I won't exactly have time tomorrow to blog - but maybe afterwards I'll explain a bit about what political activists get up to on polling day.....

Just three messages for tomorrow...

Don't forget that you can give a first and second preference for Mayor. There is no need to use your first vote tactically, so vote for Brian Paddick.

Let's get Stephen Knight elected for South West London - it's very close.

Make sure you vote for a party list, and don't let the BNP get a seat.

The Evening Standard thinks that Stephen Knight can win the South West London seat for the Liberal Democrats. After all he only needs a 1.3% swing to take it.

Don't be misled by the headline - this would not be the first Lib Dem on the London Assembly (we have five at present) but would be the first Lib Dem elected to one of the 14 super-constituency seats. (I tried to explain the complexities of this in a recent posting.)

Major shake-up at Assembly may give Lib-Dems first seat

.....

Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics said: "The face of the London Assembly could well change and you have to remember that last time only one of the seats changed hands.

"This time we are looking at four possibilities but only predicting the actual change of two of the seats."

The Assembly is made up of 14 "super constituency" members, voted for by name, and 11 London-wide members appointed from party lists after voters cast a "top-up" vote for a party on a third ballot paper.

The most vulnerable constituency, the South West seat, is currently held by Tory Tony Arbour but the London Communications Agency predicts it could change hands with Lib-Dem Stephen Knight turning around a majority of 4,067.

"The super constituency includes Hounslow, Kingston and Richmond and is one of only two seats held by the Tories despite them not having a single parliamentary seat in the area," said Mr Travers.

Yesterday St Paul's Church, Hook, held its first ever Pet Service. About 20 pets were brought along by their owners - or a photo had to do in the case of fish.

Amazingly there was not a sound from the assorted dogs, cats, guinea pigs and hamsters throughout the service, and as far as I could tell no 'accidents' either.

We read the beautiful Canticle of the Sun by St Francis of Assisi:

O most high, almighty, good Lord, God:
to you belong praise, glory, honour and all blessing.

Praised be my Lord by all his creatures:
and chiefly by our brother the sun,
who brings us the day and brings us the light.
Fair is he, and shines with a very great splendour:
he points us, O Lord, to you.

Praised be my Lord by our sister the moon:
and by the stars which you have set clear and lovely in heaven.

Praised be my Lord by our brother the wind:
and by air and clouds, calms and all weather,
by which you uphold life in all creatures.

Praised be my Lord by our sister water:
who is very useful to us and humble and precious and clean.

Praised be my Lord by our brother fire,
through whom you give light in the darkness:
and he is bright and pleasant
and very mighty and strong.

Praised be my Lord by our mother the earth,
who sustains us and keeps us:
and brings forth fruit of different kinds,
flowers of many colours, and grass.

Praised be my Lord by all who pardon one another
for your love's sake:
and all who endure weakness and trials.
Blessed are they who calmly endure:
for you, O most high, shall give them a crown.

Praised be my Lord by our sister the death of the body,
from which no one escapes:
blessed are those who are found walking
by your most holy will.

Praise and bless the Lord, and give thanks to him:
and serve him with great humility.

London Elects give impartial information about the London elections next Thursday.

Today I received their booklet. Don't throw it away when it arrives - it actually has some helpful advice. If you've already sent off a postal vote then you know all this anyway!

On May 1st, at the polling station you'll be given three ballot papers.

The pink ballot paper

This one is for the Mayor of London. There are ten candidates on the paper, though one of them, Matt O'Connor has now withdrawn.

You can make a first and a second choice. That means that you can choose the person you really want to be Mayor as your first choice.

All these first preferences will be added up. If one candidate gets more than 50% then that person has won. It is much more likely that no-one will reach 50%, so the top two will go forward to the next stage.

You can also mark your second choice of candidate. If your first choice is not one of the top two, your second choice will be added in now.

For the second choice you have to do a bit of tactical thinking. You have to decide who is likely to get through to this stage (other than your first choice candidate) and then chose the one you would prefer to be Mayor.

It's clear that the only candidates with a chance of getting into the final two are Brian Paddick, Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnston.

It's no surprise to you that my first choice will be Brian Paddick. I'm still not decided about my second choice, but I know it has to be Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnston, or I can leave it blank.

The yellow  ballot paper

This is a bit easier.

It's a simple 'first past the post' election for the London Assembly member for South West London.

