opposition! I hope local people will bear this failure to support an interesting local scheme when it comes to the next council elections in May 2014. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Robert19 says...

I am getting increasingly concerned by the amount of space that is taken up in virtually every story with totally irrelevant and often offensive nonsense by one individual. This thread is a classic case in point. Please do not respond to this individual's posts however provoked. This is what they want you to do. Just ignore them and deal with the story not the rubbish they write.
A community space similar to the Mill in Walthamstow is a great idea. Funding is obviously the big issue. Maybe some contact with the trustees there would be a good start despite the lack of interest by local councillors in Chingford.
I am getting increasingly concerned by the amount of space that is taken up in virtually every story with totally irrelevant and often offensive nonsense by one individual. This thread is a classic case in point. Please do not respond to this individual's posts however provoked. This is what they want you to do. Just ignore them and deal with the story not the rubbish they write. A community space similar to the Mill in Walthamstow is a great idea. Funding is obviously the big issue. Maybe some contact with the trustees there would be a good start despite the lack of interest by local councillors in Chingford. Robert19
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Helen, Walthamstow says...

acidbob wrote:
Cornbeefur = Troll

How this person hasnt been banned yet i do not know

Guardian moderators can something please be done about this person, on every posting there is a stupid and sometimes rude comments made by Cornbeefur.
Having made some inquiries, I gather that the moderators will take decisive action (other than taking down the odd comment) only when a number of people have reported him.

The ground rules state: "You are personal liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views."

Perhaps we should all try reporting some of his more extreme comments - not his silly ones (of which there are plenty) but his rude and offensive ones.

Unfortunately, a great many of us are guilty of ridiculing HIM - but that's because, as an experienced troll, he winds up even the calmest of posters. He is damaging the credibility of the whole Guardian Series website (Epping and Redbridge as well).
[quote][p][bold]acidbob[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur = Troll How this person hasnt been banned yet i do not know Guardian moderators can something please be done about this person, on every posting there is a stupid and sometimes rude comments made by Cornbeefur.[/p][/quote]Having made some inquiries, I gather that the moderators will take decisive action (other than taking down the odd comment) only when a number of people have reported him. The ground rules state: "You are personal liable for your comments and action will be taken against anyone who offends, ridicules or posts malicious and damaging views." Perhaps we should all try reporting some of his more extreme comments - not his silly ones (of which there are plenty) but his rude and offensive ones. Unfortunately, a great many of us are guilty of ridiculing HIM - but that's because, as an experienced troll, he winds up even the calmest of posters. He is damaging the credibility of the whole Guardian Series website (Epping and Redbridge as well). Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Mon 19 Nov 12

E17_er says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Sam Hain wrote:
Once again an interesting story completely hijacked by this utter nutter. I have reported the gratuitously offensive comments about Mr Bayliss and hope the editor will take note of my, and others', comments in this regard.

Back to the story: I don't find it hard to believe that the local Tory Councillors refuse to help Mr Bayliss. After all, we all know how hard-worked they are in opposition! I hope local people will bear this failure to support an interesting local scheme when it comes to the next council elections in May 2014.
Hang on.

You call me a 'nutter' and then report me to the Headmaster?

Where have I made offensive comments?
Today?

Here

http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/news/wf
news/10056472.Hair_a
nd_beauty_salon_open
s_at_college/
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sam Hain[/bold] wrote: Once again an interesting story completely hijacked by this utter nutter. I have reported the gratuitously offensive comments about Mr Bayliss and hope the editor will take note of my, and others', comments in this regard. Back to the story: I don't find it hard to believe that the local Tory Councillors refuse to help Mr Bayliss. After all, we all know how hard-worked they are in opposition! I hope local people will bear this failure to support an interesting local scheme when it comes to the next council elections in May 2014.[/p][/quote]Hang on. You call me a 'nutter' and then report me to the Headmaster? Where have I made offensive comments?[/p][/quote]Today? Here http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/wf news/10056472.Hair_a nd_beauty_salon_open s_at_college/ E17_er
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Helen, Walthamstow says...

Your description of another poster, who has suggested we ignore your comments, Saturday, November 10:

"A hot aired, wind bag of Richard The Third, with extra gasses.”
Your description of another poster, who has suggested we ignore your comments, Saturday, November 10: "A hot aired, wind bag of Richard The Third, with extra gasses.” Helen, Walthamstow
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Hex, E11 says...

Report, report, report, until they ban him.

Bill, your proposal sounds great. I wish you luck.
Report, report, report, until they ban him. Bill, your proposal sounds great. I wish you luck. Hex, E11
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

Yes, it is necessary unfortunately. I have reported him several times, as I told him I would!

I have often wanted to tell him this, so message to Cornbeefur:-

Most of us who post on here are strong individuals and pay no mind to your comments, but in the short time I have used this site, I have seen people come and go through your obvious offensive and personal insults. Some of these people may be near the edge: a bereavement, mental issues, coming off drugs, low self asteem, the list is endless but you get my drift. You have no idea of their circumstances and you don't care! This may be their first move to expressing themselves and getting some self asteem back. Give it some thought Crnbfr - you could be responsible for pushing someone over that edge with these personal jibes.
I often think about the person you intimidated and they replied saying they feel they are not intelligent enough to be on here! I felt helpless knowing you were responsible for that and there was nothing I could do.
Sorry to everyone else, but I needed to say that.

Back to the subject.

Bill, I live in Chingford and cannot think of a better use for that lovely building. It saddens me to think they rejected your idea in such a manner. Will you continue to fight for it and if so, is there anything we can do to help?
Yes, it is necessary unfortunately. I have reported him several times, as I told him I would! I have often wanted to tell him this, so message to Cornbeefur:- Most of us who post on here are strong individuals and pay no mind to your comments, but in the short time I have used this site, I have seen people come and go through your obvious offensive and personal insults. Some of these people may be near the edge: a bereavement, mental issues, coming off drugs, low self asteem, the list is endless but you get my drift. You have no idea of their circumstances and you don't care! This may be their first move to expressing themselves and getting some self asteem back. Give it some thought Crnbfr - you could be responsible for pushing someone over that edge with these personal jibes. I often think about the person you intimidated and they replied saying they feel they are not intelligent enough to be on here! I felt helpless knowing you were responsible for that and there was nothing I could do. Sorry to everyone else, but I needed to say that. Back to the subject. Bill, I live in Chingford and cannot think of a better use for that lovely building. It saddens me to think they rejected your idea in such a manner. Will you continue to fight for it and if so, is there anything we can do to help? Isaythat
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Mon 19 Nov 12

mdj says...

