Independent Working Class Association
BRANCH
Latest
News
Campaigns
Newsletters
Elections
Press
Cuttings
Who
are IWCA?
About
Islington
Archive
Links
Contact
Us
EC1 New Deal & Regeneration
As in most deprived areas, Islington has seen a deluge of 'regeneration schemes' in recent years. These schemes have often become a battleground between the council and its hired army of consultants on the one hand, and the local working class community on the other...
'Labour's
£2bn new deal for cities is a flop' - The Sunday Telegraph
- 28.9.03 - former Islington Labour councillor, Leo McKinstry, writes
in the right-wing weekly about the 'failure' of New Deal schemes - including
EC1 New Deal - and the role played by the IWCA. Also read 'A raw deal'
(below)
'A
raw deal' - iwca national website - 26.9.03 - Article responds
to Guardian columnist, Polly Toynbee, and puts forward the experience
of IWCA members in New Deal areas in Islington and Hackney
'New
Deal election results vindicate pro-democracy, pro-community campaigners'
- 13.3.03 - Press Release - IWCA welcomes big turnout for EC1 New Deal
elections as local residents elected to board
'Officials
Keep Close Eye On EC1 Ballot' - New Start - Article - Feb
2003 - Sensationalist report on Finsbury New Deal scheme by regeneration
magazine
Yuppie
backlash! - 14.12.02 - Article - Fury over EC1 New Deal funding
priorities
'New
Deal but the same old excuses' - 15.11.02 - Article - Highbury
& Islington Express - Investigation into the progress of EC1 New
Deal
'EC1
New Deal' - latest from IWCA's newsletter Islington Independent
- Autumn 2002
'Democracy
introduced to New Deal project as former Dome minister throws in the towel'
- from IWCA's newsletter Islington Independent - Spring 2002
'Fresh
dispute hits New Deal scheme' - 4.3.02 - Guardian website
- Matt Weaver reports on Lord Falconer's intervention to save EC1 New
Deal
'Latest
flagship project flounders' & 'Friction slows New Deal'
- 20.2.02 - Guardian website - Matt Weaver reports on
the ongoing problems within EC1 New Deal and other New Deal projects nationally
'Blair
flagship is sunk' - 2.1.02 - Guardian website - Nick Triggle
breaks the dramatic news that tenants on the Aylesbury estate, Southwark
reject 'symbolic' regeneration plan
'Community-led
- if going our way' - 19.10.01 - Highbury & Islington
Express - Letters Page - IWCA spokesman says 'community-led' should
mean community-led.
'What's
the real deal?' - from IWCA's newsletter Islington Independent
- Autumn 2001 - interview with New Deal board member, Darius Sokolov,
along with 'IWCA comment on New Deal'
'New
Deal board shows its hand!' - from IWCA's newsletter Islington
Independent - Win/Spr 2001 - an in depth look at the 'New Finsbury
New Deal' regeneration scheme
'New
(or raw) deal for Bunhill?' - Islington Independent - Spring
2000 - IWCA questions whether the arrival of the New Deal to Finsbury
will prove to be a positive event for the working class residents of the
area
Labour's £2bn new deal for
cities 'is a flop'
By Leo McKinstry and Rajeev Syal
Article - Sunday Telegraph - 28.8.03
A £2 billion Government flagship scheme to fund the regeneration
of
Britain's inner cities has been branded a flop following allegations of
mismanagement, waste and nepotism.
New Deal for Communities, which was set up four years ago by Gordon Brown
and John Prescott, was intended to allow local boards to distribute public
money among 39 deprived inner-city areas over 10 years.
Mr Brown claimed that it would "shine a bright light" onto
Britain's most
impoverished communities.
The Government has, however, been forced to intervene in five boards
after
clashes between members over how to spend the money. Three of these boards
have been suspended over the past year as the Government examined
allegations of serious mismanagement.
Eric Pickles, the shadow secretary of state for local government and
the
regions, said: "Labour's regeneration programme remains shambolic.
This is
yet another example of a much-hyped Labour project that has proved to
be all
spin and no delivery."
New Deal for Communities schemes control budgets of about £50 million
apiece
and are intended to rejuvenate "sink" estates of up to 4,000
households. The
money is supposed to be spent tackling crime, health, housing and the
environment.
Each scheme is led by a local board comprising residents, who are usually
elected, in addition to local businesses and community groups. In London,
the 16-strong board of EC1 New Deal, a project launched in 1999 to rescue
estates in Finsbury, has been beset by problems over its grant of £53
million.
Barbara Roche, then the social inclusion minister, threatened to close
the
project last year after it was discovered that little money had been spent
on regeneration because of political in-fighting.
There have been continual disputes over the make-up of the 16-strong
board.
The arguments became so fierce that, in February 2002, the Government
had to
intervene, suspending the board and appointing an independent chairman,
John
Sentamu, the Bishop of Stepney.
Factional fighting continued this year when the board was asked to consider
an application from the London Symphony Orchestra for a £350,000
grant to
take music into local schools.
Community representatives, backed by a militant political group called
the
Independent Working Class Association - whose slogan is "working-class
rule
for working-class areas" - turned down the application on the grounds
that
the orchestra was "elitist" and "middle class".
"The project has been hijacked by extremists who have caused constant
rows,"
said David Hyams, a former SDP councillor and board member. "The
decision
over the orchestra was ludicrous. The orchestra had done fantastic work
with
kids but the hardliners just didn't want to know," he said.
"They have discouraged businesses and other partners from involvement
with
the board because they don't want to work with the private sector,"
he said.
Sharon Hayward, who is one of the Left-wing members on the board, denied
that she was a member of the IWCA, but defended the rejection of the
orchestra's project.
"Our work has to be appropriate to people on low incomes," she said.
Other projects have been equally fraught. Aston Pride, a New Deal for
Communities project in north Birmingham, was granted £54 million
in 1999.
The board was disbanded this year by Tom McNulty, the regeneration minister,
after it transpired that the organisation had failed to follow basic rules
such as setting up a bank account, obtaining a cheque book or registering
with Customs and Excise.
A Government report into the project, seen by this newspaper, found that
the
board had failed to establish the necessary infrastructure to "employ
people, give them conditions of service, policies, procedures, health
and
safety, employer's liability or the means to pay salaries".
Between October 2001 and October 2003, Aston Pride managed to spend only
£2.4 million out of £10 million, and most of this was on administration.
Nigel Dawkins, a Birmingham councillor, has been appointed to examine
why
the organisation failed to do anything to enhance the local community.
