Founder member of Islington Leaseholder Action Group and Committee Member of London Leasehold Network.
Recent activity
Comments (635)
-
Comment on: Council merger could save £100m
Indeed. Besides who would get to choose who on the "consumer panels"? If the electorate that what the difference between the current councillor system and that? Other than the party politics. Which is inescapable. Or if not the electorate then surely not the council officers? Doesn't "consumer panel" sound a little but like "focus group"? Hand picked by the officers and guaranteed to nod their head when told to. Bit like an ALMO board member...!
-
Comment on: Cameron: social tenants have nothing to fear
As long as local authorities like LB Southwark own 65% of all the residential properties in the borough, I don't think there is much chance of that happening DH. The municipalisation of much of London via the LCC and the GLC was in itself a form of social cleansing via an exercise in social engineering. "We will build the Tories out of London" said Herbert Morrison. If the State owns everything and tells people where they must live then is that not social cleansing as well? At least in a political sense? Of course it is. The pendulum swings both ways...
-
Comment on: Four in 10 jobs could go at CLG
RH: "Even if 40% of ClG employees really do serve no useful purpose"
No they don't serve any useful purpose. In the '60s and '70's the State subsidised the British motor industry. It didn't make a profit and the cars were not very good. But the employees - unlike the CLG paper shufflers and their variants in local Government - did serve a useful purpose. They made things. Sold a few of them abroad as well. Not many but a few. Sorry but the NuLab public sector non-job creation scheme of the last decade served no useful purpose whatsoever. We had no tradesman left and had to import Poles to do the building work. Say if all those NuLab funded paper shufflers had taken up a useful trade instead? They might actually have been useful to the rest of us. As it is, they are not. So just get of rid of them. -
Comment on: Council merger could save £100m
CW: "what else are Councillors really for?"
In essence to hold the council officers to account and represent the will of the electorate. That's the theory anyway. The reality is that there are some really good councillors of all parties who can and do perform this role. Then there are the party liggers who just put their name down on the list and find themselves elected. Unfortunately the latter are in the majority. The herd (ie the electorate) tend to vote on party lines thus most councillors of all parties are duffers. It's altogether better to get to know the candidates and vote for the person, irrespective of party. Councillors have had huge decision making powers returned to them by this Administration; it is a good time to be a councillor. However as long as the old party system remains, the majority will still be duffers. Which is a shame. The herd need to learn not to vote on a party basis in local elections but rather vote for the individuals putting themselves forward. Not holding breath on this happening any time soon though...! -
Comment on: Council merger could save £100m
Interesting comment PSR. I believe it was a Newt plan to create 8 super boroughs in London so this would indeed be a move in such a direction. Eventually the Newt had to have a good idea. It looks like this was it. Islington of course are planning to "share" a CE with Camden of course so it looks like mergers are on the table all round. What about councillors though? Could there be a justification for each mega-borough to retain the same number of councillors as when they were separate? Expect tears before bedtime on this one...
Discussions (10)
-
£95,000-a-year benefits family of 12 re-homed in a £1,000-a-week house
DM uncovers another corker:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309201/95-000-year-benefits-family-12-homed-1-000-week-house--trashed-one.html
Surely it's about time child benefit was capp -
End in sight for toxic and corrosive "needs" based allocation system?
"How thousands of council homes go to foreigners"
at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307248/How-thousands-council-homes-foreigners.html#ixzz0y4LrTLK3
A classic DM article without do -
Private Members Bill: Replacement of the Dangerous Dogs Act
Forum members are doubtless aware of the recent epidemic of attack dogs emanating from social housing estates up and down the country and the lack of powers available to tackle this scourge.
-
Liberal Vision on why Simon Hughes is wrong on right to buy
Very good article on the laughable Simon Hughes' recent outburst by LibDem think tank Liberal Vision. They should just boot him out of party and tell him to go and join the SWP instead:
http://www -
Cost to the State of the 3.3m social tenants on HB: £12B. Is this VFM?
Interesting stat in the DM coverage of the HB capping proposals:
http://www.da
Posts (104)
-
Posted in: Given 2 hours to decide on a transfer
With regard to Paula's "Whatever Kass, you aren't worth the time or effort to point out all the attacks you have launched in this thread and every other", and point 2 above, in a word: Yes.
It is totally pointless trying to have any debate with this individual as she is, what's the technical expression, ah, yes, "nuts" was the word I was looking for. Not to mention frivolous and vexatious. IH is generally relaxed and has a pretty laissez faire posting policy (which is great) but in the case of kass, a little more intolerance of the intolerable would be more proportionate position to take. Notice is given that no response will be made to a rebuttal of the part of kass as do so only encourages it! -
Posted in: Your Rights to be Consulted Section 105 and 137
An S105 Consultation meeting is usually held prior to the commencement of a major works contract, usually around the time of issuance of the S20s to the leaseholders. An S105 meeting is open to tenants and leaseholders. As with all "consultation" surrounding the statutory obligations of RSLs, it is pretty meaningless. All the RSL needs to do is send the invites, hold the meeting, and say "that's what we're going to do, now you've been consulted". They may be required to "have regard" to observations but they are not required to take any notice of them. Tenants pay nothing for major works so the "you get what you are given" approach is usual. Leaseholders do pay and of course have recourse to the LVT to challenge bills; something that is not easy to do without the employment of counsel. The Deputy Head of Law at LBI came out with a corker an LVT a while back: "S20 Consultation is not meant to be meaningful". This caused some raised eyebrows with m'learned colleagues as of course the S20 is the sole legal remedy for freeholders to recover costs. They get this in the private sector of course but in the RSL sector, one is truly through the looking glass....
-
Posted in: Anonymous contributions
I agree. I thought it was a silly idea from the off. Create a user name at least. Otherwise there are dozens of anons posting everywhere and one looses all coherence in the threads.
-
Posted in: Democracy versus the Individual
PSR: "I believe that power should be as close to the individual as possible, enabling concensus and common will to be the force that directs those matters closest to peopled lives"
Sound a bit like David Cameron's New Localism then? Like your idol Nick Clegg, I can see you have now seen the light then?!! -
Posted in: Democracy versus the Individual
In response to being constantly baited (Did I mention your lot lost?) PSR is now advocating "direct action" because his lot didn't win. I see. Scratch just below the surface of a Spart and you will find a Stalinist. Clearly the electorate don't know what is good for them. Because his lot lost. The only solution? Violent overthrow of the Government and sod the electorate. Because he knows better. Everything I ever suspected you were has just been proven...