'"The council would not have sold it if they didn't need the money in the first place."
Of course they do: to pay thousands of pounds in rent to Lea Valley Estates for office space, while they let these offices, which they owned outright, to fall into disuse- £1 million p.a.?;
to keep the Arcade site derelict for ten years - £6 million?;
to pick up the bill caused by Ascham Homes' incompetent handling of the leaseholders' repairs - £ 5 million;
to give away cemetery land by the A406 for Nil Consideration - £5 million;
to miss Kier business waste being fraudulently fed into our domestic waste stream - £1 million?;
to pay the former CE to retire and Say Nuffin-£450k;
to squander the BNI money without being able to offer a clue where it went - £11 million; etc, etc, etc
Yeah, they're short of money all right. They deserve our deepest sympathies for the hardships they struggle with.
What is it about opposition that our opposition Councillors just don't get? Do they think that their allowances are just an appearance fee?
And before our local Labour apologists Sam and Robert get too carried away, let's remind people that the Mill is now thriving in direct proportion to its independence from the dead hand of the Council, who charge it a full commercial rent for a building they were paying good money to keep empty for several years.
'"The council would not have sold it if they didn't need the money in the first place." Of course they do: to pay thousands of pounds in rent to Lea Valley Estates for office space, while they let these offices, which they owned outright, to fall into disuse- £1 million p.a.?; to keep the Arcade site derelict for ten years - £6 million?; to pick up the bill caused by Ascham Homes' incompetent handling of the leaseholders' repairs - £ 5 million; to give away cemetery land by the A406 for Nil Consideration - £5 million; to miss Kier business waste being fraudulently fed into our domestic waste stream - £1 million?; to pay the former CE to retire and Say Nuffin-£450k; to squander the BNI money without being able to offer a clue where it went - £11 million; etc, etc, etc Yeah, they're short of money all right. They deserve our deepest sympathies for the hardships they struggle with. What is it about opposition that our opposition Councillors just don't get? Do they think that their allowances are just an appearance fee? And before our local Labour apologists Sam and Robert get too carried away, let's remind people that the Mill is now thriving in direct proportion to its independence from the dead hand of the Council, who charge it a full commercial rent for a building they were paying good money to keep empty for several years. mdj
  • Score: 0

8:38pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

What is particularly sad about the situation with the old Chingford Town Hall is that when selling the site, the Council didn't have the wit to impose proper restrictions on its future use.

When the large site went out for development bids, the Council advised prospective developers that some local GP's had indicated their interest in the site. What the Council had in mind was the provision of a purpose built Health Centre where a consortium of local GP's, in addition to their normal practice could carry the work that is being devolved from hospitals eg: minor operations etc

The developer interpreted this as the possibility of providing GP or Dental services in the old Town Hall. This was patently absurd as the building is not compliant with provisions of the the Disability Discrimination Act because the only access to the upper floor is by staircase.

It was in these circumstances that I prepared a paper for the local Community Forum with proposals for other uses. As this would require funding I asked the local Councillors to set up a steering group that would consist of local Councillors, local community groups and other interested parties etc with the view of making funding bids from the National Lottery and other funding sources.

Although the well attended Community Forum meeting enthusiastically supported this approach, the local councillors from both Chingford Green & Endlebury Wards refused to take this forward.

This means that my proposals are dead in the water and the old Chingford Town Hall will be turned into apartments for those that can afford them.

Readers may be interested to know that the old Town hall site is situated on the Ridgeway and is is part of a large prestigious housing
development.The development contains a small number of social housing units that the developer admits are to be deliberately segregating from the main development.
What is particularly sad about the situation with the old Chingford Town Hall is that when selling the site, the Council didn't have the wit to impose proper restrictions on its future use. When the large site went out for development bids, the Council advised prospective developers that some local GP's had indicated their interest in the site. What the Council had in mind was the provision of a purpose built Health Centre where a consortium of local GP's, in addition to their normal practice could carry the work that is being devolved from hospitals eg: minor operations etc The developer interpreted this as the possibility of providing GP or Dental services in the old Town Hall. This was patently absurd as the building is not compliant with provisions of the the Disability Discrimination Act because the only access to the upper floor is by staircase. It was in these circumstances that I prepared a paper for the local Community Forum with proposals for other uses. As this would require funding I asked the local Councillors to set up a steering group that would consist of local Councillors, local community groups and other interested parties etc with the view of making funding bids from the National Lottery and other funding sources. Although the well attended Community Forum meeting enthusiastically supported this approach, the local councillors from both Chingford Green & Endlebury Wards refused to take this forward. This means that my proposals are dead in the water and the old Chingford Town Hall will be turned into apartments for those that can afford them. Readers may be interested to know that the old Town hall site is situated on the Ridgeway and is is part of a large prestigious housing development.The development contains a small number of social housing units that the developer admits are to be deliberately segregating from the main development. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Robert19 says...

mdj wrote:
'"The council would not have sold it if they didn't need the money in the first place."
Of course they do: to pay thousands of pounds in rent to Lea Valley Estates for office space, while they let these offices, which they owned outright, to fall into disuse- £1 million p.a.?;
to keep the Arcade site derelict for ten years - £6 million?;
to pick up the bill caused by Ascham Homes' incompetent handling of the leaseholders' repairs - £ 5 million;
to give away cemetery land by the A406 for Nil Consideration - £5 million;
to miss Kier business waste being fraudulently fed into our domestic waste stream - £1 million?;
to pay the former CE to retire and Say Nuffin-£450k;
to squander the BNI money without being able to offer a clue where it went - £11 million; etc, etc, etc
Yeah, they're short of money all right. They deserve our deepest sympathies for the hardships they struggle with.
What is it about opposition that our opposition Councillors just don't get? Do they think that their allowances are just an appearance fee?
And before our local Labour apologists Sam and Robert get too carried away, let's remind people that the Mill is now thriving in direct proportion to its independence from the dead hand of the Council, who charge it a full commercial rent for a building they were paying good money to keep empty for several years.
Mjd
I am not a Labour apologist. I do not belong to any political party and New Labour, in spite of some good initiatives like Surestart, was almost as bad as the Coalition in its economic policies. Ed (without the R) Ed Labour is very frustrating and bland.
Indeed I suggested the Mill for the very same reason as you suggest that they succeeded because they took an independent line. That is the best way forward if anyone can pull together a group of interested people. I appreciate the difficulty of doing so.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: '"The council would not have sold it if they didn't need the money in the first place." Of course they do: to pay thousands of pounds in rent to Lea Valley Estates for office space, while they let these offices, which they owned outright, to fall into disuse- £1 million p.a.?; to keep the Arcade site derelict for ten years - £6 million?; to pick up the bill caused by Ascham Homes' incompetent handling of the leaseholders' repairs - £ 5 million; to give away cemetery land by the A406 for Nil Consideration - £5 million; to miss Kier business waste being fraudulently fed into our domestic waste stream - £1 million?; to pay the former CE to retire and Say Nuffin-£450k; to squander the BNI money without being able to offer a clue where it went - £11 million; etc, etc, etc Yeah, they're short of money all right. They deserve our deepest sympathies for the hardships they struggle with. What is it about opposition that our opposition Councillors just don't get? Do they think that their allowances are just an appearance fee? And before our local Labour apologists Sam and Robert get too carried away, let's remind people that the Mill is now thriving in direct proportion to its independence from the dead hand of the Council, who charge it a full commercial rent for a building they were paying good money to keep empty for several years.[/p][/quote]Mjd I am not a Labour apologist. I do not belong to any political party and New Labour, in spite of some good initiatives like Surestart, was almost as bad as the Coalition in its economic policies. Ed (without the R) Ed Labour is very frustrating and bland. Indeed I suggested the Mill for the very same reason as you suggest that they succeeded because they took an independent line. That is the best way forward if anyone can pull together a group of interested people. I appreciate the difficulty of doing so. Robert19
  • Score: 0

12:34am Tue 20 Nov 12

mdj says...

Apologies, Robert, if that comment was unfair. I would suggest that you are more forgiving of Labour's faults than of the Tories'.
To my mind, any difference between them is that between strychnine and arsenic.
Apologies, Robert, if that comment was unfair. I would suggest that you are more forgiving of Labour's faults than of the Tories'. To my mind, any difference between them is that between strychnine and arsenic. mdj
  • Score: 0

8:49am Tue 20 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

Bill, you did an incredible job outlining a good idea, just a shame it fell on deaf ears!.
I am now of the opinion that the government waste even more money offering us the choice to vote, when in fact it makes no difference.
As you say mdj, the difference is between two poisons.
Bill, you did an incredible job outlining a good idea, just a shame it fell on deaf ears!. I am now of the opinion that the government waste even more money offering us the choice to vote, when in fact it makes no difference. As you say mdj, the difference is between two poisons. Isaythat
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 20 Nov 12

mdj says...