His
inquiries, however, have met with a wall of silence, he said. "We
have asked
interested parties to give evidence. It would be nice if we had a swathe
back and could ask some questions. That has not happened," he said.
In Nottingham, the board set up to invest £55 million in the Radford
and
Hyson Green areas has been subjected to investigations by the district
auditor after concerns that administration costs had run out of control.
He found that there were "serious weaknesses" in the financial
management
systems after £583,000 had been spent on administration.
A spokesman for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said that Mr
Prescott would publish an independent evaluation of the schemes over the
next two weeks.
"Inevitably, with such an imaginative and ambitious programme some
New Deal
for Communities projects are experiencing teething troubles and some local
communities are taking time to work things out and get new systems up
and
running.
"The Department is working closely with those NDCs that have had
problems
and we will shortly be publishing an independent evaluation of progress
across all 39 NDCs.".
Article - national IWCA website - 26.9.03
Last Wednesday the Society section of The Guardian newspaper printed
a piece entitled ‘A raw deal’ by columnist Polly Toynbee. The
article focussed on the progress of the government’s flagship regeneration
project New Deal for Communities (NDC).
NDC was launched by Tony Blair in a fanfare of publicity soon after Labour
took power in 1997. A sum of £2bn was committed to revitalising
39 of the country’s most deprived areas, who would each have in the
region of £50m to invest over a 10-year period.
At the time Labour had claimed they had learned much from the failure of previous Tory urban renewal projects to put local communities in the driving seat. This time, we were told, things would be different.
But since the scheme was first launched, it has been dogged with controversy. Conflict has flared up on the New Deal boards (set-up to run the projects in each area) in Nottingham, Luton, Kilburn, Leicester, Liverpool and Southwark. Trouble has never been far away. In Southwark, on the Aylesbury estate – the carefully chosen backdrop for Blair’s ‘No forgotten people’ speech in ’97 - tenants dramatically voted against plans by the New Deal to demolish their homes and replace them with new flats, including 1,300 private apartments for wealthy newcomers.
For the last three years Toynbee has been monitoring the progress of nearby Clapham Park NDC, where she lived for two months while researching her book, Hard Work. What she has to say will have a familiar ring to anyone who has had an NDC set-up shop in their area.
“It has been painfully slow to deliver anything visible on the ground. NDC areas encounter the worst of the government’s contradictory attitudes towards devolving power and local autonomy to communities. With one hand it offers responsibility, but it never lets go - and then it complains that NDC areas have been too slow in rolling out their programmes. Too fearful of wasting a bit of public money, it stifles local initiative.”
Her co-writer, Paul Humphries is more direct: “Things have not gone smoothly. The programme has been dogged by community infighting and tension between residents and agencies. There are accusations of power being withheld from local people and that neighbourhood representatives have been used as puppets, with government appointees pulling the strings.”
Toynbee concludes: “Whispers from Whitehall suggest it would not be done this way again: too cumbersome, it is easier to get the professionals to do the work, with residents just consulted.”
All of which will come as no great shock to IWCA members active in areas covered by NDC; areas such as neighbouring Shoreditch and Finsbury in London. Both communities border the financial centre of the city. Both communities are acutely aware of the impact of rampant gentrification. The residents of Shoreditch have seen nearby Hoxton become the trendy clubbing capital of Cool Britannia. The residents of Finsbury have seen the middle classes colonise close by Clerkenwell with a rapid programme of luxury loft building.
Once it was announced that NDC was coming to Finsbury in 2000, the Islington branch of the IWCA quickly warned residents: “What the people of Finsbury need to ensure, is that any improvement in the dreadful statistics for unemployment, poverty, health and education in the area is as a result of conditions for local people improving - not because those same people have been forced out to make way for the middle classes instead.”
A gulf quickly opened up between those elected from the area's estates and the unelected members of the board, which included many middle class residents. Former culture secretary, Labour MP Chris Smith, went as far as accusing working class residents of being 'philistines' after an appeal for funding from the London Symphony Orchestra to the tune of £330,000, was not approved.
Backed by the IWCA, community representatives on the New Deal board insisted that if EC1 New Deal, as it was called, was to be truly 'community-led' then the number of elected local people on the board would have to outnumber the amount of unelected members. They also insisted that all decision-making members of the board would have to stand for election by local residents. This, they argued, was the only way to ensure the scheme gained the support of a community deeply suspicious of 'regeneration' due to the ongoing gentrification of the Finsbury/Clerkenwell area in recent years.
Remarkably this simple, democratic, demand was opposed by the government, Islington council and regeneration professionals. The community stuck to its guns, with the result that the government were eventually forced to back down, giving their approval to elections which would see one of the highest turnout’s for any regeneration project and the return of those candidates most opposed to the council’s anti-working class gentrification agenda.
In Shoreditch, south Hackney, New Deal board members commissioned a residents survey on the future of the area’s council housing. The message came back loud and clear. YES we want investment in our homes. But NO we don’t want transfer, PFI or any other privatisation strings attached to it. With a mandate from the community, the board submitted their proposals.
The government rejected them out of hand, with Lord Falconer insisting that the community was not being “realistic” and that they would have to agree to a programme of widespread demolition that would see the building of private luxury apartments aimed at ensuring the community contained a “social mix” and “tenure diversification”.
The community was in uproar. As Tony Butler, an IWCA supporter, told The Guardian: “We know that talk of 'Tenure diversification' of working class areas is all the rage in regeneration circles. Its funny how they never talk about the merits of tenure diversification in Surbiton, Barnes, Hampstead, Buckinghamshire, the Home Counties or any other up market areas where they live. The bottom line is that gentrification/social cleansing is pushing working people out of inner London through the combination of Government/Local Authority housing polices and good old market forces. Most people in Shoreditch know that they will never be able to afford, or be eligible for the shiny new homes on offer after demolition; all we want is for our existing homes to be renewed.“ The community is still fighting.
NDC ‘works’ perfectly where communities are compliant and are happy to follow the dictats laid down by government and implemented by armies of sharp-suited consultants. Where working class people take New Labour at their word by insisting the project is genuinely community-led, by putting forward their own proposals and priorities, they can be expected to be vilified and treated as ‘subversives'.
However, as the example of the Finsbury New Deal has demonstrated, it might yet be possible for those working class representatives, who refuse to bow to threats and intimidation, to maintain a level of democratic control over local regeneration projects, that ensures as much money as possible is invested back into the community instead of into the pockets of consultants and private sector ‘partners’. The Finsbury NDC could provide a prototype and a way forward for community-led regeneration, Whether it is a prototype New Labour approves of is, of course, very much a different matter.
