Today's Independent by-election round-up

The result!

I want to thank all those who voted in yesterday's Putney by-election - and, actually, those who did not, because your abstention sent almost as loud a message as the 13% swing to me did. I'm tremendously grateful for the support I received the length and breadth of Putney - indeed, early analysis shows that I may have polled more votes in the east end of the ward than the Conservative.

I did not win, and I congratulate Mike Ryder on his election. He has a great three years ahead of him representing a very special place.

I cannot congratulate the Liberal Democrats because their candidate conducted a thoroughly dishonest, scare-mongering campaign. For some reason Liberal Democrat activists believe politics is a game won by telling the biggest lies and perpetrating the biggest deceptions and it's a despicable and dishonourable way to conduct yourself: either in politics or as a person. And that's why, despite her ludicrous and dishonest claims to be the only challenger, no one swung behind her.

But the big news from yesterday's result is simply the collapse of the Conservative vote. Just thirteen months ago, Sir Edward Lister won 4,938 votes. Yesterday his successor polled just 1,497. If that does not tell this complacent council that Putney is seriously unimpressed on a raft of concerns they will get more of the same at every opportunity they happen to give the voters to express themselves.

No, this was not a result that means Justine Greening will lose or Conservative rule is likely to end in three years. It's just, possibly, the start of the way back to being listened to again. I was never going to win just about the safest Conservative seat in the borough - but if I've shown a path for Labour to at least be given a hearing by voters even in our most challenging areas, that's a far more long lasting outcome than one by-election defeat.

Thank you again for your support, Putney: I'm humbled by it.

The result: Mike Ryder (Con) 1,497 (45.8%), Christian Klapp (Lab) 1,022 (31.3%), Lib Dem 545 (16.7%), Marian Hoffman (Green) 202 (6.2%)

2010 result in Thamesfield: Con 57.9%, Lab 16.8%, LD 15.1% Green 10.3%.

5am, Election Day, Putney HQ

This was the view from our campaign HQ of the sun rising over Kenilworth Court.

We started bright and early today to deliver a final major campaign leaflet right across riverside Putney tailored to each street.

My Putney Society Hustings speech

"Thank you for that introduction, Jonathan. I want to begin by putting on record my thanks to Edward Lister for his many years of public service.

"It is a pleasure to come to speak to you this evening.

"What are the major issues facing Putney? One, the Thames Tideway Tunnel. All four of the candidates here today, I think, agree that the tunnel is a good thing – the problems are about specific sites.

"The council was asleep at its desk when the plans first surfaced in 2008 and that is one of the key reasons Barn Elms got chosen ahead of other sites. I would prefer a brownfield site like Carnwath Road over a Greenfield one in almost every circumstance. I want the ventilation shaft currently planned for west of the bridge moved beneath or east of it. Indeed I have been told by Phil Stride, Head of the Tideway Tunnel project, that a vent may not even be needed here now.

"And then there is the high street – and its harmful pollution levels. A problem not just of the high street but also the surrounding residential areas. As your councillor, I want an Air Quality Management Area specifically for Putney town centre. Armed with this power the council can work with local residents and businesses to cut pollution.

"I will work with Transport for London, to relocate the Putney Bus Garage away from the High Street. This will cut pollution from buses, and disturbance to residents of Chelverton Road.
Crime is a really serious issue in Putney. In March of this year more than 1, 600 crimes were committed here. This is highest out of all of the borough’s wards. And it’s been that way for years.

"The presence of the town centre and its associated crime is one cause. But it is not the only cause and too often the council has used it as an excuse to do nothing. As police resources are sucked in to the town centre, so they are drained from other parts of our area. I want to try out town centre wardens for one year, funded from council reserves. When warden were tried in Tooting and Clapham Junction, street crime fell by one third.

"But instead of agreeing to try, the council want to make the problem worse. The decision to sack all 24 parks police, confirmed last night, was a big mistake. The prospect of Wandsworth Park, Leaders Gardens and Putney Cemetery unpatrolled by day and unlocked at night is not one I suspect Putney supports. The council have not thought this through: even if they eventually hammer out an agreement it will only last three years. And then what?

"Finally, let’s turn to the problem I launched my campaign with: the massive problem of overdevelopment.

"Putney is not Manhattan, Dubai or central London. We do not need, want or desire high rise buildings, which do not fit our human scale environment. Putney Place, Tileman House, Carlton Tower, and Osiers Gate will blight Putney. The Council are not listening, indeed my Conservative opponent has described our concerns as mere ‘noise to be looked through’. I am not against new development but new development must, must, must be in keeping with the scale of existing buildings.

"I will use the seat I’ve been guaranteed on the Planning Applications Committee to give Putney the louder voice we so desperately need on these critical issues.