'What is particularly sad ..is that when selling the site, the Council didn't have the wit to impose proper restrictions on its future use.'

Sojourner, when supposed professionals commit unforced errors year after year to the benefit of parties other than the one they're meant to be safeguarding, one runs out of excuses for their naivety, and looks for other causes.

But did no local Councillor raise their voice at an earlier stage to protect their neighbourhood's interests? Why not, one wonders?
'What is particularly sad ..is that when selling the site, the Council didn't have the wit to impose proper restrictions on its future use.' Sojourner, when supposed professionals commit unforced errors year after year to the benefit of parties other than the one they're meant to be safeguarding, one runs out of excuses for their naivety, and looks for other causes. But did no local Councillor raise their voice at an earlier stage to protect their neighbourhood's interests? Why not, one wonders? mdj
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

That's better, I see some judicious pruning has taken place leaving room for some real debate and interesting suggestions. Well done, Guardian, and please hold the editorial line.
That's better, I see some judicious pruning has taken place leaving room for some real debate and interesting suggestions. Well done, Guardian, and please hold the editorial line. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

8:35am Wed 21 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

Sam Hain wrote:
That's better, I see some judicious pruning has taken place leaving room for some real debate and interesting suggestions. Well done, Guardian, and please hold the editorial line.
I second that - good work Guardian!
[quote][p][bold]Sam Hain[/bold] wrote: That's better, I see some judicious pruning has taken place leaving room for some real debate and interesting suggestions. Well done, Guardian, and please hold the editorial line.[/p][/quote]I second that - good work Guardian! Isaythat
  • Score: 0

8:59am Wed 21 Nov 12

Robert19 says...

Like a breath of fresh air. Thank you Guardian
Like a breath of fresh air. Thank you Guardian Robert19
  • Score: 0

10:19am Wed 21 Nov 12

Walthamster says...

Guardian - thanks for taking action on the trolling that makes many threads unreadable.

Bill - best of luck. This council is lazy and neglectful, but can just sometimes be pushed into doing what's right. In Walthamstow, St James Street Library Campaign fought for four years to stop our library being sold to a developer after it was closed without warning. The building is now rented from the council by a community group that won a national grant, and run by volunteers as the Mill community centre.

It's a colossal amount of work, as all campaigners in this borough have discovered. You need others involved who will also make the effort.

And many landlords, on or close to the council, benefit from an endless supply of flats they can buy and rent out. It's a disaster for the local community, which they are supposed to be working for, but a windfall for them.

But if you can push harder than the developers, you may be successful. It has been done. Best of luck.
Guardian - thanks for taking action on the trolling that makes many threads unreadable. Bill - best of luck. This council is lazy and neglectful, but can just sometimes be pushed into doing what's right. In Walthamstow, St James Street Library Campaign fought for four years to stop our library being sold to a developer after it was closed without warning. The building is now rented from the council by a community group that won a national grant, and run by volunteers as the Mill community centre. It's a colossal amount of work, as all campaigners in this borough have discovered. You need others involved who will also make the effort. And many landlords, on or close to the council, benefit from an endless supply of flats they can buy and rent out. It's a disaster for the local community, which they are supposed to be working for, but a windfall for them. But if you can push harder than the developers, you may be successful. It has been done. Best of luck. Walthamster
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Bernard 87 says...

Another fantastic post from MJD upstream.

The council should not have sold the site. They should have developed the site themselves, used the town hall as offices like it was years ago and stopped renting office space elsewhere.

Councils only behave in this manner when they know that their vote is so monolithic that people will vote for them regardless. For the Chingford councillors to not support the arts centre idea is wrong. It should not matter that the idea came from a Labour supporter. He's a local resident who cares about his town and they should have been jumping up and down to support this plan rather than 'VIP flats'
Another fantastic post from MJD upstream. The council should not have sold the site. They should have developed the site themselves, used the town hall as offices like it was years ago and stopped renting office space elsewhere. Councils only behave in this manner when they know that their vote is so monolithic that people will vote for them regardless. For the Chingford councillors to not support the arts centre idea is wrong. It should not matter that the idea came from a Labour supporter. He's a local resident who cares about his town and they should have been jumping up and down to support this plan rather than 'VIP flats' Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

Ah, Bernard 87, if only this were so but my dealings with the 'blue brigade' have proved to me that they are incapable of such open-mindedness and generosity of spirit. Whilst they remain so blinkered, and often (as in this case it would appear) quite offensive to those of a different political persuasion (or highly offensive in the recent infamous case of Cllr Laurance Wedderburn), they will always remain the sad rump that they are now, although this probably suits them quite well as they still get paid for doing b****r all and can blame the Labour Council for everything.- just the way, in fact, to encourage the Labour Councillors to allocate scarce resources to this part of the borough and so utterly self-defeating. Wake up Chingford! In the local elections in May 2014 vote Labour, even if you have to put a peg on your noses. If you had Labour Councillors you could personally hold them to account as obviously your so called 'opposition' Tory Councillors (who get well-paid for doing so) obviously can't be bothered.
Ah, Bernard 87, if only this were so but my dealings with the 'blue brigade' have proved to me that they are incapable of such open-mindedness and generosity of spirit. Whilst they remain so blinkered, and often (as in this case it would appear) quite offensive to those of a different political persuasion (or highly offensive in the recent infamous case of Cllr Laurance Wedderburn), they will always remain the sad rump that they are now, although this probably suits them quite well as they still get paid for doing b****r all and can blame the Labour Council for everything.- just the way, in fact, to encourage the Labour Councillors to allocate scarce resources to this part of the borough and so utterly self-defeating. Wake up Chingford! In the local elections in May 2014 vote Labour, even if you have to put a peg on your noses. If you had Labour Councillors you could personally hold them to account as obviously your so called 'opposition' Tory Councillors (who get well-paid for doing so) obviously can't be bothered. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

I thank the various contributors who have supported my proposal for the old Chingford Town Hall but I must point out that 'The Mill scenario isn't appropriate as the Council sold the entire site to the developer without protecting the future use of a locally listed building.

I haven't suggested that the Council divert scarce Borough resources to Chingford, as the need is much greater in other parts of the Borough. What I wanted was a consortium of local voluntary groups etc to get together to make funding appications from sources like the National Lottery.

Although I am a long time Labour Pary member and former activist, I have been very critical of the Labour Council in its treatment of Chingford in the selling off of the Louisa Oakes Centre and run-down of Friday Hill House leaving a situation where there is not now any CLaSS education provision in Chingford and where local voluntary organisations have been priced out of the Borough halls etc.

This situation was particularly bad with regard to the Louisa Oakes Centre because this was the former home of Chingford Labour Party Councillor - Louisa Oakes - who, when she died, left the building and grounds to Chingford with the proviso that it would be used for educational purposes for the people of Chingford.

