As I walk into Nick Raynsford’s Westminster office, he begins to tell me about a meeting that he has just had at Greenwich Park.
He talks at length about the benefits he believes the equestrian events will bring from a “new feature” in the children’s playground to a “restructuring” of the Blackheath gate. He also talks about the wider economic development that he believes the games will bring to the town.
But while he is obviously enthusiastic about holding the Equestrian events here in Greenwich, it is striking how dismissive he is of those who oppose them:
“The problem with the NOGOE campaign is that they have not been prepared to listen to any evidence at all. They have their own preset view that this is going to be a disaster. They don’t want it, they don’t like it and they won’t listen to any evidence. That I’m afraid discredits them in the eyes of most rational people and observers”
Raynsford believes that opponents of the events have deliberately been spreading false information about it:
“I have to say that those people who have been campaigning against it have used in my view some extremely bogus claims and made some very dishonest statements that have actually caused alarm and concern to people who genuinely love the park
“And these claims are completely groundless. The claims that trees were going to be cut down in large numbers, that the ground would be destroyed and all churned up and giving the impression that this is some sort of Grand National type event when it is literally seventy horses, on one day, doing one circuit, and that’s it.”
Raynsford also believes that Olympic organisers failed to communicate their plans to the public until recently. He says that LOCOG “let their eye off the ball” in the early stages and “were not as responsive as they should have been” to objectors.
But despite this, he still believes that there is strong enthusiasm for the Olympics in the town:
“The overwhelming majority of young people in the area are wholly supportive, and the interesting thing about this is that there is quite a split between those who have been most vocal against the Olympics who tend to be older, and those under 55, who are in my experience overwhelmingly supportive.”
Yet while he believes that the “overwhelming majority” of young people are “wholly supportive” he is dismissive of a recent survey carried out by Conservative Assembly member Gareth Bacon showing significant opposition to the equestrian events:
“That was completely unscientific and politically motivated and frankly I do not regard it as serious and it is trying to use this for political purposes and I think that is very unprincipled. I think the right approach here has to be to engage seriously with LOCOG and the Royal Parks Agency, which are the two agencies best able to judge how this can be managed and then to listen to their views.”
Throughout our conversation I am struck by the relative weight he places on the views of officers, experts and agencies against those of politicians and campaigners.
I wonder whether this is a result of his extensive work outside parliament in the private sector. Does this work interfere with his main role as a constituency MP?
“I think that parliament would be a very much weaker place if MPs didn’t have outside interests. My interests are all in the area I have worked throughout my professional life, so it’s housing, it’s construction, regeneration, that sort of area where I have quite a lot of expertise. I ran a consultancy before I was elected so this is not doing something new and it’s certainly not cashing in on ministerial experience which is one of the other allegations that is made. It’s simply pursuing expertise that I have had as a result of my professional career which I think makes me a better MP to comment on what is happening here at Westminster. So in debates on regeneration housing and construction I can usually give a pretty informed view and without sounding too immodest it does usually command a certain amount of respect rather than just partisan responses.”
I ask him how many days a week he spends in Greenwich. He says that he spends “at least one” to which he adds
“I tend to work around a 70-80 hour week and I’m quite confident if anyone looked at the hours I spend they would see that I spend at least 55 hours a week on parliamentary or constituency business, so the outside work is not interfering with that.”
There is little doubt that Raynsford is closely involved in local politics and on the morning of our interview I spot him on page three of the council’s newspaper Greenwich Time.
In the picture, he is standing alongside Labour Councillor Peter Brooks, celebrating the acceptance of Oyster Cards on Thames Clippers.
I ask him how he can justify appearing in a publication that many people believe is just “electioneering on the rates”
“I think it is important that the council does have a mechanism to communicate but I think it does have to be very careful how it uses that. I took with a pinch of salt some of the criticisms that were voiced about this being party propaganda because it came to a head when the Evening Standard was running an absolutely vitriolic campaign against Ken Livingstone and I think that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander”
Yet in my copy of Greenwich Time I also find reams of advertising for local businesses, a feature on Leona Lewis and even a TV guide. Isn’t this deliberately designed to weaken independent newspapers in the area?