"The Council has taken the voters in Putney for granted for too long. There is only one way to stop them taking you for granted - and that is to send a message in terms so clear that no one can mistake what you are telling them.

"So please send me to Town Hall to deliver that message loud and clear. This Friday Putney shall have either a 47th Conservative councillor or me - no other result is possible. We really can win, we really can make this council sit up and listen. Thank you."

Addressing tonight's by-election hustings

It's for others to say how us candidates fared at tonight's Putney Society hustings, but I'm very pleased that residents seem very keen to give our complacent council a big kick. My hustings speech is on another computer and I'll post it tomorrow morning - for now, here's the photo taken by a resident from the meeting.

I was delighted Councillors Madden and Torrington were present to hear us, and if you elect me on Thursday I look forward to working constructively with them in the best interests of Putney.

Complacency the problem - a big kick the solution

With just a day and a half of campaigning in our by-election I'm asking Putney to give the council a kick to shake it from its complacency.

All of the problems affecting our area stem from the council believing it can take Putney votes for granted.

Take any issue and it all comes back to complacency, an inability to try things differently, a refusal to listen and a belief that they are right and all the rest of us are wrong. And the reason they believe that is because no matter what they do, they keep getting voted back in here.

Examples include:

The contemptuous dismissal of anyone who has a concern about over-development as “noise” to be “looked through”

* The sacking of all 24 of our parks police (confirmed yesterday, despite still no deal with the Metropolitan Police on what duties they’ll take over)

* The axing of evening and night-time cleaning of Putney High Street (also agreed last night)

* The failure to do anything to tackle illegal levels of High Street pollution

* The three years of decay of Putney Bridge

* The illegal demolition of Hotham School wall and the ugly yellow replacement

There’s only one way to stop them taking you for granted, and that’s to send a message in terms so clear that no-one can mistake what you’re telling them.

And there’s only one way to send that message: lend me your vote and send me to the town hall to deliver it loud and clear. This Friday Putney will have either a 47th Conservative councillor or me: no other result is possible.

The Liberal Democrats have never even managed to come second in this area – ever - and having spoken to over 3,000 voters since the by-election campaign began, it seems they may not even manage third place. Voting Lib Dem or Green doesn’t advance these parties’ values: it just makes it easier for the Conservatives to win. Yet again.

If you want to send the council a message; if you want a councillor who will always listen; if you want some choice instead of a one party state; if you want a councillor who will put Putney before Party, then on Thursday please take 10 minutes to vote for it. Vote for me. We really can win. We really can make this council sit up and listen.

More on the Parks Police decision

As well as the plans to cut cleaning of Putney High Street, tonight's Environment Overview and Scrutiny Council Committee will discuss - again - the decision to sack all 24 Parks Police officers.

Before you get your hopes up: no, they're not discussing whether to reverse the decision. It's simply a report on the discussions council officers are now holding with the Police after the decision to sack them has been made to see how much of the service the Met will take on.

And the report, I'm afraid, highlights again all the concerns I've made. The report is couched in vague, wishy-washy terms like "discussions have thus far progressed well". But in between these vapid, vacuous sentences real alarm bells should be ringing for councillors who've bothered to read the report, as I have had. Things like:

Of 35 items listed as the Parks Police job description, officers say "it is considered that the majority of core duties will be covered." So that could mean almost half their duties will be abandoned. And note again the language, couched in qualifications rather than clear, definitive statements of fact. Not one single responsibility can council officials say the Police have yet agreed to. Not one.

Officers have admitted (paragraph 13) that they have no idea whether the sacking of the parks police will eventually be a cost saving: they say they will only know this after the agreement with the Met on what they will and won't do has been concluded. But that was whole basis for sacking the Parks Police and replacing 24 PP officers with just 8 council funded Met officers - so again, why did councillors vote for something without asking the tough questions beforehand?

And just listen to some of the comments from independent groups around the borough who have great expertise in making our parks safe. This, for example, from the Wandsworth Common management Committee:

"While it may appear to be attractive financially [we] were not convinced that the Metropolitan Police officers would be able to provide a similar service to that which has been supplied by the Parks Police. Even the [council] Director of Finance has doubts about the savings likely to be achieved and has concerns that the £250,000 annual income currently generated by the Parks Police might be in jeopardy."

They go on:

"The [Met Police] BOGOF offer to London local councils has been made for a three year term to address a financial shortfall of the Greater London Authority. No one knows what the financial situation will be at the end of the three year period but the likelihood is that the offer would cease...in those circumstances your officers...would no longer be available and you would have disbanded the well-regarded and effective Parks Police."

And they aren't alone. The Friends of Battersea Park are so concerned about the idea they've written directly to London Mayor Boris Johnson to try to stop the plan. Tooting Common Management Advisory Committee have also written in opposing these sackings.