The profits from the Louisa Oakes Centre sale should have created created 'ring-fenced' monies that, I hoped, would have been used as a Borough contribution toward the provision of an Arts & Education Centre on the Tesco Higham Park site. This wasn't even considered and the money has been swallowed up into the Borough general accounts.
I thank the various contributors who have supported my proposal for the old Chingford Town Hall but I must point out that 'The Mill scenario isn't appropriate as the Council sold the entire site to the developer without protecting the future use of a locally listed building. I haven't suggested that the Council divert scarce Borough resources to Chingford, as the need is much greater in other parts of the Borough. What I wanted was a consortium of local voluntary groups etc to get together to make funding appications from sources like the National Lottery. Although I am a long time Labour Pary member and former activist, I have been very critical of the Labour Council in its treatment of Chingford in the selling off of the Louisa Oakes Centre and run-down of Friday Hill House leaving a situation where there is not now any CLaSS education provision in Chingford and where local voluntary organisations have been priced out of the Borough halls etc. This situation was particularly bad with regard to the Louisa Oakes Centre because this was the former home of Chingford Labour Party Councillor - Louisa Oakes - who, when she died, left the building and grounds to Chingford with the proviso that it would be used for educational purposes for the people of Chingford. The profits from the Louisa Oakes Centre sale should have created created 'ring-fenced' monies that, I hoped, would have been used as a Borough contribution toward the provision of an Arts & Education Centre on the Tesco Higham Park site. This wasn't even considered and the money has been swallowed up into the Borough general accounts. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

I refer you to my previous comment, Sojourner. What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? I hope that you, as a Labour supporter, will not only lobby Labour Councillors but also campaign for Labour victories in Chingford Wards in May 2014. However, it is not true that Labour fail to allocate resources to Chingford. Money has been earmarked towards regenerating Chingford Mount and I wish parts of Walthamstow enjoyed the excellent facilities that Larkswood, for example, does.
I refer you to my previous comment, Sojourner. What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? I hope that you, as a Labour supporter, will not only lobby Labour Councillors but also campaign for Labour victories in Chingford Wards in May 2014. However, it is not true that Labour fail to allocate resources to Chingford. Money has been earmarked towards regenerating Chingford Mount and I wish parts of Walthamstow enjoyed the excellent facilities that Larkswood, for example, does. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Walthamster says...

Sam Hain wrote:
I refer you to my previous comment, Sojourner. What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? I hope that you, as a Labour supporter, will not only lobby Labour Councillors but also campaign for Labour victories in Chingford Wards in May 2014. However, it is not true that Labour fail to allocate resources to Chingford. Money has been earmarked towards regenerating Chingford Mount and I wish parts of Walthamstow enjoyed the excellent facilities that Larkswood, for example, does.
Sam, I can hardly believe you said "What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them?"

Councils aren't meant to just serve the areas that vote for them!

I can't see how more Labour clones will benefit anyone - I've been worse than disillusioned with the Labour majority in Waltham Forest.

OK, I have Liaquat Ali as my most prominent local councillor, which no one should have to endure. But Loakes, Robbins, Pye, Reardon - would any of these give you hope for the future?

The Tories aren't much cop either. But I haven't seen anything that would make anyone vote Labour, except in a ward with one of the few individual good councillors I've met. And they are all too rare.
[quote][p][bold]Sam Hain[/bold] wrote: I refer you to my previous comment, Sojourner. What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? I hope that you, as a Labour supporter, will not only lobby Labour Councillors but also campaign for Labour victories in Chingford Wards in May 2014. However, it is not true that Labour fail to allocate resources to Chingford. Money has been earmarked towards regenerating Chingford Mount and I wish parts of Walthamstow enjoyed the excellent facilities that Larkswood, for example, does.[/p][/quote]Sam, I can hardly believe you said "What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them?" Councils aren't meant to just serve the areas that vote for them! I can't see how more Labour clones will benefit anyone - I've been worse than disillusioned with the Labour majority in Waltham Forest. OK, I have Liaquat Ali as my most prominent local councillor, which no one should have to endure. But Loakes, Robbins, Pye, Reardon - would any of these give you hope for the future? The Tories aren't much cop either. But I haven't seen anything that would make anyone vote Labour, except in a ward with one of the few individual good councillors I've met. And they are all too rare. Walthamster
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

Sorry to have you reaching for the sal volatile, Walthamster, but this is the realpolitik of the situation. I know it sounds cynical but I think it's more pragmatic. In an ideal world (or England anyway) there would be no party politics in local government but that's how it is. Our Labour Council is struggling with cuts imposed by a Central (Tory-led) Government so who do you think, in that scenario, is most likely to benefit? Well, knock me down with a feather, the Labour-voting areas! As these also happen to be amongst the poorest in the borough, certainly in comparison to most of Chingford, this should come as no surprise. Scarce resources go to where they're a) most needed and b) most likely to deliver the vote, simple as that, whatever party is in power. There are 30-odd (some very odd!) Labour Councillors from all walks of life so one is bound to get the good, the bad and the (well, you know the rest) but come on, compared with the supine, lazy, often downright rude Tory lot in Chingford (again a few notable exeptions) I know which I'd rather have, and so does most of the borough it would seem. And besides, Chingford wouldn't be getting the current Labour Councillors but a new set of candidates to vote for. What have they got to lose? (apart, that is, from a lot of useless time-servers who call themselves an oppositon)..
Sorry to have you reaching for the sal volatile, Walthamster, but this is the realpolitik of the situation. I know it sounds cynical but I think it's more pragmatic. In an ideal world (or England anyway) there would be no party politics in local government but that's how it is. Our Labour Council is struggling with cuts imposed by a Central (Tory-led) Government so who do you think, in that scenario, is most likely to benefit? Well, knock me down with a feather, the Labour-voting areas! As these also happen to be amongst the poorest in the borough, certainly in comparison to most of Chingford, this should come as no surprise. Scarce resources go to where they're a) most needed and b) most likely to deliver the vote, simple as that, whatever party is in power. There are 30-odd (some very odd!) Labour Councillors from all walks of life so one is bound to get the good, the bad and the (well, you know the rest) but come on, compared with the supine, lazy, often downright rude Tory lot in Chingford (again a few notable exeptions) I know which I'd rather have, and so does most of the borough it would seem. And besides, Chingford wouldn't be getting the current Labour Councillors but a new set of candidates to vote for. What have they got to lose? (apart, that is, from a lot of useless time-servers who call themselves an oppositon).. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

10:33pm Wed 21 Nov 12

mdj says...

Sam, we just read Sojourner's account of the betrayal by the Labour-dominated Council of Louisa Oakes intentions; we also recall how Cllr Loakes, having had his backside kicked by the electors of Northampton, rushed back to find someone to kick in return, and demolished the prize-winning loos at Chingford Mount in an act of narcissistic spite. We also know from the Gun Lane cemetery story how the Labour Council shovels our assets to its cronies, and from the Stow saga how it bends planning decisions to a political whip. We know how £11 million were lost, wasted or stolen in the BNI scandal. In a posting above I listed other millions squandered by Labour incompetence, negligence and misfeasance.We recall Labour's triumph in achieving a 125% turnout at the last election.
Your response is that people should vote for the party responsible!

And we've only just got ourselves a respite from Cornbeefur...
Sam, we just read Sojourner's account of the betrayal by the Labour-dominated Council of Louisa Oakes intentions; we also recall how Cllr Loakes, having had his backside kicked by the electors of Northampton, rushed back to find someone to kick in return, and demolished the prize-winning loos at Chingford Mount in an act of narcissistic spite. We also know from the Gun Lane cemetery story how the Labour Council shovels our assets to its cronies, and from the Stow saga how it bends planning decisions to a political whip. We know how £11 million were lost, wasted or stolen in the BNI scandal. In a posting above I listed other millions squandered by Labour incompetence, negligence and misfeasance.We recall Labour's triumph in achieving a 125% turnout at the last election. Your response is that people should vote for the party responsible! And we've only just got ourselves a respite from Cornbeefur... mdj
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Oh dear Sam, I think you've lost your way. You said: 'What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? ' surely you can't possibly be suggesting that a Labour Council should indulge in the old New York Tamanny Hall politics of rewarding Wards that support party candidates. Indeed, you compound your error in a later post by saying: 'Scarce resources go to where they're a) most needed and b) most likely to deliver the vote, simple as that, whatever party is in power.' Its the b) 'most likely to deliver the vote' bit with which I have a problem.

