Richmond United

Scan page 10

ALL over Greater London, the need of Londoners for homes gets greater and more desperate. Yet Council housing stocks are depleted by being sold off, and all too often, the only building and development taking place is that of huge office blocks.

The deepening crisis capitalism dissuades finance houses and pension funds from industrial investment towards land speculation and in particular, the over development office blocks, irrespective of whether they will be let in the immediate future.

Thus in all the 'villages that comprise the Greater London conurbation, we see vast empty unwanted offices blighting the environment and offering no benefits to the community monuments to the "alienation' of capitalist production that Marx detected 100 years ago.

A dozen or so campaigns have grown in Central London focussing on the need the Green Caots of Vauxhall to the Docklands Devel- Green opment of East. London. And the problem has spread to the suburbs.

Richmond-uponThames (main industry tourism) it became clear to many concerned residents that the main purpose of-the 1980 Richmond Town Area Action Plan, was to bulldoze much of the townscape for 290,250 sq. ft. of office space. Much of this has now been built, but not a part of it rented or even likely to be in the immediate future.

Of course, the Area Action Plan was loaded with promises of conservation and restoration of buildings listed for their historic and architectural interest, but the Richmond Council (controlled by the Tories through the Mayor's casting vote) has reneged on most of these promises. Гот 20 years they nave allowed the Riverside site of once attractive historic buildings to fall into ex. treme dilapidation.

Thẹ legislative reforms for building preservation contained in the 1971 Town & Country Planning Act depend for their effectiveness on the willingness of local authorities to serve repairs notices on owners of such property. Richmond Council refused to do this for the Riverside Site (of which they were owners of a third) and evicted the squat organised up the interiors of the buildings, and retused to disclose public information. 140,000 sq.ft. of offices were agreed for the 'viable conservation' the site, but now only 2 facades of one building will be conserved.

Richmond's Old Town Hall on this site was donated to the 'inhabitants of the Parish for municipal purposes in 1888, but is now to be enSite for more offices tirely gutted for offices and shops. As Labour's Spokesperson at the Public Inquiry of 1980, I formed an amenity and conservation group in March 1982 specifically to defend the Old Town Hall, and generally to fight for "Consultation not Croydonisation' - 'Homes Not Offices' . The group attracted the support of nearly all residents of the town across all party political divisions, and named itself Richmond United, (the suggestion Richmond Resistance being rejected).

A public rally at the Old Town Hall on June 8 1982 was packed with 400 people. In August, the Council leaders rushed to the High Court in the Strand for a ruling on their right to sell off the Town Hall. Richmond United challenged their right. so did the Attorney General who opposed their plans in court. Justice Warner ruled that because the actual word "Trust' had not been used, the Council were not bound by the terms of the gift.

Since then, Richmond United has broadened its campaign, studied local traffic problems, organised a petition of over 3,000 names collected in less than 3 weeks, held another rally on July 30, lobbied the Counci, and is now organising a local demonstration.

Office development Protest Walk. Saturday January 29 '83. Assemble at Richmond Old Town Hall at 11 am. Proceed through the town centre laying white elephants' on the steps of Richmond's 290,250 sq. ft. of empty unwanted offices. Rally at the Riverside (near the White Cross) at approx. 12 noon. Ruskin College, McElhone returned to the attack. Attempts to advertise for a replacement were blocked.

The Crossroads staff mounted a similar campaign as in the previous year, but under much more difficult conditions. Geoff Shaw had died in the meantime and "bringing pressure to bear on the MP from within the Labour Party became a far more difficult task" . Of the three local Labour coun cillors, "only one was regarded as being positively proCrossroads"

A public meeting was organised, attended by over 100 tenants representing 21 local groups, and addressed by McElhone. He again accused the Crossroads staff of organising actions which were "unnecessary, damaging to the image of Glasgow, and directed against the He also claimed that Crossroads received "generous grants" , whilst, "many other organisations in Gorbals and Govanhill -including the Labour Party - did valuable voluntary work without receiving a penny of public money.' Those present were unimpressed. They forced McElhone to sign a statement allowing Richard Bryant's post to be'readvertised.

Subsequently, McElhone manoeuvred to get three conditions tagged on:

*Transfer of one of the fieldwork units in the Gorbals and Govanhill.

*A revised job description for the post.

*Applications to be vetted by a selection committee (of which McElhone was to be a member).

The Crossroads management committee (which consisted of delegates from the various tenants' a associations and so on in the aréa) met to consider McElhone's proposition. One view was summed up by a delegate's statement: "I'd prefer not to have a unit in the Gorbals than one controlled by the Lobour Party"

In the event. by just one "only" fighting for a better deal for the area.

The answer is simple. The late MP, and the councillars who shared his viewpoint regarded themselves as the source of power and privilege in the Constituency.

They wanted all attempts to improve the area to go through the "existing power structure" , i.e. themselves.

Activity

But the community workers, the anti-dampness campaign and the Govanhil Action Group worked on a different set of ideas. They Saw improvements being achieved through the activ ity of the community itself. That is why they met venomous hostility from the local Labour autocrats.

McElhone's attitude is reflected clearly in his statement: "The failure of Crossroads was not to take advantage of myself sitting as Minister for Social Work for the last three yeais - a Minister who dictated to his officials."

McElhone and his ilk would have preferred the community workers to play another role. "There was enough work for them on the social side - looking after the senior citizens, helping them fill in forms, that would have been a lot more appropriate than the public meetings with a lot of heckling."

• A statement from someone described as "a prominent Labour Party member ‹from Gorbals and Govanhill" sums up their whole concept of politics:

"I believe in the kind of Tammany Hall business if you want things done -you speak to so and so, to speak to so and so, to manipulate the situation, rather than having open confrontations... I've always had it in my head that this is the way to influence people "

The appalling conditions in the. Gorbals and Govanhill today are proof of the bank. ruptey of such an approach. The most significant victor! pained in the last ten years campaign. It was too abrasive, bloody-minded, and went over the score in the demands it made on the local councillors... (it) could not be disciplined or controlled by the established power structure - of the Gorbals .... In short the campaign was seen as threat"

Inevitably, McElhone's manipulative use of the Labour Party to defend his position of power and privilege ended up bringing the Party into di repute. The fact that members of the Crossroads management committee preferred having no fieldwork unit at all to one "controlled by the Labour Party", : the previous refusal of the Govanhil! Action Group-to allow the Labour counciliors to use their premises as a surgery, are sad reflections of this.

The Labour Party hopes to run society. But these militant community activists didn't want to see it running even án information centre. This was the lack of respect brought upon the Labour Party through the hostile attitude and actions of McElhone, the councillors and members of the Party to local, independent working class mobilisations.

The Bryants' book also explains why the SO supporter recently expelled from the CLP met such a fate. Many of those voting for his expulsion must not only have been aware of the disgraceful events described by the Bryants in their book. They must have also actively colluded in them.

McElhone has gone, but his tradition lives on. The CLP remains in the hands of the Right, with an MP who will no doubt prove a "worthy" successor to her late husband.

To break the hold of the Right, the left must organise with the same determinaton wnich, as the Bryants' book clearly demonstrates, the Rigat has used to stay in power.:

Scan page 11

Socialist. Organiser no.114 January 6 1983 Pape by councillor Chris Hickey 6 1983 Page 11

----- pull-quotes -----

Tim Summers