I'm voting for Stephen Knight, the Liberal Democrat, who only requires a 1.3% swing to unseat the Conservative, Tony Arbour.

The peach ballot paper

Here you vote for your preferred political party. 

These votes are used to allocate the 14 remaining London Assembly seats, to ensure that the parties are represented fairly. In practice, any party that gets more than 5% of the vote will get a place, starting with the person at the top of their list.

Although I'm very happy to see proportional representation on the Assembly this does open up the real possibility of electing a member from the odious British National Party.

So whatever else you do, don't leave this ballot paper blank. Don't let the BNP get a foothold in the London Assembly.

Where is my polling station?

Enter your postcode on the London Elects site to find out. You don't need to take your polling card with you to vote, but you do need to be on the electoral register.

You may have misssed a choice exchange in the comments on an entry I wrote a couple of weeks ago.

I was writing about the current Conservative London Assembly member for South West London: "In the 8 years since he was elected to this seat, Tony Arbour has never once contacted me, as a local councillor, about the local issues which he should be championing. In fact, the only time he appears to have set foot within the area is recorded in a photo in the local press earlier this year."

Kevin Davis, the former Conservative councillor and opposition leader on the Council, was incensed by this. He commented:

I don't have time to do it but you only have to google his name and Chessington or Hook and you get a flood if things he has taken an interest in that directly affect Hook and Chessington; Malden Rushett crossroads, the red route etc etc.

I couldn't resist the challenge so googled 'Tony Arbour Chessington Hook'.

I found exactly ten entries that actually referred to him (rather than Arbour Road etc). They were:

1. A reference by one of the local residents associations to a meeting he attended in 2002 about the Red Route
2. His contact details at the same residents association
3. A reference to a comment he made about TfL's improvements at Malden Rushett in the minutes of another residents association meeting in 2006 (which he did not attend).
4. Listed as GLA member on the London Gypsy & Traveller Unit website
5. A dead link to the local Conservative party website
6. A link to the election page on the local Conservative party website
7. Listed as GLA member on the Kingston upon Thames page on Wikipedia
8. Listed as GLA member on Kingston Council's website
9. A reference to him on the New Malden Conservatives page
10. Listed as GLA member on London Councils website

That's it!

In other words there are only two references (nos 1 and 3) to him getting involved in issues in Chessington and Hook in eight years!

You can read the entry and all the comments here.

Well, I am sort-of relieved that Gordon Brown has backed down on the 10p tax rate scandal, and is offering compensation for those affected.

But when, Gordon, when?  The people who were going to suffer because of this cock-up are the very people who struggle to find cash from one week to the next. Adding the compensation to the Winter Fuel Payment for pensioners, for example, won't ease the cash-flow problem you've caused this month.

As a councillor I often have to support local people who are in just such a situation.  People who panic when yet another bill arrives that they cannot pay, so ignore the threats of legal action and find themselves in court, essentially for being poor. And many of these find themselves in the situation because there has been some muddle with the payment of benefits to which they are entitled, or even the miscalculation of tax.

When the abolition of the 10p rate was announced last year I'm afraid I believed Brown's claims that the added tax would be counterbalanced by credits elsewhere in the system for those on lowest incomes. I'm not an economist, so I hadn't realised that credits would only ease the situation for a proportion of those affected.

I should find it astonishing that a Labour Government had strayed so far from its roots, which lay in social justice for the ordinary people of this country. But I don't - find it astonishing, I mean. Because for many years now New Labour has lost its fundamental principles, adopting a free market economy rather than targeting the greatest need. It takes a social activist like Frank Field MP, someone whom I have admired ever since he headed the Child Poverty Action Group, to act as Gordon Brown's conscience.

I hope Frank Field won't leave it there. He has withdrawn his amendment, but he and all politicians who care about poverty need to make sure that compensation is direct and available now.

The Council intends to sign a contract which will mean your rubbish will only be collected once every fortnight.

That is a complete lie.

Yet it appears on a leaflet distributed by the Conservative Tony Arbour.  He, of course, is fighting to keep his London Assembly seat against the Liberal Democrat candidate, Stephen Knight, who only needs a swing of 1.3% to unseat him.

Have the local Tories lost all sense of integrity in public life? Does Tony Arbour really think it is ethical to lie to the voters just before an election?