You also say that you hope that I, as a Labour supporter will lobby Labour Councillors and campaign for Labour vicories in Chingford.

In fact I first started campaigning and working for the Labour Party in 1946 when I was 8 years old and until the last local election I have campaigned at most local and national elections. Indeed, two years ago I helped Waltham Forest Somali & Brava residents put together a 'Somali For Labour' group.

What you should know is that the way that the present Waltham Forest Labour Parties are constituted and because of the Waltham Forest Cabinet system lobbying local Councillors is a waste of time as by and large they are are politically impotent.

Other than the ilol fated 'One Stop' shop, I don't know about any proposed regeneration of Chingford Mount and I would also caution you about your comments in respect of the Larkswood facilities and suggest that you may want to look at the history of the site.

The Walthamstow Track and Pool facilities were once 'state of the art' but years of failure to properly maintain the facilities led to a sad decline. Not too long ago, the Council were looking to off-load the Walthamstow pool in favour of developing a new facility on the Arcade site. However, as they have now been able to secure new funding this should be upgraded to the needs of the 21st Century. The result will be a pool, gym and track faciliy that will rival most other London Borough facilities.
Oh dear Sam, I think you've lost your way. You said: 'What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? ' surely you can't possibly be suggesting that a Labour Council should indulge in the old New York Tamanny Hall politics of rewarding Wards that support party candidates. Indeed, you compound your error in a later post by saying: 'Scarce resources go to where they're a) most needed and b) most likely to deliver the vote, simple as that, whatever party is in power.' Its the b) 'most likely to deliver the vote' bit with which I have a problem. You also say that you hope that I, as a Labour supporter will lobby Labour Councillors and campaign for Labour vicories in Chingford. In fact I first started campaigning and working for the Labour Party in 1946 when I was 8 years old and until the last local election I have campaigned at most local and national elections. Indeed, two years ago I helped Waltham Forest Somali & Brava residents put together a 'Somali For Labour' group. What you should know is that the way that the present Waltham Forest Labour Parties are constituted and because of the Waltham Forest Cabinet system lobbying local Councillors is a waste of time as by and large they are are politically impotent. Other than the ilol fated 'One Stop' shop, I don't know about any proposed regeneration of Chingford Mount and I would also caution you about your comments in respect of the Larkswood facilities and suggest that you may want to look at the history of the site. The Walthamstow Track and Pool facilities were once 'state of the art' but years of failure to properly maintain the facilities led to a sad decline. Not too long ago, the Council were looking to off-load the Walthamstow pool in favour of developing a new facility on the Arcade site. However, as they have now been able to secure new funding this should be upgraded to the needs of the 21st Century. The result will be a pool, gym and track faciliy that will rival most other London Borough facilities. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

10:36pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Oh dear Sam, I think you've lost your way. You said: 'What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? ' surely you can't possibly be suggesting that a Labour Council should indulge in the old New York Tamanny Hall politics of rewarding Wards that support party candidates. Indeed, you compound your error in a later post by saying: 'Scarce resources go to where they're a) most needed and b) most likely to deliver the vote, simple as that, whatever party is in power.' Its the b) 'most likely to deliver the vote' bit with which I have a problem.

You also say that you hope that I, as a Labour supporter will lobby Labour Councillors and campaign for Labour vicories in Chingford.

In fact I first started campaigning and working for the Labour Party in 1946 when I was 8 years old and until the last local election I have campaigned at most local and national elections. Indeed, two years ago I helped Waltham Forest Somali & Brava residents put together a 'Somali For Labour' group.

What you should know is that the way that the present Waltham Forest Labour Parties are constituted and because of the Waltham Forest Cabinet system lobbying local Councillors is a waste of time as by and large they are are politically impotent.

Other than the ilol fated 'One Stop' shop, I don't know about any proposed regeneration of Chingford Mount and I would also caution you about your comments in respect of the Larkswood facilities and suggest that you may want to look at the history of the site.

The Walthamstow Track and Pool facilities were once 'state of the art' but years of failure to properly maintain the facilities led to a sad decline. Not too long ago, the Council were looking to off-load the Walthamstow pool in favour of developing a new facility on the Arcade site. However, as they have now been able to secure new funding this should be upgraded to the needs of the 21st Century. The result will be a pool, gym and track faciliy that will rival most other London Borough facilities.
Oh dear Sam, I think you've lost your way. You said: 'What incentive is there for Labour Councillors to put resources into an area that resolutely refuses to endorse them? ' surely you can't possibly be suggesting that a Labour Council should indulge in the old New York Tamanny Hall politics of rewarding Wards that support party candidates. Indeed, you compound your error in a later post by saying: 'Scarce resources go to where they're a) most needed and b) most likely to deliver the vote, simple as that, whatever party is in power.' Its the b) 'most likely to deliver the vote' bit with which I have a problem. You also say that you hope that I, as a Labour supporter will lobby Labour Councillors and campaign for Labour vicories in Chingford. In fact I first started campaigning and working for the Labour Party in 1946 when I was 8 years old and until the last local election I have campaigned at most local and national elections. Indeed, two years ago I helped Waltham Forest Somali & Brava residents put together a 'Somali For Labour' group. What you should know is that the way that the present Waltham Forest Labour Parties are constituted and because of the Waltham Forest Cabinet system lobbying local Councillors is a waste of time as by and large they are are politically impotent. Other than the ilol fated 'One Stop' shop, I don't know about any proposed regeneration of Chingford Mount and I would also caution you about your comments in respect of the Larkswood facilities and suggest that you may want to look at the history of the site. The Walthamstow Track and Pool facilities were once 'state of the art' but years of failure to properly maintain the facilities led to a sad decline. Not too long ago, the Council were looking to off-load the Walthamstow pool in favour of developing a new facility on the Arcade site. However, as they have now been able to secure new funding this should be upgraded to the needs of the 21st Century. The result will be a pool, gym and track faciliy that will rival most other London Borough facilities. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Wed 21 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Cornbeefur shows his ignorance with every post that he makes and demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he reads.

1) I was pointing out how long I have been involved with working for the Labour Party.I didn't suggest that I was comparing my thinking as an 8 years old with my present day thinking. However, despite the fact that I am now 66 years older than I was then, the basics haven't changed. To me being a Socialist is not only an intellectual position but more importantly is based on a moral and ethical position..

2) Vis a vis your comment about Somali & Brava, you really need to research a bit and find out about the diverse people and cultures who make up the population of Waltham Forest.

3) I don't understand the relevance to the subject of Maggie Thatcher retiring past her 'sell by' date. I thought that she went because her party didn't want her any more as leader.

