Thursday, 23 October 2014

's comments

Your comments page displays any comments you have made on articles or blogs on this website. From here, you can link to the original stories or blogs and view any responses or further comments added by other users.

  • Council merger could save £100m

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 25/10/2010 10:46 pm

    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...!

  • Cameron: social tenants have nothing to fear

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 25/10/2010 9:46 pm

    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...

  • Four in 10 jobs could go at CLG

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 25/10/2010 9:40 pm

    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.

  • Council merger could save £100m

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 25/10/2010 9:28 pm

    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...!

  • Council merger could save £100m

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 25/10/2010 6:27 pm

    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...

  • Increased rents could build 15,000 homes a year

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 24/10/2010 11:19 pm

    Well the 77 Housing Act created needs based allocation of course and that was the start of the inexorable and inevitable rise in the system gaming that is getting pregnant to secure a council flat. So yes, it would have been an issue in the Thatcher and Major eras as well. It just got worse under NuLab. All parties are equally complicit is not removing the perverse incentives inherent in this failed system of allocation I agree. In terms of "balanced and reasonable" it was not particulary reasonable to accuse the Tories of being Nazis as was your inference (very Rik from the Young Ones of course) so pointing out that the Gulags were actually creations of the Left was the obvious rebuttal...!

  • Boris to set up housing taskforce

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 24/10/2010 9:50 am

    "Ian Wingfield, deputy leader of Southwark Council, said: ‘Rent collection will be a problem, people will not be able to pay and will be forced out of expensive areas into places like Southwark’."

    Well with over 65% of all residential properties in the London Borough of Southwark being owned by err... the London Borough of Southwark what does the Deputy Leader expect? If you will hang onto a level of social housing that is nearly four times the national average, incurring a £775m to the national HRA at the same time, then what do you expect?

  • Wales confident assembly will not decimate housing budget

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 24/10/2010 9:31 am

    So plenty of social housing still to come in Wales then? Now that much of London is looking increasing "off the map" as regards free council flats and permanent benefits for life, perhaps the solution as to where to house London's future intergenerational welfare dependants and assorted third world immigrants with enormous taxpayer supported broods is Wales? Hope the valleys are ready for "multi-culturalism"...

  • Four in 10 jobs could go at CLG

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 23/10/2010 10:29 pm

    Absolument! I know I am...

  • Increased rents could build 15,000 homes a year

    <!--ILAG-->'s comment | 23/10/2010 10:26 pm

    The Gulags were originally invented by Comrade Stalin. His successor in ideology, Comrade Brown, had a pretty good go at recreating them over here using the twin weapons of "needs" based allocation and the local council's statutory duty to house the so-called "homeless" irrespective if they have any connection to the area or indeed this country whatsoever. Result: intergenerational welfare dependency, the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe created solely in order to game Comrade Brown's system and the modern day Gulag known as the council estate. Where nobody works and everyone is on welfare as the only group who could every get accepted to be housed on one are the welfare dependants. Nobody in work need apply; not enough self created "need" for said allocation. The modern day Gulags are entirely the product of NuLab, O Sparty One...

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |

About My Comments

Here you can see comments you have added on stories.

Newsletter Sign-up

More Newsletters

IH Subscription

- IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT -

 

You will soon need to sign into www.insidehousing.co.uk using your email address rather than your username.

If you are unsure which email address is linked to your account, please Click Here. Your password will remain the same.

If you have a print subscription we need to ensure that we have the correct details in order to link your subscription to your online account, for more information Click Here.

Click Here to close window or press the Esc key.