They're right to be worried. I could never vote for a proposal that had been so badly thought through, where the alternative had not even been begun to be put in place; with so much risk and so little guarantee that our parks can be safeguarded. It's alarming that Putney councillors on this committee did not have such concerns - they put their party line before the best interests of Putney. That's wrong and they got this decision wrong.

The honourable course would be to say so, to put on hold the redundancy notices for the Parks Police and find out what the Met are prepared to do before even contemplating sacking every single one of our valuable Parks Police officers.

Even less pride in Putney High Street

You might think that during a by-election the council might be tempted to put off unpopular, bad decisions. I suppose I should be grateful - from a political position - that here that's not the case: the opposite in fact.

Tonight, Conservative councillors are going to vote to axe evening (4pm to 9pm) and late night cleaning of Putney High Street.

Putney High Street is not exactly the most well-cleaned, well-looked after town centre already: look to Fulham Broadway and High Street Kensington for examples of councils (both, incidentally, Conservative-run) who take a lot more pride in their shopping centres.

When Stuart King surveyed residents on his Plan for Putney to improve the high street three years ago, he found overwhelming concern about the poor levels of street cleaning and refuse collection along the high street; as well as the greasy, grimy state of pavements in the town centre because the council refuses to introduce pavement washing.Nothing has changed - at least, nothing has got better.

These cuts will hardly improve matters. So alongside the second-highest high street pollution levels in London, from next April we're heading for one of the dirtiest High streets too.

And this decision comes, of course, barely two months after the council decided to sack all 24 of our Parks Police. And one month after voting to charge children to use public park play facilities. Just a fortnight after admitting that it illegally demolished the Hotham School wall and is now seeking retrospective planning permission from itself to make that illegal vandalism legal vandalism.

So returning to my original comment: politically, I should be really pleased that the council is handing me all this ammunition to campaign on. But these are decisions that will hurt Putney; make our environment worse; invest even less pride in our area. I'm standing to be your councillor because I love Putney and want the best for it. How on earth could anyone who feels that way about our area be pleased about these damaging decisions?

Why you can't trust the Conservatives on our parks

Last year in the council elections, if a Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green council candidate had claimed the Conservatives were planning on introducing Pay to Play charges in Battersea Park, the response would have been a "guarantee that there are NO plans to charge for children to play...it is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE to suggest this."

I use those precise words, and those capitals, because that is what the Conservative candidate in this by-election is claiming about extending Pay to Play to Leaders Gardens and Wandsworth Park. Not true last year in respect of Battersea Park, sadly true today. And proof, if any were needed, that you can't trust the ink these sort of claims are written in.

After all, who'd have believed that the Conservatives would not only charge children to play in public parks - not private gardens: parks we as residents and council taxpayers own - but would also have just agreed to sack all 24 parks police officers? In exchange for the council funding just 8 Metropolitan Police officers over whom the council will have no control and for whom they haven't even hammered out an agreement over responsibilities.

If you ask the Conservative candidate at Tuesday's hustings whether he can guarantee our parks will still be locked at night once the Parks Police have been sacked, the only honest answer he could give you is "no". And that's whay there is no rebuttal of my claim that this is in jeopardy: because they cannot truthfully say so.

It was a shocking mistake to agree to sack our Parks Police without any guarantee of an equivalent replacement service. It was grotesque greed to charge children to pay to play. And I don't take the Conservatives at their word on these issues because they said nothing about either plan when they should have: at last year's council elections.

Judge people on their actions, not their words. The Conservative record is quite clear on parks.

Crime facts you can trust

The Conservative candidate in Thursday's by-election today published a letter claiming that burglaries are down in Thamesfield. Not true.

The above is a screen capture of the Metropolitan Police crime figures database for Thamesfield ward. Just look: burglaries are up 14% year on year. Not down, as the Conservatives claim. Up. Here's the link - please see for yourself.

Perhaps the Tories get their data from some source other than the one body that records crime as they get reported - the Police. Perhaps they didn't bother to check. Perhaps they didn't care whether their claim was true or not. Perhaps they just wanted to have something - anything, true or false - to say about crime because their record is atrocious.

And let's again deal with the complete fallacy that Thamesfield has a high crime rate because of the town centre. It's simply an excuse - a justification for them to carry on doing nothing.

* Burglaries are not town centre crimes and they are up 14%.
* Criminal damage in residential streets is not a town centre crime and it's up 32%

Enough is surely enough? If a candidate cannot even comprehend a problem exists, how on earth can we have any confidence whatsoever that he has what it takes to turn it around? I don't think you can. That's why I ask you to look through the misinformation the increasingly desperate Conservatives - whov'e just discovered they can't take Putney for granted - are spreading.

Please vote for me on Thursday.