4) Similarly, I don't understand the relevance of your comment about with your comment about the Emperor's New clothes. Except that the story reminds me very much of your posts i.e. A lot of exterior dressing with nothing at all underneath them.
Cornbeefur shows his ignorance with every post that he makes and demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he reads. 1) I was pointing out how long I have been involved with working for the Labour Party.I didn't suggest that I was comparing my thinking as an 8 years old with my present day thinking. However, despite the fact that I am now 66 years older than I was then, the basics haven't changed. To me being a Socialist is not only an intellectual position but more importantly is based on a moral and ethical position.. 2) Vis a vis your comment about Somali & Brava, you really need to research a bit and find out about the diverse people and cultures who make up the population of Waltham Forest. 3) I don't understand the relevance to the subject of Maggie Thatcher retiring past her 'sell by' date. I thought that she went because her party didn't want her any more as leader. 4) Similarly, I don't understand the relevance of your comment about with your comment about the Emperor's New clothes. Except that the story reminds me very much of your posts i.e. A lot of exterior dressing with nothing at all underneath them. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

6:09am Thu 22 Nov 12

KWyatt-Lown says...

There is an afternoon event being hosted by Apex Arts this Saturday, from 2 to 6pm, at which artists, arts organisations and supporters are all invited to go along and join a debate about how people might best work together to ensure a healthy future or the arts in the borough.

Maybe this could be an ideal platform and networking opportunity for anyone interested in Bill's project to meet up; as well as motivate some fresh supporters.

The venue is O'Neills Music Room,762 High Road,Leytonstone.
There is an afternoon event being hosted by Apex Arts this Saturday, from 2 to 6pm, at which artists, arts organisations and supporters are all invited to go along and join a debate about how people might best work together to ensure a healthy future or the arts in the borough. Maybe this could be an ideal platform and networking opportunity for anyone interested in Bill's project to meet up; as well as motivate some fresh supporters. The venue is O'Neills Music Room,762 High Road,Leytonstone. KWyatt-Lown
  • Score: 0

9:04am Thu 22 Nov 12

Bernard 87 says...

Sam, the last thing the people of Chingford should do is vote Labour. What Waltham Forest does need is a proper opposition. Ed Northover was brilliant at this but with him no longer around the Tories seem very quiet on a number of issues. They need to concern themselves with issues that affect other parts of the borough as well as Chingford to prove to people that they are worth voting for.

On the other hand, one thing that 'Cornbeef whatever his name is' said is true. People vote in Labour, spend a term criticising them, then vote them back in again. With that mentality prevalent in the borough the Tories probably think whats the point trying to convince people in Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone to vote Tory. The government aren't exactly making their job any easier either.

The council are there to represent everyone not just those who vote for them and there is very little positive I can see that they have done for Chingford in the past decades. It's a shame that Chingford cannot leave Waltham Forest allowing the present bunch to continue to run down whats left of the borough.
Sam, the last thing the people of Chingford should do is vote Labour. What Waltham Forest does need is a proper opposition. Ed Northover was brilliant at this but with him no longer around the Tories seem very quiet on a number of issues. They need to concern themselves with issues that affect other parts of the borough as well as Chingford to prove to people that they are worth voting for. On the other hand, one thing that 'Cornbeef whatever his name is' said is true. People vote in Labour, spend a term criticising them, then vote them back in again. With that mentality prevalent in the borough the Tories probably think whats the point trying to convince people in Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone to vote Tory. The government aren't exactly making their job any easier either. The council are there to represent everyone not just those who vote for them and there is very little positive I can see that they have done for Chingford in the past decades. It's a shame that Chingford cannot leave Waltham Forest allowing the present bunch to continue to run down whats left of the borough. Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

KWyatt-Lown says...
6:09am Thu 22 Nov 12

There is an afternoon event being hosted by Apex Arts this Saturday, from 2 to 6pm, at which artists, arts organisations and supporters are all invited to go along and join a debate about how people might best work together to ensure a healthy future or the arts in the borough.

Maybe this could be an ideal platform and networking opportunity for anyone interested in Bill's project to meet up; as well as motivate some fresh supporters.

The venue is O'Neills Music Room,762 High Road,Leytonstone.

While I would urge people to go along and join in the debate, it will not make any difference to the situation with regard to the old Chingford Town Hall.

The time for action was many months ago when I secured the approval of the Chingford public for my proposals at the North Chingford
Community Forum. Unfortunately, because the Chingford Green & Endlebury Ward Councillors point blank refused to have anything to do with my proposals, any chance of using the old Town Hall for the benefit of the community was lost. Now, the developers will do whatever gives them the most profit from the building
KWyatt-Lown says... 6:09am Thu 22 Nov 12 There is an afternoon event being hosted by Apex Arts this Saturday, from 2 to 6pm, at which artists, arts organisations and supporters are all invited to go along and join a debate about how people might best work together to ensure a healthy future or the arts in the borough. Maybe this could be an ideal platform and networking opportunity for anyone interested in Bill's project to meet up; as well as motivate some fresh supporters. The venue is O'Neills Music Room,762 High Road,Leytonstone. While I would urge people to go along and join in the debate, it will not make any difference to the situation with regard to the old Chingford Town Hall. The time for action was many months ago when I secured the approval of the Chingford public for my proposals at the North Chingford Community Forum. Unfortunately, because the Chingford Green & Endlebury Ward Councillors point blank refused to have anything to do with my proposals, any chance of using the old Town Hall for the benefit of the community was lost. Now, the developers will do whatever gives them the most profit from the building Sojourner
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

Sojourner, I'm picking up such mixed messages from you I'm in a spin. You say you're a lifelong Labour supporter but then proceed to put the boot in in a way which makes me think with friends like you who needs enemies. Then KWyatt-Lown makes a very positive and constructive contribution only for you to pour a bucket of cold water over it by saying it's too late. What a counsel of despiar! What is it you actually want us to do about this situation? Why did you go to the Guardian in the first place?
Sojourner, I'm picking up such mixed messages from you I'm in a spin. You say you're a lifelong Labour supporter but then proceed to put the boot in in a way which makes me think with friends like you who needs enemies. Then KWyatt-Lown makes a very positive and constructive contribution only for you to pour a bucket of cold water over it by saying it's too late. What a counsel of despiar! What is it you actually want us to do about this situation? Why did you go to the Guardian in the first place? Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

As you say, mdj, I've read Soujourner's account of alleged Labour betrayals but, given my comment above, you'll forgive me if I don't entirely accept it as 'gospel'. You yourself make some cogent points. I've never claimed Labour is perfect and, indeed, I said I didn't necessarily see there was a role for party politics in local Government so I'd prefer, having got riifd of you-know-who you'd refrain from being snide about me. By the by, I take it from what you say that you'll be standing as an independent candidate agai in 2014, perhaps this time in Chingford as I know that your dislike of Labour also extends to the opposition party?
As you say, mdj, I've read Soujourner's account of alleged Labour betrayals but, given my comment above, you'll forgive me if I don't entirely accept it as 'gospel'. You yourself make some cogent points. I've never claimed Labour is perfect and, indeed, I said I didn't necessarily see there was a role for party politics in local Government so I'd prefer, having got riifd of you-know-who you'd refrain from being snide about me. By the by, I take it from what you say that you'll be standing as an independent candidate agai in 2014, perhaps this time in Chingford as I know that your dislike of Labour also extends to the opposition party? Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Sam Hain said: 'Sojourner, I'm picking up such mixed messages from you I'm in a spin. You say you're a lifelong Labour supporter but then proceed to put the boot in in a way which makes me think with friends like you who needs enemies. Then KWyatt-Lown makes a very positive and constructive contribution only for you to pour a bucket of cold water over it by saying it's too late. What a counsel of despiar! What is it you actually want us to do about this situation? Why did you go to the Guardian in the first place?

First of all I would advise you Sam, that I didn't go to the Guardian. Their reporter, Joe Curtis came to me!.