'New Deal election results vindicate pro-democracy, pro-community campaigners'
13.3.03 - Press Release
Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) spokesman, Gary O'Shea, welcomed the outcome of the elections to the board of EC1 New Deal and said the result "vindicated the previous board members' pro-democracy, pro-community stance and the IWCA's support for them."
Gary continued: "I am particularly pleased for Sharon Hayward who, despite having endured a particularly nasty and personal campaign against her by Lib Dem councillor George Allan, scored by far the highest of any candidate across the eight areas, with 135 first preference votes."
Backed by the IWCA, community representatives on the New Deal board, including Ms Hayward, had insisted that if EC1 New Deal was to be truly 'community-led' then all decision-making members of the board would have to stand for election by local residents. This, they argued, was the only way to ensure the scheme gained the support of a community deeply suspicious of 'regeneration' due to the ongoing gentrification of the Finsbury/Clerkenwell area in recent years. A gulf had opened up between those elected from the area's estates and the unelected members of the board, which included middle class residents and culminated in former culture secretary, Labour MP Chris Smith, accusing working class residents of being 'philistines' after an appeal for funding from the London Symphony Orchestra to the tune of £330,000, was not approved.
Despite initial opposition from the government, Islington council and regeneration professionals to the proposed increase in the number of elected community reps from eight to sixteen, the move was vindicated by the turnout of 33.5%, far higher than for council elections in the area and amongst the largest for any New Deal project. However, those seen as connected to the mainstream political parties appeared to have done particularly badly, with Sheila Vaja (sister of leading Lib Dem councillor Jyoti) and Bunhill by-election candidates Jasin Kaplan (Labour) and Matthew Priestley (Conservative) failing to be elected after all receiving less than thirty first preference votes each.
In conclusion Gary O'Shea said: "I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the successful candidates. Hopefully, armed with a new mandate, the elected board members can now get on with the real business of ensuring New Deal money coming into this area is spent in the interests of the local community, free from the interference of Lib Dem and Labour politicians."
ENDS
'Officials Keep Close Eye On EC1 Ballot'
New Start regeneration magazine - Article - Feb 2003
Twenty local residents are to stand for election to the beleaguered board of the EC1 New Deal for Communities programme.
The elections, due to take place in April and May, will be eagerly watched by government officials responsible for monitoring the programme's progress. Last September regeneration minister Tony McNulty threatened to withdraw funding unless the programme began to deliver results.
Internal fighting among board members was cited as a major factor in bringing the NDC close to paralysis last year. Some members had been linked with the IWCA a far-left political group that has accused the NDC of attempting to commit an act of 'social cleansing' on the neighbourhood.
Helen Fisher, an adviser to EC1, suggested that the high level of interest in the elections had been prompted by the progress over the last few months. Things have really started moving. A number of universal projects are beginning to come through and we have also increased the outreach work' she said. But sources close to the programme fear that unless the elections produce like-minded representatives, the infighting will continue.
Particular concerns surround the influence of the IWCA on some of the nominated candidates. The group has criticised the programme for being dominated by private consultants and a 'moneyed minority who are clearly determined to colonise the area.
While no one on the current board has admitted any political affiliations, the IWCA has made clear its intention of supporting the 'elected representatives'. 'We can think of absolutely not reason why we should be expected to apologise to anyone for doing so', the organisation said. It described recent press coverage of difficulties at EC1 as a 'yuppie backlash ' against the local community.
But one board member told New Start he was uncomfortable with the criticisms levied against the NDC. He added that his frustration had led him to consider stepping down from his unelected position on the board, Nominations for the elections were due to close this week.
by Henry Palmer
Fury over New Deal funding priorities
14.12.02 - Article
There has been much puzzlement recently following a series of articles,
in a range of publications, all describing how the EC1 New Deal is in
"crisis" for its refusal to give £350,000 to the London
Symphony Orchestra (LSO).
Amidst the charges of "squabbling" and "crisis" and
"political agendas", the central allegation would appear to
hinge on the "influence the Independent Working Class Association"
(IWCA) is said to wield in shaping the pro-working class agenda promoted
by the elected community representatives.
Working largely from briefings and unidentified "sources" the
Highbury & Islington Express, the Clerkenwell and Islington
News, and a regeneration magazine called New Start have effectively
taken it upon themselves to call for the heads of the elected and unpaid
New Deal Board members for opposing the hand-out. But this is really a
smokescreen.
For what is really at issue is whether the New Deal is 'community led'
or not. One opponent of the IWCA admits he hopes the working class in
Finsbury will "simply fade away."
In addition, New Start magazine declared the former culture secretary
Chris Smith to be "furious" at the knock back. Especially as
"insiders at both the LSO and EC1 say board members opposed the application
because it risked 'gentrifying' the area."
What rubbish. The truth of it is, the LSO application was rejected chiefly
because it failed to meet any of the statutory requirements set down by
the government, but according to a New Start "source", the problems
with the LSO bid "began when the make-up of the board changed. It
has been difficult for the LSO to deal with them."
Now there may well be some truth in this, as the make up of the board did change in a decisive way in March 2001, when for the first time representatives from the local estates were elected to sit on it.
Previously to this, as IWCA representative for Islington Gary O'Shea
told the Highbury & Islington Express (15.11.02): "Decisions
on where to spend the money were being made by middle class people who
didn't live on the council estates in Finsbury. There was a clique of
outsiders and government men, including MP Chris Smith who had their own
ideas of where the money should be spent."
There is little doubt the LSO did find the previous un-elected board
easier to "deal with", but how would a hefty donation to the
their bulging coffers tally with the New Deal scheme being 'community
led'?
Chris Smith now claims he just wants to see the board "getting on
with spending the money". But how it is spent, and what on, is determined
by the makeup of the board. Which is why it is vitally important the people
on it, as the IWCA stressed all along, are elected, representative and
accountable to the communities they come from.
None of which rests easy with the 'pro yuppie clique' who previously ran
it, hence the 'scare' stories of 'infiltration' in the press.
But there is more at stake than just the allocation of the £5 million
a year, New Deal money. As ever, what really lies behind the controversy
is who Finsbury in run by and in whose interests: the working class majority
or the moneyed minority who are clearly determined to colonise the area.
David Abrahamovitch an Old Street businessman and self-appointed New
Deal board member was nothing if not candid when he smugly informed a
public meeting last March that he was opposed to the idea of community
reps because there was no longer "a working class community here"
for them to represent. He went on: "People who have lived here for
40 years are upset about it changing - but what's so wrong about change?