“I think there is a general problem for local newspapers across the country irrespective of whether there are aggressive local council newspapers as well, so I don’t think it is entirely fair to say that the problems facing the News Shopper and the Mercury are simply the fault of Greenwich Time. I think it is a wider problem. I do think we have to have diversity and I’m a strong believer in keeping viable local newspapers and I would certainly not want to see Greenwich Time replacing them as the only voice locally.”
But what about all the non-council related content in Greenwich Time? How can the council justify that?
“I don’t know enough about, I haven’t spoken to Peter Cordwell the editor about his reasons for doing that. My prime concern is that this should be a means of communication between the council and local people.”
But if it is just about communicating with constituents, why have there been so many front page pictures of Council leader Chris Roberts in recent months?
“I am not myself a great believer in the cult of personality and you will not see many photos of me in Greenwich Time” he replies rather uneasily. “I don’t seek publicity in that form.”
Read part three of the interview tomorrow and find out why Nick Raynsford thinks Ken Livingstone should not stand for London Mayor in 2012.
Missed part one of the interview? Read it here
Is there anywhere to register SUPPORT of the Olympics in the Park? I’m a Greenwich resident and am all for it, but have never been asked!
So what evidence has NOGOE not listened to? There hasn’t been any, until we have sight of the planning application that went in on 30/11. What there has been were assurances from sources that are not independent: LOCOG is a private company determined, for TV revenue, to hold the equestrian events in Greenwich Park at any price; the BEF are acting out of self-interest; English Heritage are offering advice about damage mitigation; even Royal Parks have described their role as “ensuring that damage is minimised”. Yet Raynsford maintained at the O2 a year ago that he would not have supported this choice of venue if he felt damage would be done. How did he know this before an Environmental Impact Assessment was done? Let’s see the evidence in the planning application. Even then there would be no guarantee, until the actual cross country event takes place, that damage wouldn’t be done; no one can simulate the impact that 75 horses will have – despite protective measures – on the ground, the roots of trees and the archaeology, say on a wet day – until it happens! Yet Raynsford knows that damage won’t be done.
He talks about bogus claims and dishonest statements made by anti – campaigners – without proof. Can he show a single communication from NOGOE claiming that trees would be cut down? In fact the actual wording for the protest activity which generated over 13400 signatures (many young people included) is as follows:
WE PROTEST AGAINST THE HOLDING OF THE 2012 OLYMPIC EQUESTRIAN EVENTS IN GREENWICH PARK BECAUSE OF:
· THE RISK of accidental damage to the bio-diversity features and archaeology of the Park from preparation of the course as well as from the events themselves;
· THE SOCIAL INJUSTICE of closing the most accessible parts of the Park for 6-8 months and the whole Park for 6-8 weeks;
· THE SEVERE DISRUPTION from road closures and other restrictions on the lives of those who live, work and run businesses near the Park or in the town centre;
· THE COST SAVING OF £50m AND LEGACY BENEFITS to be gained from the use of an existing equestrian venue instead of Greenwich Park which is too small and unsuitable for an event of this nature.
LOCOG adjusted their own estimation of total closure from 6-8 weeks down to 4 weeks after the protest. The road closure problem was brought vividly to life by recent problems on the A2 and the Blackwall Tunnel. As for the Park being too small, this has been proved by the fact that LOCOG are proposing to use Blackheath, contrary to the assurances given by them.
Raynsford goes on to rubbish the survey which didn’t produce the result he sought. Yet LOCOG are undertaking a survey which, according to one respondent, is biassed towards getting a positive response. Moreover why haven’t they publicised the results of the Have Your Say?