Back to the truth - Kingston's new waste contract will collect rubbish every week from every home. It will collect all of these each week:

Food - cooked and uncooked (meat too)
Paper
Cardboard
Plastic bottles
Glass bottles and jars
Cans and tins
Textiles and shoes
Directories
Drinks cartons (including Tetra Pak)
Household batteries

How can that possibly be described as a fortnightly waste collection? 

Now that list amounts to almost all the rubbish we produce in my home. In fact, the main things that will be left over will be packaging, and that will be collected every other week - and I, for one, am trying to buy things with as little packaging as possible these days.

The good thing about the new contract is that all the stuff collected weekly will go for recycling. That's a big improvement over the current contract, which requires us to take cardboard, textiles, drinks cartons and directories to a recycling site ourselves, doesn't include food or batteries at all, and only collects recycling fortnightly from our homes.

In the future, anything else that can be recycled, such as different plastics and foil, will be added to the list of things collected weekly.

To store our waste, we will all be given recycling boxes and free wheelie bins. Flats will all be included in the scheme.

If you like the idea of weekly recycling, with a much bigger range of materials, then you can sign the 'Back Weekly Recycling in Kingston' petition online.

So I only have to mention 'Gavin and Stacey' and they pick up two BAFTAs!  Perhaps I can work my magic on Brian Paddick as well...

Back to the Essex/Barry sitcom.

A couple of weeks ago the M4 Severn Bridge tolls were mentioned in passing, so I was waiting for them to play some part in the unfolding drama. Sure enough, in last night's episode, Gavin and Smithy are rushing to cross the bridge, then find they are 10p short of the right change for the toll.

They do what any self-respecting expectant father should do - crash the barrier, then fall on the kindness of the local police.

Except that's not what does happen if you don't have enough cash at the toll booth.

I take this route regularly because my mother lives not far from Barry, and so far I have always remembered to check my cash before I leave home. Extraordinary as it might seem in this electronic age, the tolls do not accept cards, or Internet payment, or even cheques

So if you turn up with just £5, instead of the £5.30 it now costs, you would hope to find a cash machine on the 'toll plaza' (as they call it), wouldn't you?  But no, there is no such thing.  

You have to turn round, drive back over the bridge, come off the M4 at the next exit, then try to find somewhere with a cash machine. It's a total return journey of nearly 50 miles!

There's a Facebook group Severn Bridge Tolls: Ditch Cash Only! and the Welsh Lib Dems have set up a petition.

I've been looking for this for ages...

I only discovered 'Gavin and Stacey' at the beginning of this, the second series. It has some delicious comedy, headed up by Alison Steadman as Pam, the Essex housewife, and Rob Brydon as the Welsh, "don't mention the fishing trip", Uncle Bryn.

In this week's episode Pam was trying to persuade her sanguine husband Mick of the importance of her planned silent protest to stop a proposed mobile phone mast in the field behind their houses - "We're all going to die.. of tumour brains...". 

Mick asked how the neighbours were going to let each other know when the mast people arrived - and Pam told him that the person nearest the proposed site would text everyone else.

Pam: "But some people haven't got a good signal and have to go round the back of the house to use their mobiles."

Mick: "Shame that, lot of bad signals round here."

Pam: "Yes, ridiculous"

Reporters often find that their finely crafted words are spoilt by an inappropriate heading when the paper is published. It's usually a sub-editor, not the reporter, who writes the headline. Sometimes the editor doesn't read the story too carefully and just goes for an eye-catching shock/horror slogan which contradicts the actual text.

This must have been what happened to the front page story in the Surrey Comet this week.

Actually, it's two stories, described quite accurately by the reporters, and then topped with the lurid and deeply inaccurate headline 'Care bloodbath - Young and old will suffer as council wields the axe'.

So let's look at the stories properly.

The second half of the article is about Magic Roundabout, a highly valued charitable organisation that gives advice to young people. As the report says, Magic Roundabout has decided to close after struggling to recruit trustees who can do the necessary fundraising.

The report also states that Council has NOT withdrawn its regular grant of £30,000 - so the headline suggestion that the Council has 'wielded an axe' is highly inaccurate.

Now this story may reawaken memories, because Magic Roundabout hit a similar crisis over two years ago. Young people set up a petition to save it, and who should come to the rescue but the Surrey Comet. They launched a campaign to find new trustees, and were successful in finding eight new ones. But as the paper reports in its own article this week, at least five of them have since dropped out.

Perhaps 'Charitable organisation folds through lack of trustees' doesn't sell quite so many papers as 'Care bloodbath'.

The rest of the article is about the closure of Yew Tree House. This was built as sheltered housing for the elderly at a time when it was considered appropriate to provide hostel-style rooms with shared bathrooms and toilets. I'm sure you would not want an elderly relative to live in such an undignified way these days.

In fact, Kingston's housing stock is unbalanced, with too much sheltered housing, some of which is standing empty, and not enough family homes.

The number of elderly people in Yew Tree House has dwindled to six. Some of the remaining rooms are used as emergency hostel accommodation for the homeless. This is not a satisfactory arrangement at all. The building cannot easily be converted into something better, so the best solution is to sell it off and use the proceeds to improve the rest of the sheltered housing in the borough.

The existing tenants are all being offered much better accommodation elsewhere in the borough. Of course, I do appreciate that it is unsettling for an old person to move. The alternative is to leave them in sub-standard accommodation, and just wait as the numbers dwindle over the years. This will not provide them with the quality of life that is offered by a sheltered housing community.

Again, hardly the 'bloodbath' referred to in the title, but an opportunity to plough some capital into the housing stock, remove an old-fashioned and unfit block, and to provide suitable and appropriate accommodation to a small group of elderly people.

I do hope that the Surrey Comet will apologise; first, to its own two reporters, whose writing was seriously misrepresented by the headline; second, to the Council, to Magic Roundabout and to the local community for grossly distorting the truth.

But somehow I don't think this will happen. You see, only last week the Surrey Comet again made a huge error in the main headline. They claimed that the May Merrie had been cancelled. It hadn't. What had been cancelled was one of the components of the May Merrie - the May Fayre on the Fairfield - which was washed out by the dreadful rain last year. But all the other events (music, craft fair, bands, dancing, street entertainers, sailing etc) will carry on as usual on May 5th.

So have they published a correction on the front page, encouraging people to turn up on the day? Of course not; it's tucked away on page 2.

Update

I've just received my copy of the local Guardian, which is the free version of the Surrey Comet. The two stories are presented as two completely separate articles, with quite reasonable headlines: "Magic Roundabout gives up its battle for survival" and " 'Life in limbo' after council agrees to housing unit sale". 

I wonder if the two reporters complained.

Nearly a third of the rents paid by council house tenants is syphoned off by the Government as 'housing subsidy' and given to other councils around the country. I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago, and exposed Harriet Harman's appalling ignorance of the true problems faced by Kingston in trying to improve the condition of council housing.

Oddly enough, the housing subsidy only applies to housing owned by councils, not housing associations. Not that I would ever suggest that it should be extended to housing associations, who now manage a very high proportion of social housing across the country. But the hyprocrisy of this distinction becomes apparent when you realise that the Government is trying to transfer all council housing to 'registered social landlords' (RSLs) ie housing associations, and that it uses housing subsidy as stick.

Kingston has looked closely at this situation twice in the past. I am not the only person who would much prefer council housing to remain under the care of the local council where it can be tailored to local needs.

But it does seem that the only way to avoid losing £5 miilion or more a year is to transfer the housing to an RSL - a process usually referred to as Stock Transfer. Also, because of its legal status, an RSL can borrow capital for improvements much more easily than a council can.

So, like many others, I came to the conclusion that Stock Transfer is the only way to get a decent deal for the tenants.

Of course the tenants have to be consulted - in fact, they have the final vote on whether the transfer can go ahead.

A few years ago, Kingston did prepare the ground for a transfer to a new Housing Association which would be set up using the expertise that was already present in the Council's housing department. All the councillors supported this, apart from one, the Labour Cllr Steve Mama.

He claimed that the Government would make sure that Kingston received all the funding it needed to put in the necessary improvements; he said that there was no need to transfer the housing stock because it would be subsidised just as well if it stayed with the Council.

He was terribly wrong.

Backed by Unison, and their considerable publicity funds, he campaigned vigorously against stock transfer, especially in the large housing estates in his ward. He traded on the 'better the devil you know' argument and repeated his assertion that the Government would look after them if the housing stayed with the Council.

Sadly the tenants believed him and voted against Stock Transfer. As a result, rent is still being syphoned off and no funding has come our way to replace windows, roofs and provide lifts (as listed by Harriet Harman). The sorry tales in the local press about sub-standard council housing are all due to that very misleading campaign.

The Council is currently surveying Council tenants to see if they would like to reconsider Stock Transfer. This is not a ballot - that will come later if the tenants think it is worth moving in that direction.

I'd be interested in hearing your views if you are a tenant in the South of the Borough Neighbourhood - but make sure you respond to the consultation directly as well.

Now here's a good idea. Answer a short quiz, then find out how your views compare with the candidates standing for London Mayor.

You'll find it on Vote Match, which has been created by the non-aligned Unlock Democracy (I had to say that in case you thought it was biased towards my own political preferences).

Just one hint: for each question you have the choice of 'Agree', 'Disagree' or 'Neither'.  Don't click on 'Neither' when what you mean is 'I'm not bothered either way' (which is how I initially interpreted it) - that seems to distort the results. Click on 'Neither' if you really do believe in a completely different policy.

Apart from that slight quibble, Vote Match does a pretty good job, and let's you see how all ten candidates shape up on each issue.

As I write there are only three performances left of 'The Ragged Child' at the Rose Theatre - if you possibly can, try to see this exhilarating production. It's on today and tomorrow at 2.30pm and also this evening at 7.30pm.

I would have written about this earlier about this but I missed my chance because of the server downtime. I had seen previous productions of 'The Ragged Child', but finally saw this one at the Rose yesterday evening.

This is music theatre of the highest order - brilliant staging, robust singing and enthusiastic acting.

And yet it's theme could not be more serious, nor more topical.

In the 1840s Lord Shaftesbury campaigned for the poor in our cities, ravaged by ill-health, homelessness and lack of work; he supported the Ragged Schools, which taught basic literacy and skills, and an emigration programme that gave those locked into destitution a means of escape.

The attitudes of the ruling classes ("It's their own fault if they are poor") have many echoes today, especially in the West's response to poor developing nations. 

(By the way, I've 'acquired' the photo from the Rose Theatre site - I hope they don't mind)

But what makes this play, and its production here, so special is its local origins.  Frank Whately and David Nield were both teaching drama and music respectively at Tiffin, when they started working on this idea with Jeremy James Taylor. All three had been key movers in the creation of the National Youth Music Theatre some years earlier, and several of the NYMT productions were first developed at the school.

I remember seeing the first performance of 'The Ragged Child' at Tiffin in 1986. The lead character, Joe, was played by Jonny Lee Miller, then about 13 years old, but now a well-established actor - he played Sick Boy in 'Trainspotting' and was even considered as the new James Bond before landing the lead part in an American TV series.

Jonny Lee Miller (then just known as Jonny Miller) went on to play the lead in the National Youth Music Theatre production of the play, which took it to the Edinburgh Festival and Sadler's Wells, and was seen in a Christmas Eve BBC broadcast. 

I took my son along to Sadler's Wells as a couple of his friends were in it. I remember being very struck by a young actor playing a number of minor roles, including the elder son of Lord Shaftesbury. It was only last year that I came across the programme (I have a collection of theatre programmes going back to the 1960s), and realised who it was - Jude Law, who is, in my view, one of our very best screen actors.

Back to the current show. Frank Whately and David Nield have been leading figures in the Rose Theatre. David has now retired from teaching and took himself off travelling for a year, so resigned as a theatre trustee, but is still a very significant figure. Frank is now Head of the Performance and Screen Studies School at Kingston University, and was instrumental in developing the close ties between the University and the Theatre.

So it was a wonderful idea to produce the play here again with a local cast.  Adults are played by University students, and auditions were held for local children to play the many child roles. Frank directed with his co-writer Jeremy James Taylor; David, who wrote all the music, directed the music with John Pearson, another former Kingston teacher. The lighting (which is excellent) is designed by Richard House, another trustee of the Rose.

And an actor to watch for the future? - my money's on Xavier Velastin who played the young villain, Leary.

There is one strict rule that all councillors have to abide by - we must not use Council resources and buildings for political campaigning. "Political campaigning" is a bit open to interpretation, but everyone agrees that, at the very least, it covers election campaigns.

When Cllr Howard Jones booked the Queen Anne Suite at the Guildhall last week he said it was for a private meeting with David Cameron.

That does seem a little odd, given that the Queen Anne Suite is a rather grand room next to the Council Chamber and can hold up to 100 people. But the booking was accepted by Council officers in good faith.

This week the Surrey Comet reported something of what actually happened - the press were invited in and election posters were set up in the room. In fact, it looked very much like an election rally.

Although I don't pull my punches with Tony Arbour, according to the Comet he had enough sense to realise that it was not right and stayed outside the building. After all he is a councillor himself (in Richmond) and knows the rules. The Kingston Conservatives including Cllr Robert-John Tasker (who appears to have aged a lot) clearly don't.

In the Comet, Howard Jones claims that it was a last minute decision to go inside because of the rain.  But remember, he had actually booked the Queen Anne Suite some time before! Of course, we also hear that he wasn't there on the day because he was unwell.

It is highly likely that the Kingston Conservatives will be reported to the Standards Board, since this was a clear violation of the regulations, and causes considerable embarrassment to Kingston Council officers.

Beyond that I have a couple of questions for the Kingston Conservatives:

1. Have you now paid for the hire of the Queen Anne Suite since it was not being used for Council business?

2. Have you reported this cost to your London Election team so they can record it as an election expense?

Final thought - why have none of the local Conservatives mentioned this rather special meeting with their party leader on their websites and blogs? Are they embarrassed as well by their huge gaff?

Sorry this has been quiet for a few days - but I'm about to catch up.

ReadMyDay has been offline whilst it migrated to a new server.

Now our MP Edward Davey cannot use that word in Parliament - he refers to it instead as a 'major error' - but I can.

At Prime Minister's Question Time this week, Harriet Harman was standing in for Gordon Brown, and she had this exchange with our MP:

Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): Can the Leader of the House explain to council tenants in my constituency why the Labour Government ask them to subsidise council tenants in other parts of the country? Why is it that for every pound that a council tenant pays in rent to Kingston council, the Government take away 31p to give to other councils? The Prime Minister told the House in July last year that he would reform this unfair system; why has nothing been done?

Ms Harman: We are reviewing the way in which the housing revenue fund works, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that in all the council estates and blocks in his constituency there have been new roofs, new windows and new lifts, and that there has been major investment in council housing since this Government came into power.

What new roofs?

What new windows?

What new lifts?

What major investment by the Government in Council housing in Kingston?

None - that's the answer!

Let me explain the background to this, and why Ed was asking the question.

All the rent paid by Kingston housing tenants is paid into the Housing Revenue Account, which then goes to pay for repairs, maintenance and improvements. New windows, roofs and lifts have to be paid for from this account. 

But 31% of the rent is taken by the Government as housing subsidy for other councils. This is why Kingston is barely able to cover essential repairs from the Housing Revenue Account, let alone improvements.

Apparently, the justification for this is that Kingston is wealthy!

Well, tell that to the council house tenants. They are probably the least wealthy people in the whole of London, and it is totally wrong that the rents they pay should be sent to subsidise council tenants in other parts of the country.

Last summer, thanks to Ed's persistence, the Government did say that they would reform this system. But nothing has happened.

And now, on top of that, Harriet Harman has the cheek to tell him that the Government has paid for all kinds of improvements to council house estates in his own constituency, when it is simply not true.

For Edward Davey's comments on this go to his site and click on Latest News.

Yesterday evening there was a second item on the Development Control Committee about my 'Save our Back Gardens' petition.  The outcome was very good!

As before, there was cross-party agreement that in our local planning policies there should be a presumption against building on gardens (and this should include front and side gardens, not just ones at the back - point taken!). The question was then how to bring this about as soon as possible.

First, the Committee committed itself to making changes to the Local Development Framework, which is the overarching planning policy of the Council. This will take a couple of years, so...

Second, the  Committee endorsed the use of Character Studies which will be going to Neighbourhoods for discussion in September.

Third - and this was new - the issue will soon be debated at Full Council, so that all the councillors will get a chance to get behind the policy.

With all the attention on the election for London Mayor, the media are rather ignoring the other election that is going on in London.

The London Assembly has 25 members and we will be electing them as well on 1st May. Of these Assembly members, 14 represent constituencies, and down here we will be electing the member for South West London, which covers the boroughs of Kingston, Richmond and Hounslow. 

Four years ago the South West London constituency came within a whisker of electing a Liberal Democrat. It just needs a swing of 1.3% to take the seat from the Conservatives, so it is really possible for us to win it this time.

Stephen Knight is our candidate. I've known him for many years and think he will be an excellent Assembly Member - "But you would say that", I hear you cry. Yes, but I do have good evidence.

Stephen is deeply interested in local communities and has made it his business to find out about all the areas across the three boroughs. He is fascinated by the Devon Way Centre, and the totally innovative way in which we have brought services for older people and young people together in one building. He is full of praise for the Hook Centre.

But my main reason for endorsing him is because I know he will actively work on behalf of the people of Hook and Chessington at the Assembly. That will mean keeping in touch with our issues, especially those that relate to London-wide functions, such as the Metropolitan Police and Transport for London (TfL).

TfL is responsible for the A243 Hook Road. There have been two very serious accidents here recently, one fatal. (I have written about them here and here). As local councillors we have held meetings with TfL following each accident to ask for improvements to the road. In fact, we have been highlighting the dangerous Elm Road junction for some years. 

Our Conservative London Assembly member, for whom this should be a priority, has shown no interest in the problem.

In the 8 years since he was elected to this seat, Tony Arbour has never once contacted me, as a local councillor, about the local issues which he should be championing.

In fact, the only time he appears to have set foot within the area is recorded in a photo in the local press earlier this year.

He had apparently sent a letter to Kingston's Chief Executive asking if the local Safer Neighbourhoods Police team could open up a base in the Housing Office in Elm Road. The Council does not own this building, and they have now relinquished the lease.

We had already put this idea to the local Police some time ago when we knew that the building would become vacant, and the Police had looked round and rejected it as not being suitable for their needs.

So what do we have? - the current South West member for the London Assembly (which is responsible for the Met) makes a proposal to the wrong person, about an idea that has already been rejected, having discussed it with none of the people involved.

And somehow that counts as news!

Just before Easter many of you will remember that there was another nasty accident on the Hook Road, this time north of the Bridge Road roundabout. A car travelling towards Hook hit the central reservation and turned over into the path of a car going in the opposite direction. Three people were injured and the air ambulance was called.

Ian called a meeting yesterday at the site, and we were joined by the Neighbourhood Traffic Engineer, plus representatives of the Police and Transport for London. Hook Road, and its continuation into Leatherhead Road, is the responsibility of Transport for London, under the Mayor of London.

The Police are still investigating the causes of the accident, so we couldn't look at that in any detail, although speed was mentioned. We wanted to know if anything could be done to make that stretch of road safer.

TfL are doing a study of the Bridge Road roundabout and are planning to put in clearer markings so drivers would be guided into the right lane.  You can see the kind of 'spiral markings' they are talking about down at the junction with the M25. This seemed like a good idea.

Even though I'm very familiar with this road, as a driver I still have a moment's confusion as I come off the roundabout and head towards Hook. The curve in the road and the layout of the bus-stop always make me wonder, for a second, whether I am in the correct lane. Clearer markings here would certainly help.

The other idea we discussed was more speed enforcement. The Police occasionally set up speed traps along the Hook Road between the Hook Centre and Hook Junction/Ace of Spades, but haven't used them further south, so we asked if they could occasionally check speeds between Hook Parade and Bridge Road roundabout.

One of those smiley face speed signs would be good as well, and hopefully there can be some new 30 mph road markings.

Update on the Elm Road junction

Following the fatal accident before Christmas, TfL have promised a feasibility study on this junction. We would like pedestrian crossings between the Hook Centre and the Lucky Rover, and across Elm Road.

It seemed highly likely that intense negotiations were going on behind the scenes in Zimbabwe, aimed at a smooth transition of power. For me this has been confirmed by the increasingly open reports from BBC correspondents from within the country, where they are still officially banned.

The voting figures had all been posted at each polling station on Saturday, so the accumulated results were not that difficult to calculate. The slow trickle of official results did not suggest that widespread vote rigging had gone on since election day, since they showed the government trailing behind the combined opposition parties in Parliamentary seats, although there is plenty of evidence of irregularities in advance of the polls.

And now it looks as though the country is easing towards the legal removal of Mugabe. It shouldn't be this difficult in a democracy, of course. But on the other hand they are to be congratulated on tactics which so far appear to be unseating the tyrant without bloodshed, which is what I was just beginning to hope for yesterday.

Update

Oh dear - this seems to be changing by the minute. Let's hope my first assumption was correct.

Blogging from the front line: This is Zimbabwe

... can be seen here.