The new businesses and people who come in are the ones who are going to
bring change. The older generations will fade away, while the people who
run the coffee bars and the restaurants - like it or not - will remain."
(Islington Gazette - 7.3.02)
Ideally what the people like him want is to see New Deal money being
used to accelerate the 'social cleansing' of Finsbury. The Lib Dems too,
appear impatient the working class are not 'fading away' quickly enough.
How else to explain community assets such as Finsbury Town Hall, St Luke's
Library and possibly Moreland school (it is rumoured even Ironmonger Row
Baths was considered) being sold off in the name of community revival
when obviously if 'old' Finsbury is to be able to sustain itself such
facilities are vital?
With so much at stake little wonder either, that people fighting tooth
and nail against the sell-offs are coming under such sustained attack.
Finally lets be clear about something else. The money available from New
Deal cannot hope to remedy a quarter of a century of government cut backs.
But it is a step in the right direction. Which is why as a political organisation,
the IWCA will continue to support the elected representatives. And what's
more, we can think of absolutely no reason why we should be expected to
apologise to anyone for doing so.
New Deal but the same old excuses
Finsbury residents still waiting for £52m cash boost
15.11.02 - Article - Highbury & Islington Express
TAKE £52million of government money, a roomful of squabbling board
members and 18 months and what do you get? The answer is... not very much.
After months of bureaucratic wrangling, Finsbury's much needed regeneration
scheme, known as EC1 New Deal, has just announced another round of elections
to appoint members to its board.
Leo Chapman is already a member. He said:"We have agreed that the
elected members should double from eight to 16 as the current workload
is too much for us. We don't get paid for the work we do. When we sit
opposite councillors like Jyoti Vaja, who get paid £40,000 a year
for their part-time jobs, it makes us angry,"
But Finsbury residents, desperate to see some improvements made to their
area, are getting tired of all the excuses.
Dave Warby, 69, of King Square Estate, Finsbury, is the chairman of Fight
Against Council Tenancy Sell-Offs (Facts). He said: "I feel the board
should now be moving on and getting the money spent wisely on things the
people here want. There are plenty of projects to spend it on and I don't
see any reason for more delays."
Earlier this year, work ground to a halt amid a tangle of bureaucracy
and election recriminations. Arguments broke out between the board members
- some of whom were elected and others who were not.
The Islington Independent Working Class Association (IWCA) claimed the
board had been hijacked by academics and professionals with a middle class
agenda. IWCA representative Gary O'Shea told the High&I: "Decisions
on where to spend the money were being made by middle class people who
didn't live on the council estates in Finsbury. There was a clique of
outsiders and government men, including MP Chris Smith, who had their
own ideas of where the money should be spent.
"What we had to do was get control of the decision making process
by being voted onto the board - which we did." [*]
In March, seven representatives who live in seven of the eight areas
in Finsbury (one is without a representative), were elected to the board
and set to work on a spending plan.
But six months later they were criticised by the social exclusion minister,
Barbara Roche, who threatened to close down the project unless it came
up with a plan of action.
The board hit back by finally agreeing on a £2.65million plan,
the most ambitious project of which is a £1.5million programme of
security and environmental improvements to the Finsbury estate, to tackle
drug dealing and crime.
Chris Smith, MP for Finsbury South, said: "This scheme was suggested
by myself, proving to IWCA that I don't have a middle class agenda. The
proposal will provide real benefits for working class families. All I
want is for EC1 New Deal to get on with the job of spending this government
money."
The scheme, which is still only at the consultation stage, includes the
demolition of an underground car park and the creation of an all-weather
playing area for residents and young people.
Other projects yet to emerge include a young person's sexual health service,
an over 50s employment bureau, and the development of a drop-in centre
in Goswell Road offering free access to IT, job search support, benefits
advice and debt counselling.
In the meantime residents in Finsbury have the elections to look forward to. They are planned for the end of February 2003. Nominations for which will be accepted from Monday, with the final date of entry being January 17. Voting is expected to take place between February 14 and March 10. For further information call 020-7608 8593.
[*] Gary O'Shea will be responding to the comments attributed to him in this article
from IWCA's newsletter Islington Independent - Autumn 2002
IWCA representative Lorna Reid has praised the determination of the New
Deal's community representatives to get the project back on track after
the best part of a year's worth of government and council interference.
Meetings have already been held on estates throughout the area with the
aim of drawing-up strategies to tackle anti-social behaviour - involving
estate security and development of community spaces, including the provision
of alternatives for young people to keep them out of trouble.
Lorna said: "At the beginning there was no one more sceptical of
the New Deal than the IWCA but we believe the community reps deserve a
chance to get on with the job. There seems to be a genuine enthusiasm
amongst those involved to begin tackling the big issues within the community
and for that they deserve our support."
But she criticised the role being played by local politicians: "Since
their election, the community representatives have taken a lot of criticism
over the lack of progress within the New Deal, nearly all of which is
totally unjustified, given that the project was effectively shutdown by
the government for six months.
"Despite this, Lib Dem councillors, and Labour MP Chris Smith in
particular, have regularly briefed against the Board's elected representatives
in the press, when their energy would have been far better spent getting
behind the project.
"They should remember, unlike MP's and councillors, the New Deal
reps are not paid a single penny for their efforts."
Democracy introduced to New Deal project as former Dome minister throws in the towel
from IWCA's newsletter Islington Independent - Spring 2002
Area representatives to the EC1 New Deal board have welcomed the decision by Lord Falconer to support their demand, that only those democratically elected to the board should be entitled to vote on important decisions.
The Lib-Dems had lobbied strenuously against any attempts to democratise the board. As the minister with overall responsibility for all New Deal schemes, the problem for Lord Falconer, who had originally caved in to the Lib-Dem hectoring on the issue was that if unelected individuals who had actually been rejected by the electorate, continued to hold equal sway regardless, the credibility of the whole project being 'community led' would be in tatters. Moreover there was the very strong possibility that had he not faced down the Lib-Dems the elected representatives had made it clear they were not returning to the table until he did so.
This principled stance, did not stop attacks on them from the press and other, unelected members of the board. On the contrary. The argument being promoted by the council was that the community reps were stopping the £52 million being allocated, and unless they accepted the 'reality' of the situation 'the money might well be lost'.
At a public meeting it was even suggested by a reporter for the EC1 Gazette that there had been accusations they were "politically motivated", with many if not all, charged by opponents of belonging to an organisation (unnamed) which had set its face firmly against the "gentrification of the area".
As it happens none of the board are members of the IWCA but had they been, what of it? Afterall, the people making the accusations are all card-carrying members of a political party themselves!