Nick Raynsford has stood up at meetings from Day 1 to say that this is a done deal and opposition is futile. Are we to assume that the planning application is just a rubber stamping exercise – which would make a mockery of local democracy? In the current edition of Labour’s newsletter, The Rose, Raynsford reiterates his assertion that no damage would be done to the Park and that “enough is enough from the scaremongers”. In recent weeks independent bodies such as the Ancient Tree Forum (part of Woodland Trust) and The Historic Gardens Trust have stated publicly their concerns, and their likely objection to the planning application.
Why take risks with a World Heritage Site when there are other more suitable sites available? Now that the planning application is in, let the debate about evidence start.
Nick Raynsford’s comment about the majority of young people being in favour of the Games in The Park reminds me of his assertion during a meeting of the Friends of Greenwich Park on 15 July 2008 when he proudly stated that a young person in his office was in favour of the Games. At this flimsy evidence he was understandably heckled and he continues to make assertions unsupported by facts. All the hard evidence points to large numbers of people being opposed to the Games in the Park – over 13,000 signatures on an NOGOE petition; the GLA survey which Nick rubbishes; 3500 signatures on the first petition on the Downing Street website; the majority of editorial press comment; the majority of letters to the press (admiteddly not all). Neither Nick nor LOCOG have produced a single numerical fact to support their assertions about public support.
PLJAIKJ – of course the LOCOG survey is biased towards getting a positive result. Did we expect it to be an honest canvassing of local opinion? Don’t be daft!
Actually, Mr Raynsford, if you knew anything about equine eyesight you would quickly realise that trees in Greenwich Park anywhere near the cross-country course will be cut down or drastically pruned in order to prevent “traffic accidents”: injuries to horses and riders and resulting perhaps in some Olympic horses (which are worth half a million each) having to be destroyed.
Ever wondered why there are so few trees on the established cross-country courses elsewhere? It is not because the trees won’t grow, or someone thought the courses looked prettier without trees.
Horses see yellow and green shades and in less detail than the human eye, and their field of vision is very narrow. A 1992 study showed that horse vision is not as sharp as human sight. If good human vision is 20/20, a horse rates as 20/60. Details that a person with 20/20 vision can see at 60m are visible to a horse only at 20m. Eg, sometimes a horse can’t distinguish a brown pole lying on the ground from the ground itself.
More crucially, horses’ eyes take longer to adapt to light and dark – eg sunlight and shade under a tree – than eyes of other animals. In a green parkland, on a green or brown course, among green trees, it would be insanely irresponsible to oblige Olympic horses travelling at 65km (40 miles) per hour to have to cope with adjusting and readjusting their eyesight to sunlit open areas and deep dark green shadows thrown by the trees. One cross country jump at the Sydney Olympics constructed in dim shade caused problems and a few falls. A bad fall can result in a horse being put down.
I realise that none of this will make any difference to our MP because (due to his other jobs) he is for the cross-country in the Park come Hell or high water. But other people might like to learn how to discern when LOCOG is being mendacious. Once LOCOG’s construction people are in the Park, and the public are shut out and unable to see what is happening, it will be too late.
PLJAIKJ – The reason Raynsford is able to get away with dismissing NOGOE is because their objections are so often over the top:
“· THE RISK of accidental damage to the bio-diversity features and archaeology of the Park from preparation of the course as well as from the events themselves;”
(Some divots in the grass)
“· THE SOCIAL INJUSTICE of closing the most accessible parts of the Park for 6-8 months and the whole Park for 6-8 weeks;”
(People will have to walk a few hundred metres around a fence)
There are some good reasons to oppose holding the Olympic equestrian events in Greenwich (road closures being one of them) but they just get drowned out by all of the hyperbole about horses falling down hidden holes, and riders tearing through ancient graves etc.
@AdamB, you seem to think that the cross-country course preparation involves only putting some divots in the grass. Please please please do some research of your own before wasting everyone’s bandwidth on posting nonsense.