Second... It is not a question of my (lLabour) Party right or wrong. It is because I am a Labour supporter that I have made comments about a number of issues where Labour controlled Waltham Forest have not acted in the best interests of Chingford residents.

Third... I am not pouring a bucket of water over KWyatt Lown's suggestions. I am simply advising that because the site was sold without any restrictions on the developer's use of the old Town Hall and because the North Chingford Community Forum Conservative Councillors refused to act - it is now too late.

Fourth.. Are you sure you know what development and building we are talking about? I ask this because in your very first post on this issue you were talking about Chingford Assembly Hall which was another debacle.
Sam Hain said: 'Sojourner, I'm picking up such mixed messages from you I'm in a spin. You say you're a lifelong Labour supporter but then proceed to put the boot in in a way which makes me think with friends like you who needs enemies. Then KWyatt-Lown makes a very positive and constructive contribution only for you to pour a bucket of cold water over it by saying it's too late. What a counsel of despiar! What is it you actually want us to do about this situation? Why did you go to the Guardian in the first place? First of all I would advise you Sam, that I didn't go to the Guardian. Their reporter, Joe Curtis came to me!. Second... It is not a question of my (lLabour) Party right or wrong. It is because I am a Labour supporter that I have made comments about a number of issues where Labour controlled Waltham Forest have not acted in the best interests of Chingford residents. Third... I am not pouring a bucket of water over KWyatt Lown's suggestions. I am simply advising that because the site was sold without any restrictions on the developer's use of the old Town Hall and because the North Chingford Community Forum Conservative Councillors refused to act - it is now too late. Fourth.. Are you sure you know what development and building we are talking about? I ask this because in your very first post on this issue you were talking about Chingford Assembly Hall which was another debacle. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

I know precisely whcih building you're referring to, Sojourner, and, was I in any doubt, the picture makes it quite obvious. You may not have approached the Guardian but your were obviously willing to turn out on what looks like a very dreary day. Having gone to all this trouble, why would you simply want to use the opportunity to 'diss' the Labour Party and then wring your hands in a counsel of despair that nothing can be done as it's now all too late anyway! It seems we've all been engaged in supporting your proposals for the building on a false prospectus. Remind me not to bother next time you come up with a scheme.
I know precisely whcih building you're referring to, Sojourner, and, was I in any doubt, the picture makes it quite obvious. You may not have approached the Guardian but your were obviously willing to turn out on what looks like a very dreary day. Having gone to all this trouble, why would you simply want to use the opportunity to 'diss' the Labour Party and then wring your hands in a counsel of despair that nothing can be done as it's now all too late anyway! It seems we've all been engaged in supporting your proposals for the building on a false prospectus. Remind me not to bother next time you come up with a scheme. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

5:20pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sojourner says...

Sam Hain said:I know precisely whcih building you're referring to, Sojourner, and, was I in any doubt, the picture makes it quite obvious. You may not have approached the Guardian but your were obviously willing to turn out on what looks like a very dreary day. Having gone to all this trouble, why would you simply want to use the opportunity to 'diss' the Labour Party and then wring your hands in a counsel of despair that nothing can be done as it's now all too late anyway! It seems we've all been engaged in supporting your proposals for the building on a false prospectus. Remind me not to bother next time you come up with a scheme.

I'm pleased that you do know the building because in your original post you were talking about Chingford Assembly Hall. I actually only live a few yards from the old Town Hall so it wasn't a problem to turn out on a drerary day. Indeed, I have spent many long hours canvassing for the Labour Party in much worse weather.

If 'dissing' the Labour Party is telling the truth about a situation then I have to plead guilty.

I don't know where you were when I was trying to persuade the Chingford Labour Party to support my proposals that the entire site should be developed for social housing around a Health Centre.

I'm not wringing my hands in despair because nothing can be done. If you've read my posts you will understand why I am saying that nothing can be done. The site including the old Town Hall is owned by the developer and the chance to influence what happens to the old Town Hall has gone because local Conservative Councillors are not interested in protecting our heritage.

What has happened to the site is exactly what I expected would happen. It is a prime housing site in a prestigious part of North Chingford. The Council had the opportunity of insisting that the development should contain a high percentage of social housing and the incorporation of a Health Centre but it sold it to a developer without imposing any restrictions on use. The few social housing units that will be provided are to be segregated away from the main site so that those purchasing properties at full value don't have to mix with social housing tenants.

I don't know what the 'false premises' are on which you provided your support. I suspect that you didn't read what was being said in my posts very carefully and haven't bothered to research the history of the site.

As you haven't provided any support other than a few posts. I won't be too distressed by your little 'hissy fit.
Sam Hain said:I know precisely whcih building you're referring to, Sojourner, and, was I in any doubt, the picture makes it quite obvious. You may not have approached the Guardian but your were obviously willing to turn out on what looks like a very dreary day. Having gone to all this trouble, why would you simply want to use the opportunity to 'diss' the Labour Party and then wring your hands in a counsel of despair that nothing can be done as it's now all too late anyway! It seems we've all been engaged in supporting your proposals for the building on a false prospectus. Remind me not to bother next time you come up with a scheme. I'm pleased that you do know the building because in your original post you were talking about Chingford Assembly Hall. I actually only live a few yards from the old Town Hall so it wasn't a problem to turn out on a drerary day. Indeed, I have spent many long hours canvassing for the Labour Party in much worse weather. If 'dissing' the Labour Party is telling the truth about a situation then I have to plead guilty. I don't know where you were when I was trying to persuade the Chingford Labour Party to support my proposals that the entire site should be developed for social housing around a Health Centre. I'm not wringing my hands in despair because nothing can be done. If you've read my posts you will understand why I am saying that nothing can be done. The site including the old Town Hall is owned by the developer and the chance to influence what happens to the old Town Hall has gone because local Conservative Councillors are not interested in protecting our heritage. What has happened to the site is exactly what I expected would happen. It is a prime housing site in a prestigious part of North Chingford. The Council had the opportunity of insisting that the development should contain a high percentage of social housing and the incorporation of a Health Centre but it sold it to a developer without imposing any restrictions on use. The few social housing units that will be provided are to be segregated away from the main site so that those purchasing properties at full value don't have to mix with social housing tenants. I don't know what the 'false premises' are on which you provided your support. I suspect that you didn't read what was being said in my posts very carefully and haven't bothered to research the history of the site. As you haven't provided any support other than a few posts. I won't be too distressed by your little 'hissy fit. Sojourner
  • Score: 0

5:31pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Sam Hain says...

Have it your own way, Sojourner, but sadly you've hit on a perfect recipe for losing friends and alienating people. That's it from me on this issue (with no apologies if that sounds like a hissy fit) life is too short to bother with time wasters.
Have it your own way, Sojourner, but sadly you've hit on a perfect recipe for losing friends and alienating people. That's it from me on this issue (with no apologies if that sounds like a hissy fit) life is too short to bother with time wasters. Sam Hain
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Thu 22 Nov 12

mdj says...