In short what lies at the heart of the skulduggery is whether the money is to be used to regenerate Clerkenwell or gentrify it?
Already, the Lib Dems have ignored two formal requests by New Deal board members to halt the sale of both Finsbury Library and St. Lukes library.
They argued that the reopening of these public buildings for community use was just the kind of regeneration project the New Deal should be supporting. The Lib Dems' reply was to immediately flogg them off. Which leads us to question just what the Lib Dems actually consider the New Deal to be for?
Fresh dispute hits New Deal scheme
4.3.02 - Guardian website
The regeneration minister Lord Falconer has personally intervened in
an attempt to stop community and council infighting in the latest row
to dog the government's principal regeneration programme.
The Finsbury area of Islington was awarded £53m as one of the 39
"pathfinder projects" to test the government's New Deal for
Communities (NDC) programme for deprived neighbourhoods.
Last month SocietyGuardian.co.uk revealed that the scheme had been suspended
after residents claimed the board was undemocratic.
Now Lord Falconer has tried to end the feuding by agreeing to one of the
resident's demands that a group of unelected community representatives
on the project's interim board should not have voting rights.
However, he has also angered residents by appointing the Bishop of Stepney
the Right Reverend John Sentamu as independent chair of the project. The
residents wanted an elected community representative as chair.
In a letter to board members, Lord Falconer said: "The disagreements
between groups on the board are preventing progress being made."
He claimed that "protracted discussions about structure and process
have distracted the partnership from the main business in hand, which
is delivering positive change for local residents."
This is not the first project to get bogged down in disputes. Last month
the government admitted that two thirds of the cash earmarked for NDC
schemes had not been spent amid "tensions and resentments".
In his letter Lord Falconer added: "To allow matters of process to
continue to deny local residents these benefits would be regrettable."
He also endorsed the appointment of more consultants to extend "community
participation" in the scheme.
The government has a difficult balancing act to pull off if Finsbury and
other troubled new deal projects are to succeed. Ministers and officials
do not wish to be appear to be intervening in what is supposed to a community-led
initiative, but they are increasing having to step in to the ailing projects
either to end in-fighting, or because they have been alarmed at proposals
being put forward by communities, or both.
Sharon Hayward, a Finsbury resident and elected board member, said: "[Calling
this project] 'community-led' does not mean that they will leave the community
to lead it - it means the community will be heavily controlled and policed
by government offices and their consultants."
Meanwhile Shoreditch Our Way, the new deal scheme in Hackney, has received
another setback because of the financial problems affecting debt-ridden
Hackney council.
The new deal project has been promised £57.4m of new deal cash but
was planning to bid for more grant to repair crumbling council homes in
the area, under the government arm's length management programme.
Under that initiative the government has made available £460m to
repair council homes over the next two years to councils that place the
management of their housing departments away from municipal control.
Shoreditch Our Way has missed its chance to bid for a share of the £460m
because Hackney council refused to back the bid while its finances are
still in doubt.
Shoreditch now has to hope that the government will make more funds available
in later years.
Hackney council initially expressed support for the bid but it now claims
that it can only support it when it is satisfied that the bid fits in
with its financial rescue package. Its decision means at least two more
years of uncertainty about the future of the Shoreditch project, three
years after the project was launched by the deputy prime minister, John
Prescott, and the chancellor, Gordon Brown.
Latest flagship project flounders
20.2.02 - Guardian website
Another project under the flagship regeneration programme New Deal for
Communities (NDC) has run into trouble over allegations of government
and council interference in what is supposed to be community-led initiative.
The New Deal project in Finsbury, Islington, was awarded £52m to
revive the fortunes of the area. It has now been suspended until October
2002 after residents claimed the structure of the board was undemocratic.
The news comes following government admission that the 39 New Deal projects
have failed to spend two-thirds of the money allocated to them. Three
years after it was launched, NDC has been dogged by a series of local
rows.
The Finsbury project, known as EC1 New Deal Partnership, had proposed
to elect community representatives to its board both directly and by a
series of committee votes.
Last year the government office for London expressed serious concerns
about using two methods to choose resident board members. In a letter
it warned: "It could be seen by everyone as a way of getting people
onto the board who clearly do not enjoy wide support locally, as otherwise
they would been chosen through the agreed election process."
At a meeting of the project in January, the government office appeared
to go against its own advice by backing the role of representatives chosen
by committee. It also indicated its support for the appointment of a non-elected
professional to chair the board.
Sharon Hayward, an elected resident who walked out of that meeting, claimed
the board and the government office was "running roughshod"
over the views of the community.
Former board member Darius Sokolov, secretary of the Islington Tenants'
Federation, said: "The government has gone back and forth on this.
At first they appeared to back what the community was saying, now they
are behind the council."
He claimed the council was interfering to reduce the role of elected residents
because the community is opposed to council plans to sell off public buildings
in the area and is against transferring Finsbury's council homes to a
housing association.
"The local authority and the government do not seem to trust local
residents to run it for themselves."
He added: "It is a shame that it has dragged on so long and money
is going unspent."
Joyti Vaja, board member and an Islington councillor, said: "We (the
council) are not interring. I support anything that will get this project
moving. Residents should be doing the same instead of squabbling amongst
themselves."
She said she supported board members appointed by committee because they
would represent interests that could be excluded by direct election.
This is the latest row to thwart the NDC programme. Last week it was revealed
that plans for the new deal in Shoreditch, were being put at risk by Hackney
council decision to sell off land in the area.
An official briefing on the progress of the NDC prepared for SocietyGuardian.co.uk
by the government's neighbourhood renewal unit admits that there are "obstacles"
to implementing the programme.
It says: "There are a variety of reasons why partnerships are having
difficulty in delivering their projects."
The government allocated £240m to be spent on the projects by the
end of this financial year. The projects themselves predicted that they
would spend £129m by this stage, but they are on course to spend
only £80m.
The briefing said: "At this stage of the programme the key factors
for long term success are that we develop strong partnerships capable
of delivering quality projects, rather than simply concentrating on spend."
The unit is also working with district auditors around the country to
improve the way it manages the projects, and it has appointed a team of
40 neighbourhood renewal advisers to sort out local "obstacles".
The briefing adds: "Much work has been done to build up trust with
communities and to convince them that the NDC is a genuine 'bottom up'
programme in which their concerns are paramount. Imposing spending plans
upon them would damage the credibility and integrity of the programme."
Friction slows New Deal
20.2.02 - The Guardian
Regeneration schemes selected under the government's flagship initiative
to revive deprived neighbourhoods have failed to spend two-thirds of the
cash allocated them amid growing local tension over the direction of the
projects.
The £2bn New Deal for Communities (NDC) programme was launched three
years ago this month with a promise to give local people the power to
decide how to regenerate their areas over a 10-year period. The government
allocated £240m to be spent under the scheme by the end of the 2001-02
financial year.
Official figures now show that only £80m is on course to be spent
by the end of March by the 39 projects selected under the scheme. The
government has been forced to appoint a team of 40 neighbourhood renewal
advisers to help the projects "overcome obstacles" and ensure
that money is spent. The Department for Transport, Local Government and
the Regions has also been drawn into negotiations with the Treasury to
allow it to hold over money for future years.
Lord Falconer, who as regenera tion minister is responsible for the programme,
admits: "It has taken longer than we initially estimated to get agreement
on projects that are sustainable. It's right not to try to force expenditure
earlier than it can be properly spent. Overall, New Deal for Communities
is going well." He insists that earmarked money is not under threat
but confirms that his department is negotiating for more flexibility.
"There are discussions going on with the Treasury," he says.
"Obviously we are making the case for a spend with a different sort
of profile."
Many of the projects have been held up by disagreements among communities,
councils, and the government's regional offices. The New Deal scheme in
Finsbury, central London has been suspended after residents claimed that
the board of the scheme was undemocratic.
In Leicester, the government threatened to withhold funding amid community
infighting and friction with Leicester council. In Shoreditch, east London,
a re think has been demanded over plans for housing improvements, prompting
suggestions that the New Deal is only community-led if the community comes
up with the right answers.
And in Southwark, south London, council- and government-backed plans were
scuppered last December after residents voted overwhelmingly against plans
to transfer ownership of the Aylesbury estate to a housing association.
There is also growing annoyance over the use of external consultants,
rather than local people, to run the projects. The Bishop of Liverpool,
the Rt Rev James Jones, who also chairs the city's New Deal project, has
warned that the initiative is becoming a "new deal for consultants".
Falconer admits that there have been "tensions and resentments"
over the neighbourhood renewal advisers and external consultants but urges
the community-led projects to be realistic in their plans. "There
is increasing acceptance within the New Deal for Community areas that
realism and using help from outsiders is necessary in formulating plans,"
he says. "My hopes over the next year are that one will see more
delivery on the ground."
'Blair flagship is sunk'
Aylesbury estate tenants reject 'symbolic' regeneration plan
2.1.02 - Guardian website
Residents of the Aylesbury estate in south London, where Tony Blair launched
New Labour's drive to tackle social exclusion, have rejected the housing
transfer at the heart of the neighbourhood's flagship regeneration programme.
The emphatic vote against switching the estate from local authority control
to a housing association appears to have torpedoed the £234m programme
as it stands. It is a heavy blow for the government, which had attached
great symbolic value to the estate's rebirth.
Local council leaders in Southwark and Whitehall officials hope to salvage
something from the wreckage of the programme, with attention focusing
on a £56.2m New Deal for Communities (NDC) grant - the third biggest
of its kind - promised more than three years ago.
The regeneration programme, highlighted in Society in November, would
eventually have seen the complete demolition and rebuilding of the 2,700-home
estate. But the scheme has been dogged by controversy and, going into
the transfer ballot, remained £65m short of the £234m funding
target.
The proposed transfer - of the entire estate to Horizon Housing Group
- had been heavily criticised for the quality of its rebuilding plans
(including construction of an extra 1,000 homes) and for the intended
selling off of more than 1,300 properties to the private sector.
In the ballot, held just before Christmas, 70% of tenants and leaseholders
voted against the proposals. Aysen Dennis, who chairs Worried About Tenants'
Transfer, a group which led opposition to the plans, says: "It's
the best Christmas present I could ever have had." But Jean Bartlett,
who would have chaired a tenant-led board if the scheme had proceeded,
says: "The 'no' vote has put the estate back another four years.
We have to be careful that the government doesn't just dump us."
The NDC money was promised on the basis of 12 outcomes concerning health,
education, crime and employment. Council officials believe they can persuade
the government the 12 could still be met through a refurbishment and improvement
plan, though critics say this could prove even more expensive than the
rejected programme.
Stephanie Elsy, Labour leader of Southwark council, says: "Tenants
have had their say and I shall be asking for an early meeting with the
housing minister [Lord Falconer] to look at how we can move forward."
A spokeswoman for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the
Regions says the department is "hopeful" that something can
be worked out.
'Community-led - if going our way'
Highbury & Islington Express - 19.10.01 - Letters Page
At the heart of the problems experienced within New Finsbury New Deal (NFND) are those being encountered within similar projects throughout the country, where people have liked what the Government has said about the necessity of "urban renewal being community-led" and have taken them at their word only to find the political and professional classes, who dominate the regeneration industry, standing in their way. (Group aiming to improve Finsbury is 'undemocratic' - High & I, October 12).
The Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool and chairman of New Deal for Communities in Liverpool, summed-up the feelings of many recently when he said: "The more involved I get, the more I feel we do not understand what it means." At a national conference, someone wisecracked that NDC means "New Deal for Consultants."
In neighbouring Hackney, the £57.4m Shoreditch New Deal, a truly resident-led programme, has been refused permission to undertake its own strategy because it does not meet with other people's views of what's best for them. A failure by the community to include the privatisation and demolition of council homes within their proposals, has meant that the project is now in serious danger of having its funding withdrawn by unelected Labour peer Lord Falconer. It's not difficult then to see how, for many, the word "refeneration" has become synonymous with "gentrification."
It is not "apathy" but a well-grounded suspicion, that has taken hold in Finsbury.
To break free from this situation and restore credibility to New Finsbury New Deal (NFND) a number of steps should be followed. Firstly, all decision making members of the board should be required to put themselves up for election by the community.
Secondly, the various unelected consultants, council representatives and 'partners', need to play a hands-off role, restricting themselves to an advisory capacity if and when required. Thirdly, money needs to begin flowing into supporting the various existing community and voluntary networks as well as initiating new urgently needed schemes - particularly work with young people.
Also, NFND needs to demonstrate a real sense of purpose by ensuring the likes of the Finsbury Town Hall and St Lukes library are placed at the disposal of the community; it would be hard to see how the community could be won to a vision of regeneration that begins with its prize assets being flogged-off.
Finally, both the council and the government should give an undertaking that they would not seek to undermine any position arrived at by the board which has been shown to have genuine community backing.
GARY O'SHEA
Independent Working Class Association
New Deal board member, Darius Sokolov, speaks to the Islington Independent and gives the inside story on New Finsbury New Deal...
Islington Independent : How did you get involved with the New Deal?
Darius Sokolov: I represent the residents of area 2, covering the Brunswick, Earlstoke and Southwood Court estates on the New Deal board. I was nominated by the Brunswick tenants association after our last representative Tom Kirwan resigned.
Why did Tom resign from New Deal?
In his own words, Tom was being treated as a "token working class person"
to give the New Deal some credibility. The clique who run the New Deal
would shout him down whenever he tried to speak, and even went so far
as to change the venues of meetings without telling him so Tom couldn't
be there. Tom told me if he stayed on it any longer he'd either wind up
in hospital with a seizure or locked up for assaulting one of them.
Who are this 'clique' you talk about?
Basically, New Deal has been controlled up to now by a little band of
middle class professionals and their cronies. They have managed to do
this because they set it up from the start so that only a third of the
board members are elected local residents. When no-one turns up to their
meetings they blame residents for being too lazy, but they have done everything
they could to keep the working class community out.
Any examples?
Well, they've spent over £150,000 on consultants' salaries but they somehow
can't afford to advertise public meetings or produce a decent newsletter
to let people know what's going on. The New Deal has spent money on art
displays organised with Sadlers Wells and a £20,000 film made by the girlfriend
of one board member. But they turned down the bid to start up a youth
club on the Finsbury estate and have done nothing to help save the Finsbury
Town Hall. Based on that record, you can't blame people for thinking the
New Deal is a waste of time.
Can this situation be changed for the good?
Well, yes. I'm glad to say the tide is turning. The New Deal board has
been forced to hold some elections. For the first time there will be a
clear majority of council tenants out of the 'area reps' on the board,
people who want things to change. The problem is that only eight out of
over 25 people are being elected, the rest just appoint themselves. They
know that they'd have no chance if they put themselves up for election,
and they're making the rules up as they go along. But even the government
is complaining now about how crooked the set-up is.
So what next?
With pressure from the elected reps and the government, there will have
to be more elections in the next few months. Our community will have a
chance to take control at last. £50 million won't solve every problem,
but it's a good start, once we get to decide what it's spent on. What
about security and a youth club for every estate?
Darius Sokolov lives on the Brunswick estate and is a member of the New deal board. He is also presently Secretary of the Federation of Islington Tenants Associations
IWCA comment on New Deal
To break free from the situation Darius describes and restore credibility to New Finsbury New Deal (NFND) a number of steps should be followed. Firstly, all decision making members of the board should be required to put themselves up for election by the community.
Secondly, the various unelected consultants, council representatives and 'partners', need to play a hands-off role, restricting themselves to an advisory capacity if and when required. Thirdly, money needs to begin flowing into supporting the various existing community and voluntary networks as well as initiating new urgently needed schemes - particularly work with young people.
Also, NFND needs to demonstrate a real sense of purpose by ensuring the likes of the Finsbury Town Hall and St Lukes library are placed at the disposal of the community; it would be hard to see how the community could be won to a vision of regeneration that begins with its prize assets being flogged-off.
Finally, both the council and the government should give an undertaking that they would not seek to undermine any position arrived at by the board which has been shown to have genuine community backing.
New Deal board shows its hand!
Islington Independent - Win/Spr 2001
At a packed meeting (of seven tenants), held to advise residents of what was happening with the 'New Finsbury New Deal' regeneration scheme, a sharp-suited consultant from the regeneration agency, Renaisi (or the gentrification agency as they are known in Shoreditch) laid down the law. "If you don't start coming along to New deal meetings," he threatened, "you might see changes in your area you don't like."
With £52 million on offer from New Deal over ten years you might think people would be queuing up to give their ideas about how this money could be spent to benefit Finsbury and Clerkenwell. Especially as the new Deal claims to be a new kind of 'community-led' scheme. Why is it then, that the New Deal struggles to get double figure turnouts to 'elect' resident reps? For the man from Renaisi, it seems, local people are just too bone idle to take an interest in their community. So if middle class professionals are forced to step in to make decisions that working class residents "might not like" about their future, it's their own fault.
New Deal: Playing in a rigged game
Despite serious reservations, the IWCA has encouraged local people to involve themselves with New deal in an attempt to ensure that the local community actually gets something out of it. However, it is not hard to understand why many working class residents feel that they have been playing in a rigged game. There is more than a suspicion that they are just being used as a cover for a pre-planned agenda that is clearly being driven by, and in the interests of the council, outside agencies and middle class residents.
Tom Kirwan, a hard-working tenant representative and ex-New deal interim board member, resigned from the board at the end of January stating that although he had initial enthusiasm for New Deal he had become totally disillusioned. He said: "I feel that I am just a token working class representative who actually has no real say in anything. Those paid to advise the community or board, in fact, seem to set the agenda along with a chosen few." It seems that the New Deal Board has not even advised the community represented by Tom that he has resigned, let alone why. In early discussions a proposal was made, that would have meant that the New Deal board would be truly community-led, by making it resident-only, with the outside 'experts' limited to acting in an advisory role, was immediately dismissed by the suits as being outside "the rules".
New Deal: The hidden agenda
At every public meeting in the run-up to the government approving their 'stage one' proposal, New deal professionals made one thing very clear. New Deal, they said, would not have anything to do with privatisation of council housing. They said this despite the goings on in Shoreditch New deal, again managed by Renaisi, where even after a conclusive 93% vote against from tenants, the push for privatisation continued.
Then somehow all that was forgotten. A report from Renaisi to an interim board meeting in November 2000 set out a new position. The New Deal, it said, needs to provide a "housing solution". It would have to look at issues including "tenure" and "management". As a starter, the new deal could commission another set of consultants to include a housing survey in their 'New Deal masterplan' perhaps doubling their £50,000+ fee already agreed.
What happened next is about the best single example yet of what's really going on. A number of suspicious tenants associations immediately wrote back to the New Deal professionals, telling them to keep their noses out of council housing. Whilst on their way to deliver this letter to the New Deal's "agenda planning meeting", at the New Deal office, Old St, tenant representatives who had signed the letter spotted some New deal suits. Through the window of the elegant Cripplegate Foundation boardroom, they could see the real decision-makers - top officials from Islington council, Peabody and Renaisi, along with a couple of 'selected' board members, discussing the future of council housing in Finsbury and Clerkenwell. This was one 'community-led' New deal meeting the community was certainly not meant to know about, let alone "come along" to.
New Deal: Community-lead?
After pressure from local tenant reps, the New Deal suits have been forced to issue a watery statement promising that "the council has no intention of using New Finsbury New Deal as a vehicle to initiate discussions about privatisation of council owned properties." Though we know what best intentions can lead to, this is none the less some sign that they aren't confident enough to ride roughshod over residents' views. At least not yet - this probably won't be the last time housing privatisation surfaces on the New Deal agenda.
As long as the people making the decisions in the New Deal are middle class outsiders rather than working class residents, we will continue to see their agenda of privatisation and gentrification being placed above the real needs of the community. The IWCA believes that if the New Deal is to be genuinely 'community-led', it has to be the community that makes the decisions. If those decisions aren't to the taste of middle class councillors, officials or professional 'experts', then so be it. We know the only real 'experts' as to the needs of our community are the people who actually live here, the local working class residents themselves.
New Deal: Housing solutions
The Finsbury New Deal 'Delivery Plan' calls for a change in the proportion of housing tenures within the area. Basically this means that, as the majority of Finsbury's housing at the moment is either council or housing association owned, they will be looking to 'housing solutions.' In plain english this means that where, in the words of New Labour's housing supremo Nick Raynsford, there is "a high concentration of poor families in close proximity" they will want to privatise and/or demolish council tenants' homes in order to make way for expensive, exclusive developments for the middle classes, ensuring a "mix of tenures."
As a recent article in the Big Issue put it, this means: "crudely speaking, rich people are encouraged to live next to poor people. The idea is that better-off residents regenerate an area through a trickle-down effect, spending money and demanding better services." The article featured an estate in south London, where 3,000 council homes were demolished to make way for developers, with only 1,200 of the new homes remaining in council use. A local resident said, "There were not enough large properties and families have been split as older children have had to move out of the area. We wanted most properties to remain with the council. We feel we weren't really listened to, and this has caused a lot of anger and resentment."
Gary Glover of the Southwark Group of Tenants, said: "When you get the developers moving in, council tenants are inevitably pushed out, councils can make a lot of money from selling off homes, but it's at the expense of people who really need them. It's a bit patronising to suggest that moving in middle-class people is the only way to improve an area, its policies, not people that caused the problems in the first place. Regeneration should not be about gentrification."
Apart from being, as Gary Glover says, unbelievably patronising, this makes a complete mockery of the idea that the New Deal is in any way 'community-led.' At no New Deal meeting has there been a call from local people for a 'greater mix of tenures', but there have been repeated calls for more affordable housing. A recent poll conducted by MORI revealed that affordable housing was the second biggest concern of Islington residents at 55%, narrowly pipped by crime at 58%. Since 1995 under, first Labour, then the Lib Dems, just 16% of all new housing built could in any way be described as 'affordable'. This year that figure has dropped to just 8%. None of it has been for the council. Angel on the Green, New River Head, Paramount Building, Ice Wharf, the Beaux Arts Building, the Rose Theatre development; what all these new yuppie ghettos have in common is that they contain not a single unit of affordable housing (the Rose Theatre is even to receive what amounts to a £2million subsidy from the Lib Dems by having the usual planning gain fees waived).
Of course, keeping out the 'great unwashed' will increase the property's value on the market considerably and the developers will undoubtedly be extremely grateful. But where does this leave the council's much trumpeted policy of providing 'mixed tenures'? In reality this rarely applies to private developments and is simply used as justification for demolishing council homes, providing cheap land for the property speculators, and driving out social exclusion by driving out the socially excluded.
There appears to be one set of rules for them and another set of rules for the rest of us.
So who really runs Finsbury New Deal..?
The New Deal board has 23 places. Eight of these are for 'elected' residents, most of who were elected at meetings with no more than 10 people in attendance. There are often only two or three elected reps present at the board meetings.
The rest of the board is made up principally of middle class professionals or 'suits' - from Peabody Trust, YMCA, Camden & Islington Health Authority, Cripplegate Foundation, Islington Police, City & Islington College and the Employment Service. It is likely that these people, like the advisers to the board - the Council, Peabody and Renaisi, are paid to attend the meetings. Hardly any live in the area.
New (or raw) Deal for Bunhill?
Islington Independent - Spring 2000
Should we be welcoming the announcement from the Lib Dems that they have chosen Bunhill and estates in Clerkenwell as the area in Islington for the implementation of Blair's New Deal scheme?
Well, first of all we need to be clear about what the New Deal is really about. If the New Deal is about working class residents in Bunhill taking the decisions on how decent jobs will be created, council housing improved, facilities for the youth developed, etc, obviously the Independent Working Class Association will be fully behind the New Deal.
However let's be clear, the New Deal money comes with conditions and strings, very large strings, attached. In neighbouring Shoreditch, where the New Deal is being implemented and where the IWCA is working closely with tenants and residents, local people have found themselves having to deal with an entire army of highly-paid consultants from the Council and private companies, who are keen to ensure the money is spent on their terms. They have also had to contend with cliques of middle class yuppies who have moved in to the luxury apartments in the area, who are looking to further gentrify Shoreditch with an influx of expensive, 'trendy' bars and cafes, as they have done in Clerkenwell.
No doubt we will be told that the continued regeneration of Islington will help the less wealthy residents. But look at the facts, wealth in the borough, as a report in the Highbury & Islington Express outlined, "is not filtering down" and the gap between rich and poor is widening. In fact only 21,000 of the 130,000 jobs in Islington are filled by local people. Remove those provided by the council and you get a good idea of how much local people have 'benefited' from the Islington 'boom'. How many young people from Finsbury's estates will be employed in the cafe/bars which will no doubt be proposed as part of the New Deal?
Major repairs and improvements to council estates in the area are urgently needed as the council have deliberately allowed them to become rundown, despite the fact that tenants across the borough pay millions in rent every year.
Under the New Deal, improvements to housing will come with conditions attached. This usually means that the council will try to privatise our estates or place them under the costly Private Finance Initiative. It can also mean the demolition of some estates and their replacement with luxury apartments at market rents, far beyond the reach of any local people.
What the people of Bunhill need to ensure, is that any improvement in the dreadful statistics for unemployment, poverty, health and education in the area is as a result of conditions for local people improving - not because those same people have been forced out to make way for the middle classes instead.
That is why we urge all decent people in Finsbury and Clerkenwell, who have the best interests of their own community at heart, to get involved in the decision-making. Come forward with your own ideas for the area and the ways in which money should be spent and allocated, while scrutinising everything the Council does, making sure we're not conned by the politicians or mugged-off by the developers. If you require information on the New Deal, contact the IWCA on: 07000 752 752