Preparation of the Olympic cross-country course entails excavating the entire length of the course, a “ribbon” 10 yards wide and 18 inches deep, which is then filled in with sand and other stuff to ensure that the “going” for these £0.5m horses travelling at 40mph is smooth as silk. Vertically, the course has to be clear of obstructions (like branches) to a height of about 16 feet (I am writing this from memory but elsewhere I have posted chapter and verse about cross-country course preparation). In Hong Kong, they spent a couple of years preparing the course, and they had a “billiard table” smooth golf course to start with.
Olympic cross-country horses wear massive spiked studs on their hooves, too, to help with traction and staying upright.
“Please please please do some research of your own before wasting everyone’s bandwidth on posting nonsense.”
It’s charm like this that does Nick Raynsford’s job for him.
The most bogus and dishonest statement I’ve heard anyone make so far about the Olympics was Nick Raynsford MP (Blackheath Halls 23 July 2008) who suggested that opposing the equestrian events in Greenwich Park would put at risk riding lessons for children at Charlton School.
What is everyone going to moan about after 2012? Probably cross rail or something like that. Roll on 2012 as cant wait for the big event. What a buzz it will be. Plus i am 100 confident that the park will be fine aftewards.
I agree with Nick Raynsford that MPs should have interests outside Parliament but in this instance our MP’s Chairmanship of Rockpools, the recruitment company who engaged the entire top tier of the Olympic Delivery Authority must surely compromise his constituency obligations? ………….and where has he found an “Overwhelming majority” of youthful supporters for Greenwich Park being closed and built on over two summers plus reparation for a third? The NOGOE petition signatures and Gareth Bacon’s survey point otherwise.
LOCOG have been consistently economical and manipulative of the truth – including promoting the two artist’s impressions of the 23,000 seat stadium which we will son discover bear little relationship to the actual structure. Questions about security and many other worries to residents and Park users have never been satisfactorily answered by LOCOG.
When the details of LOCOG’s Planning Application for building all over Greenwich Park are known, I think we will find that the enhancements to the children’s play park and Blackheath gates and ‘improvements’ to the grass are further examples of LOCOG and their collaborators masking the works necessary to build a world class event venue by calling them ‘benefits’
“Roll on 2012 as cant wait for the big event. What a buzz it will be.”
We have no assurances that tickets will be available to local residents at affordable (or any) prices. So, not much of a buzz if you can’t even see the events.
Even if you’re actually interested in equestrian eventing – most people aren’t…….
” Plus i am 100 confident that the park will be fine aftewards.”
Faith is a wonderful thing…
The risk of accidental damage to the bio-diversity features and archaeology of the Park from preparation of the course as well as from the events themselves has been highlighted.
There will definitely be an impact on biodiversity and archaeology, both short term and long term. But when people think of impacts, they invariably think of negative impacts. There are often numerous positive impacts of projects too.
For example, projects often uncover previously undiscovered archeological remains that, without the project, would never have come to light. For example, 1955 saw a major project in China to harness the Huaihe River. It was accompanied by the discovery of the burial of Marquis Cai. Dating back to the later years of the Spring and Autumn Period (770-476 BC), the tomb turned out to be a treasure trove of ancient bronze-ware. It was to add much to the body of knowledge on the history and culture of the remote days of the Dukedom of Cai. Providing the potential for negative impacts on archeology are well mitigated, we may find that the overall impact could be highly positive.
On the bio-diversity side, acid grassland is the most important habitat on the site. I was not aware of its existence here and thanks to this debate, I’m sure that many other residents are now aware of how lucky they are to have this type of habitat available for them to explore and learn about, (although I appreciate access may be restricted in the run up to the games). There will however, be a short term negative impact to these grasslands and these will require careful mitigation and “environmental compensation”. But in the longer term, the net result will be an increase of up to 2.3ha of high quality acid grassland within Greenwich Park. Also, as a legacy of the games, the grasslands will be scrutinized under a management and monitoring regime, the likes of which they would never have received had the Olympics not chosen the park.
Overall, I am looking forward to the games and wish I get the opportunity to cast my vote in favor.