' I take it from what you say that you'll be standing as an independent candidate again in 2014, perhaps this time in Chingford'

Why on earth, Sam? On the few occasions I've attended Community Councils in Chingford I've been impressed to see articulate displays of neighbourliness, public spirit and positive ideas, which prove that there are plenty of local people who could do a better job than the inert Councillors they mysteriously vote for time and again. One might call this community spirit 'socialism' were they not mostly True-Blues who would not appreciate the label!
On the other hand, I've known people who called themselves socialists who stole library books. Go figure.
Sojourner has the balance and detachment to criticise his own party when he sees it going astray; that seems preferable to blind support of this week's Party line, surely? It wasn't a Tory council that let this landmark building go without securing any benefits for the local community, after all.
' I take it from what you say that you'll be standing as an independent candidate again in 2014, perhaps this time in Chingford' Why on earth, Sam? On the few occasions I've attended Community Councils in Chingford I've been impressed to see articulate displays of neighbourliness, public spirit and positive ideas, which prove that there are plenty of local people who could do a better job than the inert Councillors they mysteriously vote for time and again. One might call this community spirit 'socialism' were they not mostly True-Blues who would not appreciate the label! On the other hand, I've known people who called themselves socialists who stole library books. Go figure. Sojourner has the balance and detachment to criticise his own party when he sees it going astray; that seems preferable to blind support of this week's Party line, surely? It wasn't a Tory council that let this landmark building go without securing any benefits for the local community, after all. mdj
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Thu 22 Nov 12

mdj says...

'.. the Tories probably think whats the point trying to convince people in Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone to vote Tory..' (Bernard 87)

Another theory may be that the Tories keep their heads down in this Borough, and in return Labour pulls its punches in Redbridge or Enfield.
'.. the Tories probably think whats the point trying to convince people in Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone to vote Tory..' (Bernard 87) Another theory may be that the Tories keep their heads down in this Borough, and in return Labour pulls its punches in Redbridge or Enfield. mdj
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

One only has to look at the other 'Treasure' Buildings lost in the Borough over the years or not protected under the Watch of Labour to realise that this is no surprise at all.
One only has to look at the other 'Treasure' Buildings lost in the Borough over the years or not protected under the Watch of Labour to realise that this is no surprise at all. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

8:20am Fri 23 Nov 12

Robert19 says...

Sam Hain wrote:
Have it your own way, Sojourner, but sadly you've hit on a perfect recipe for losing friends and alienating people. That's it from me on this issue (with no apologies if that sounds like a hissy fit) life is too short to bother with time wasters.
I think that is a bit churlish and insulting to Bill Bayliss Sam Hain who has at least tried to do something and feels frustrated. Why should he not speak his mind about the Labour Party if he feels equally frustrated by them from time to time? I feel an apology would be appropriate.
[quote][p][bold]Sam Hain[/bold] wrote: Have it your own way, Sojourner, but sadly you've hit on a perfect recipe for losing friends and alienating people. That's it from me on this issue (with no apologies if that sounds like a hissy fit) life is too short to bother with time wasters.[/p][/quote]I think that is a bit churlish and insulting to Bill Bayliss Sam Hain who has at least tried to do something and feels frustrated. Why should he not speak his mind about the Labour Party if he feels equally frustrated by them from time to time? I feel an apology would be appropriate. Robert19
  • Score: 0

8:32am Fri 23 Nov 12

Isaythat says...

Sam, it is a shame you have taken things here personally. We all like to offload our thoughts on here and to share them with others, not to argue with one another!.
It would be nice if you could offer a kind word to Bill.
Sam, it is a shame you have taken things here personally. We all like to offload our thoughts on here and to share them with others, not to argue with one another!. It would be nice if you could offer a kind word to Bill. Isaythat
  • Score: 0

10:15am Fri 23 Nov 12

Bernard 87 says...

It shows you are an honest supporter of your party when you can freely criticise decisions they take which you see as being the wrong decision. I'm a Tory and make no excuses about that but there are many times when I have criticised Tory policies. Parties should be able to listen to criticism. Waltham Forest Labour group are so useless and will always be useless but if folk like Sam Hain keep pretending that they are good then they will never change. By constantly praising a useless council actually slows progress and they think they are doing fine.

Re Labour in Redbridge and Enfield: Labour are only gaining strength there due to demographic change, like most of London. I'm not even going to get into that argument!
It shows you are an honest supporter of your party when you can freely criticise decisions they take which you see as being the wrong decision. I'm a Tory and make no excuses about that but there are many times when I have criticised Tory policies. Parties should be able to listen to criticism. Waltham Forest Labour group are so useless and will always be useless but if folk like Sam Hain keep pretending that they are good then they will never change. By constantly praising a useless council actually slows progress and they think they are doing fine. Re Labour in Redbridge and Enfield: Labour are only gaining strength there due to demographic change, like most of London. I'm not even going to get into that argument! Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Fri 23 Nov 12

mdj says...

'Re Labour in Redbridge and Enfield: Labour are only gaining strength there due to demographic change..'

With respect, Bernard, isn't this assumption part of the problem? If parties assume that certain parts of the electorate belong to them, and concede whole areas to the other, it makes my comment above true.

Locally, Ed Northover was the only Tory who didn't accept this defeatist assumption: you even saw him out in Leytonstone leafletting, and he got a lot of respect for it.
Perhaps he left partly because he was given a quiet word that reaching out across boundaries wasn't how politics is supposed to be in this borough - or even this country. It helps explain the stagnant mess we're in.
'Re Labour in Redbridge and Enfield: Labour are only gaining strength there due to demographic change..' With respect, Bernard, isn't this assumption part of the problem? If parties assume that certain parts of the electorate belong to them, and concede whole areas to the other, it makes my comment above true. Locally, Ed Northover was the only Tory who didn't accept this defeatist assumption: you even saw him out in Leytonstone leafletting, and he got a lot of respect for it. Perhaps he left partly because he was given a quiet word that reaching out across boundaries wasn't how politics is supposed to be in this borough - or even this country. It helps explain the stagnant mess we're in. mdj
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Bernard 87 says...

"With respect, Bernard, isn't this assumption part of the problem? If parties assume that certain parts of the electorate belong to them, and concede whole areas to the other, it makes my comment above true"

Good point. This is why I have constantly said that the Tories in Waltham Forest need to prove that they work for the whole of the borough not just Chingford. Their attitude seems to be if it concerns anything south of the A406 they're not bothered, while Labour seem only too happy to infringe their support in Chingford. Parties have to try to reach out to all people but this isn't the case in the UK anymore.
Whether we like it or not demograhic change has been the biggest benefit to Labour, not good policies. On the other hand Tory policies in places like Enfield and Redbridge would also play a large part in their vote declining there as well.
"With respect, Bernard, isn't this assumption part of the problem? If parties assume that certain parts of the electorate belong to them, and concede whole areas to the other, it makes my comment above true" Good point. This is why I have constantly said that the Tories in Waltham Forest need to prove that they work for the whole of the borough not just Chingford. Their attitude seems to be if it concerns anything south of the A406 they're not bothered, while Labour seem only too happy to infringe their support in Chingford. Parties have to try to reach out to all people but this isn't the case in the UK anymore. Whether we like it or not demograhic change has been the biggest benefit to Labour, not good policies. On the other hand Tory policies in places like Enfield and Redbridge would also play a large part in their vote declining there as well. Bernard 87
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Fri 23 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

I have always wondered what it would take for a staunch Labour (my dad voted Labour, his dad voted Labour etc etc and so on, supporter, to change their mind and vote elsewhere like this chap.

I have come to the conclusion, that (even after Bliar and Iraq, WMD) there are some who maybe in a mental situation that they have just lost the plot and carry on regardless?
I have always wondered what it would take for a staunch Labour (my dad voted Labour, his dad voted Labour etc etc and so on, supporter, to change their mind and vote elsewhere like this chap. I have come to the conclusion, that (even after Bliar and Iraq, WMD) there are some who maybe in a mental situation that they have just lost the plot and carry on regardless? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree