For several months, I have been trying to get progress on the Sustainable Communities Act in Brent. This first came up when a constituent approached Cllr Bobby Thomas and me at one of our regular surgeries in St Mark's Church (at the bottom of All Souls Avenue) in March.
he was a keen advocate of the Act which has been passed with all party support in an effort to encourage a more bottom up kind of local government. Bobby and I took it to the Labour Group (i.e. a meeting of all the Labour councillors in Brent), and quickly got support from our fellow Labour councillors.
That is where the problems started. When we went to the Brent Council legal department to find out how to present a proposal, we were told it depended on what the proposal was. So we had a problem: no one would produce a proposal because they was no mechanism to consider it, and there would be no mechanism until someone produced a proposal. We nagged away at this on the Forward Plan Committee until eventually the Executive agreed and a motion was passed at full Council. It is surely bizarre that something that had all party support and the vote of every single councillor took three months to bring about.
A bizarre twist in this, was that the constituent who approached me originally also raised it in the Harlesden Area Forum (as Bobby had suggested). In the discussion with him beforehand, I mentioned the problem of the no proposal/no mechanism, and suggested that I was thinking of proposing a change to the licensing laws on betting shops in order to provide a test case. There had been a recent controversy over the new William Hill opposite Harlesden Methodist Church. Because that site had formerly been a restaurant, the betting shop didn't require planning permission, so my Harlesden Labour colleague suggested a change to the licensing laws. Anyhow, he must have suggested this to the other parties, and the Brent Liberal Democrat Leader Paul Lorber put it in his motion to Full Council.
Unfortunately, the main point of the proposal (to provide a test case for the Sustainable Communites Act) seems to have been lost in translation. Paul Lorber, who isn't really the sharpest tool in the box, is suggested changes to licensing betting shops should be made under the Local Authorities Act, which is an entirely different piece of legislation.
Saturday, 12 September 2009
Friday, 11 September 2009
Brian Coleman and the Tichborne Claimant
Sorry about the title but it was kind of inevitable that I would use the term "Tichborne Claimant" in describing the claim brought by Roger Tichborne against Barnet councillor Brian Coleman. Anyway, it is over now.
According to NottheBarnettimes, the Barnet Standards committee ruled that Coleman had breached the Code but would effectively suffer no sanction. I know that Brian Coleman is a horrid little man who the Conservative Party are frankly stupid to maintain him in office, but I think that is not unreasonable.
If councillors are going to be dragged into lengthy legal cases over emails they send out or stupid comments that they make, it would obviously be good for the legal profession but who else? Legally, the Livingstone case where Ken Livingstone made grossly offensive comments to an Evening Standard reporter would surely be the worst example. The Mayor for London spent months and I imagine many thousands of pounds over a brief conversation he had when leaving a party. If elected representatives go round offending large numbers of people can't the voters punish them at the ballot box, or their parties discipline them?
According to NottheBarnettimes, the Barnet Standards committee ruled that Coleman had breached the Code but would effectively suffer no sanction. I know that Brian Coleman is a horrid little man who the Conservative Party are frankly stupid to maintain him in office, but I think that is not unreasonable.
If councillors are going to be dragged into lengthy legal cases over emails they send out or stupid comments that they make, it would obviously be good for the legal profession but who else? Legally, the Livingstone case where Ken Livingstone made grossly offensive comments to an Evening Standard reporter would surely be the worst example. The Mayor for London spent months and I imagine many thousands of pounds over a brief conversation he had when leaving a party. If elected representatives go round offending large numbers of people can't the voters punish them at the ballot box, or their parties discipline them?
Brent Liberal Democrats and FREE Bulky Waste collection
One of the Brent Liberal Democrats' broken promises I haven't got round to mentioning yet is their abolition of the £25 charge for collecting bulky household waste like old sofas and so on. Under Labour, Brent Council would collect up to five items per collection three times a year. At a Council meeting a little while ago, I read out a Liberal Democrat leaflet (produced before the election naturally) urging residents to use the free collection service "before the Conservatives make you pay". The Liberal Democrat spokesman was flummoxed in reply.
The case against the charge is that many people, rather than going through the cost and bureaucracy of pre-paying for a booked collection, will dump the items in a nearby street. That is not an attractive fact about human nature, but nonetheless it is a true one. I remember being told during the Queens Park by election in 2008 that one old chair was regularly moved from street to street because people thought the Council would charge them to remove it. In fact, anything dumped in the street is moved by the Council for free to keep the Highway clear.
It actually costs the Council more to take rubbish off the street because rubbish found in the street is judged "contaminated" and has to be sent to landfill, where the Council is charged more for its disposal. Rubbish collected direct from a household can be recycled.
To make matters even worse, the charge did not even yield the predicted income. The revenue was supposed to be £275,000 in the first year. In fact it was £53,000. Could this be because the number of people asking for special collections fell by two thirds as soon as the Liberal Democrats introduced the charge?
The case against the charge is that many people, rather than going through the cost and bureaucracy of pre-paying for a booked collection, will dump the items in a nearby street. That is not an attractive fact about human nature, but nonetheless it is a true one. I remember being told during the Queens Park by election in 2008 that one old chair was regularly moved from street to street because people thought the Council would charge them to remove it. In fact, anything dumped in the street is moved by the Council for free to keep the Highway clear.
It actually costs the Council more to take rubbish off the street because rubbish found in the street is judged "contaminated" and has to be sent to landfill, where the Council is charged more for its disposal. Rubbish collected direct from a household can be recycled.
To make matters even worse, the charge did not even yield the predicted income. The revenue was supposed to be £275,000 in the first year. In fact it was £53,000. Could this be because the number of people asking for special collections fell by two thirds as soon as the Liberal Democrats introduced the charge?
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Brian Coleman AM, Cllr Bertha Joseph and Standards
Brian Coleman, the Tory Barnet & Camden Assembly member, is coming up for a Standards Committee Hearing in Barnet today. Being the subject of a complaint is something he has in common with Kensal Green's sole Conservative councillor Bertha Joseph, who he sits with on the LFEPA.
In Brian's case the suggestion is that he was extremely offensive to a member of the public. My main surprise in this is that it is a subject of a complaint. If Brian Coleman were to have an official complaint every time he is offensive, he would probably get several each week. He routinely says offensive things about almost everyone.
At least Brian's complaint is being dealt with relatively speedily. Cllr Bertha Joseph's complaint was first made in January 2008, and is only now getting within shouting distance of a formal hearing. Indeed the original complainant is now dead. It is clearly Brent's answer to Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
I wonder what Boris Johnson's reaction will be if either of his LFEPA appointees are found to have done wrong? After all, a long time ago he was supposed to be elected on a platform of cleaning up City Hall.
In Brian's case the suggestion is that he was extremely offensive to a member of the public. My main surprise in this is that it is a subject of a complaint. If Brian Coleman were to have an official complaint every time he is offensive, he would probably get several each week. He routinely says offensive things about almost everyone.
At least Brian's complaint is being dealt with relatively speedily. Cllr Bertha Joseph's complaint was first made in January 2008, and is only now getting within shouting distance of a formal hearing. Indeed the original complainant is now dead. It is clearly Brent's answer to Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
I wonder what Boris Johnson's reaction will be if either of his LFEPA appointees are found to have done wrong? After all, a long time ago he was supposed to be elected on a platform of cleaning up City Hall.
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
The Silence of Sarah Teather MP
Thinking about the various broken promises of the Liberal Democrats in Brent has led me to reflect on the silence of the Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East, Sarah Teather. Because Sarah Teather chickened out of challenging Ed Fordham for the Liberal Democrat nomination in Hampstead & Kilburn, she will be challenging Dawn Butler MP for the Brent Central constituency instead.
There is no doubt that keeping quiet over controversial issues has been to Sarah Teather's advantage in the past. Despite the Liberal Democrats' reliance on her brand, she has made no comment on the ways in which the Council candidates she personally endorsed have failed to keep thier promises: on freezing the Council Tax, making the first CPZ permit free, cutting spending on publicity, scrapping the Brent Magazine, preventing tall buildings, giving free personal care for the elderly and so on. Nor has she commented on the personal failings of some of the candidates she endorsed: Pawan Gupta not being legally allowed to stand; Vijay Shah being convicted of fraud.
Just as a reminder of how Sarah Teather was personally implicated in supporting the truly awful people who stood for the Liberal Democrats in 2006, take a look below.
No caveats there about "if resources allow" or comments that Council charges would be massively increased.
She has pursued a similar line of silence on other issues where Brent residents might benefit from an active MP taking issues in order to improve things rather than to promote herself. For instance, where has she been on the rebuilding of the John Kelly Schools? That affects a large chunk of the people she is supposed to represent yet she is nowhere to be found.
The issues she chooses to campaign on are simply those where she can promote herself. It is all promises with no real intention of action, and no explanation when her promises turn out to be false. I guess that is what comes of being part of a party of permanent opposition.
I have blamed her here for misleading her constituents, but I dare say she treats her party colleagues equally. I imagine when Charles Kennedy came out in her support during the Brent East By-election, she probably didn't say much about ousting him as Leader once he had got her into Parliament.
There is no doubt that keeping quiet over controversial issues has been to Sarah Teather's advantage in the past. Despite the Liberal Democrats' reliance on her brand, she has made no comment on the ways in which the Council candidates she personally endorsed have failed to keep thier promises: on freezing the Council Tax, making the first CPZ permit free, cutting spending on publicity, scrapping the Brent Magazine, preventing tall buildings, giving free personal care for the elderly and so on. Nor has she commented on the personal failings of some of the candidates she endorsed: Pawan Gupta not being legally allowed to stand; Vijay Shah being convicted of fraud.
Just as a reminder of how Sarah Teather was personally implicated in supporting the truly awful people who stood for the Liberal Democrats in 2006, take a look below.
No caveats there about "if resources allow" or comments that Council charges would be massively increased.
She has pursued a similar line of silence on other issues where Brent residents might benefit from an active MP taking issues in order to improve things rather than to promote herself. For instance, where has she been on the rebuilding of the John Kelly Schools? That affects a large chunk of the people she is supposed to represent yet she is nowhere to be found.
The issues she chooses to campaign on are simply those where she can promote herself. It is all promises with no real intention of action, and no explanation when her promises turn out to be false. I guess that is what comes of being part of a party of permanent opposition.
I have blamed her here for misleading her constituents, but I dare say she treats her party colleagues equally. I imagine when Charles Kennedy came out in her support during the Brent East By-election, she probably didn't say much about ousting him as Leader once he had got her into Parliament.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Missing Questions
Brent Council is supposed to put a list of the questions and answers asked at each Full Council meeting on the Brent Council web site HERE. I must say that I am irritated that the answers from the July Council meeting have still not appeared after several weeks.
The Labour and Conservative groups both treat Members Questions very seriously, almost always asking the maximum number. The Liberal Democrats have a much worse record. For instance in January 2009 (the last Council meeting where the answers have been published), they only asked six questions instead of the 21 that they were entitled to. It is yet another sign of how disengaged from the Council's workings the Liberal Democrats are.
The Labour and Conservative groups both treat Members Questions very seriously, almost always asking the maximum number. The Liberal Democrats have a much worse record. For instance in January 2009 (the last Council meeting where the answers have been published), they only asked six questions instead of the 21 that they were entitled to. It is yet another sign of how disengaged from the Council's workings the Liberal Democrats are.
Harlesden Youth Theatre Redux
Harlesden Youth Theatre, which Labour councillors in Harlesden and Kensal Green supported last year in its production of Our Country's Good last year, is starting some weekly acting workshops.
They will be on Saturdays between 2.30pm-4.30pm, free of charge for people between 16 and 19. Any teenagers wanting to join should go to the recruitment day on 3rd October (again 2.30pm-4.30pm) at Tavistock Hall, Harlesden High Street (behind Harlesden Methodist Church).
You can contact them on harlesdenyouththeatre@live.co.uk or by phone on 020 8951 9568.
They will be on Saturdays between 2.30pm-4.30pm, free of charge for people between 16 and 19. Any teenagers wanting to join should go to the recruitment day on 3rd October (again 2.30pm-4.30pm) at Tavistock Hall, Harlesden High Street (behind Harlesden Methodist Church).
You can contact them on harlesdenyouththeatre@live.co.uk or by phone on 020 8951 9568.
Monday, 7 September 2009
Dollis Hill House
Dollis Hill House in Gladstone Park is another of the Brent Liberal Democrat promises that they quietly abandoned after getting office. In opposition, they demanded that the Council spend £3 million doing Dollis Hill House up. Once in control of Brent Council, Paul Lorber suddenly decided there were more important priorities, even though Ken Livingstone had offered to match fund any investment. Now, having strung local supporters along for three years, the Liberal Democrats are committed to demolishing the building. Of course, they blame Boris Johnson for having withdrawn Ken's funding offer.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Liberal Democrats Breaking Promises on Tall Buildings
When I started posting about Brent Liberal Democrats breaking their election promises, I didn't realise how much material the topic would cover. It is certainly a much longer list than if I tried to post about the promises they kept.
One promise they made was to ban tall buildings in Brent. Since then, they have given permission for several of more than twenty stories. One reason for this is that legally a Planning Authority cannot have a blanket ban on a particular kind of development. If you have a rule saying that you will never allow a building of more than X stories (say) you run into a concept called "fettered discretion", and either a Planning Inspector or a Court will overturn your decision.
Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats made a big issue of tall buildings in the run up to the local elections in 2006. Genesis Housing had a proposal to put up a 26 storey tower near Queens Park station in 2005. They withdrew the application in October 2005, because it obviously wouldn't have got planning permission. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats went round telling the voters of Kilburn and Queens Park that Labour had a secret plan to build such a block. Of course, the Labour Party didn't but that did not stop the Liberal Democrats from peddling that line. Nor, to his shame, did it stop Jonathan Davies (until then a Labour councillor) from making the same claim.
The episode was also interesting as an example showing what the Americans call "astroturf" organisations. The kind of phoney grassroots organisations that the Republicans seem to have set up to block Obama's healthcare reforms. Of course, there was Jonathan Davies himself, who put out letters purporting to be independent when he was obviously in cahoots with the Liberal Democrats. But there was also a local residents group called "Stop the Tower" HERE. Although they claimed to be local people interested in the area. They haven't posted anything on their site since September 2006, when they congratulated themselves on defeating the Labour councillors.
I guess that made them feel that their work was done.
One promise they made was to ban tall buildings in Brent. Since then, they have given permission for several of more than twenty stories. One reason for this is that legally a Planning Authority cannot have a blanket ban on a particular kind of development. If you have a rule saying that you will never allow a building of more than X stories (say) you run into a concept called "fettered discretion", and either a Planning Inspector or a Court will overturn your decision.
Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats made a big issue of tall buildings in the run up to the local elections in 2006. Genesis Housing had a proposal to put up a 26 storey tower near Queens Park station in 2005. They withdrew the application in October 2005, because it obviously wouldn't have got planning permission. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats went round telling the voters of Kilburn and Queens Park that Labour had a secret plan to build such a block. Of course, the Labour Party didn't but that did not stop the Liberal Democrats from peddling that line. Nor, to his shame, did it stop Jonathan Davies (until then a Labour councillor) from making the same claim.
The episode was also interesting as an example showing what the Americans call "astroturf" organisations. The kind of phoney grassroots organisations that the Republicans seem to have set up to block Obama's healthcare reforms. Of course, there was Jonathan Davies himself, who put out letters purporting to be independent when he was obviously in cahoots with the Liberal Democrats. But there was also a local residents group called "Stop the Tower" HERE. Although they claimed to be local people interested in the area. They haven't posted anything on their site since September 2006, when they congratulated themselves on defeating the Labour councillors.
I guess that made them feel that their work was done.
Saturday, 5 September 2009
Neighbourhood Working
You may have seen occasional references to Neighbourhood Working and wondered what it is, and how it works. So I thought I would write a short post for anyone wanting to promote community projects out there.
It started under the last Labour Administration when it was called "Ward Working" and each of the participating wards was given a budget of £30,000. Although people always focus on the money, the philosophy behind it is that the Council should be more responsive to the public. The money is just there because without some sort of budget, you often can't do anything.
However, where the Council is (or should be) doing something, Neighbourhood Working is designed to identify failures in provision and alert whichever agencies are supposed to provide them.
The NW budget itself can then be used for add ons or to top up other schemes. Where it is used is decided by the three councillors in each ward. So far, the Kensal Green NW scheme has supported a new alleygate at a notorious flytipping site on Park Parade, several Neighbourhood Watch schemes (including Odessa-Palermo Road and the Junction Association on Tubbs Road), a Homework Club, improvements in the Hazel Road area, a production by the Harlesden Youth Theatre by local teenagers, and two advice days by Brent Private Tenants Rights Group.
So why is it still not called Ward Working? That's down to the Liberal Democrats. Paul Lorber, who remains the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Brent despite his strange behaviour, hated Ward Working when it was introduced by Labour. I don't really know why. Anyway in opposition he said "Scaling down ward working is not enough; it must be scrapped." As with most of his other election pledges, he broke this promise after getting into office.
There followed a long period of wrangling. This was partly because, the Liberal Democrats (who I expect didn't think they would win enough seats to take office) just didn't know what to do or how the Council worked. Their Lead Member in this area wanted Ward Working to be like the Islington Neighbourhood Councils, hence the name change to Neighbourhood Working. In Islington a budget is given to a local committee of councillors in that area (imagine Harlesden, Kensal Green and Stonebridge) and they all vote on it in front rather bored members of the public. That idea got dropped after several people went to see how it worked in practice.
I suppose the drop in the Budget (We now have only £20,000 per year, whereas the Labour scheme had £30,000) came about because Paul Lorber still can't really bring himself to support the idea whole-heartedly even though he can't block it entirely.
It started under the last Labour Administration when it was called "Ward Working" and each of the participating wards was given a budget of £30,000. Although people always focus on the money, the philosophy behind it is that the Council should be more responsive to the public. The money is just there because without some sort of budget, you often can't do anything.
However, where the Council is (or should be) doing something, Neighbourhood Working is designed to identify failures in provision and alert whichever agencies are supposed to provide them.
The NW budget itself can then be used for add ons or to top up other schemes. Where it is used is decided by the three councillors in each ward. So far, the Kensal Green NW scheme has supported a new alleygate at a notorious flytipping site on Park Parade, several Neighbourhood Watch schemes (including Odessa-Palermo Road and the Junction Association on Tubbs Road), a Homework Club, improvements in the Hazel Road area, a production by the Harlesden Youth Theatre by local teenagers, and two advice days by Brent Private Tenants Rights Group.
So why is it still not called Ward Working? That's down to the Liberal Democrats. Paul Lorber, who remains the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Brent despite his strange behaviour, hated Ward Working when it was introduced by Labour. I don't really know why. Anyway in opposition he said "Scaling down ward working is not enough; it must be scrapped." As with most of his other election pledges, he broke this promise after getting into office.
There followed a long period of wrangling. This was partly because, the Liberal Democrats (who I expect didn't think they would win enough seats to take office) just didn't know what to do or how the Council worked. Their Lead Member in this area wanted Ward Working to be like the Islington Neighbourhood Councils, hence the name change to Neighbourhood Working. In Islington a budget is given to a local committee of councillors in that area (imagine Harlesden, Kensal Green and Stonebridge) and they all vote on it in front rather bored members of the public. That idea got dropped after several people went to see how it worked in practice.
I suppose the drop in the Budget (We now have only £20,000 per year, whereas the Labour scheme had £30,000) came about because Paul Lorber still can't really bring himself to support the idea whole-heartedly even though he can't block it entirely.
Wrottesley Road Traffic Lights
The new traffic lights on Wrottesley Road is a subject I have been meaning to blog about for ages. Originally, I was approached by parents who live in Kensal Green but take their children to Kenmont Primary School in College Park. They felt (I think rightly) that the junction of Wrottesley Road and Harrow Road was unsafe.
In London, new road safety schemes are usually paid for by Transport for London (TfL), although Boroughs like Brent put in bids for the money. I was therefore really pleased to find this junction had been earmarked for a scheme in FY 2007/8. Come the nd of the financial year, it was suddenly mysteriously cancelled. I organised a petition, which some Kensal Green residents, may recall me writing to them about. Armed with the new petition, I presented it at the Council and was pleased (and a little relieved) to find the scheme installed.
Since then, I have been contacted again that the new lights don't work as well as they should. One resident on Brunel Close says they slow down the traffic (which is partly true, but that is part of the trade off for making it safer for pedestrians). I have also heard reports about illegall turns. On the other hand, I have been told by others (for example when I last visited WISCO at St Mark's Church) that the new lights are a good idea.
What do people think?
In London, new road safety schemes are usually paid for by Transport for London (TfL), although Boroughs like Brent put in bids for the money. I was therefore really pleased to find this junction had been earmarked for a scheme in FY 2007/8. Come the nd of the financial year, it was suddenly mysteriously cancelled. I organised a petition, which some Kensal Green residents, may recall me writing to them about. Armed with the new petition, I presented it at the Council and was pleased (and a little relieved) to find the scheme installed.
Since then, I have been contacted again that the new lights don't work as well as they should. One resident on Brunel Close says they slow down the traffic (which is partly true, but that is part of the trade off for making it safer for pedestrians). I have also heard reports about illegall turns. On the other hand, I have been told by others (for example when I last visited WISCO at St Mark's Church) that the new lights are a good idea.
What do people think?
Friday, 4 September 2009
Brent Cross (BXC) Development
The Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) development has been around for years, but is now coming to a climax. Barnet Planning Committee are likely to consider the BXC development on 23 September, and the meeting I attended yesterday was to form a cross party coalition in opposition to it.
The meeting was organised by Brent Friends of the Earth, whose web site is here. One of the things we agreed to do was circulate a precis of the objections to the BXC scheme, which I will post on this blog once it is ready. In the meantime, anyone not familiar with Brent Cross can look it up on wikipedia here.
Essentially the main objections are the lack of public transport and orbital links, the sheer volume of traffic likely to be generated, the carbon emissions and effect on other shopping centres, such as Kilburn High Road.
The Evening Standard published a story yesterday which looks largely inspired by proponents of the BXC scheme. I hope it does not distract from the real issues.
The meeting was organised by Brent Friends of the Earth, whose web site is here. One of the things we agreed to do was circulate a precis of the objections to the BXC scheme, which I will post on this blog once it is ready. In the meantime, anyone not familiar with Brent Cross can look it up on wikipedia here.
Essentially the main objections are the lack of public transport and orbital links, the sheer volume of traffic likely to be generated, the carbon emissions and effect on other shopping centres, such as Kilburn High Road.
The Evening Standard published a story yesterday which looks largely inspired by proponents of the BXC scheme. I hope it does not distract from the real issues.
A Promise the Liberal Democrats were for once Right to Break
One promise that the Liberal Democrats were right to break was their opposition to the ARK Academy in Wembley. Of course, they were wrong to oppose the ARK Academy to begin with.
Back in 2006, the Liberal Democrats fought the election on a pledge not to build a school on the site Labour had selected near Wembley Park Tube station. Once elected they formed a coalition with the Tories. This coalition held a review of the possible sites for building a school. After 15 months, it reported back that they would build on the Wembley Park site (Although the Tories continued to oppose this). The review didn't turn up any information that was not already known in early 2006. It just delayed the start of building by at least a year. Now Cllr Bob Wharton and Sarah Teather MP are going round lamenting the fact that Brent is desperately short of school places, when their delay of the new school has been a major contributor to that problem.
Back in 2006, the Liberal Democrats fought the election on a pledge not to build a school on the site Labour had selected near Wembley Park Tube station. Once elected they formed a coalition with the Tories. This coalition held a review of the possible sites for building a school. After 15 months, it reported back that they would build on the Wembley Park site (Although the Tories continued to oppose this). The review didn't turn up any information that was not already known in early 2006. It just delayed the start of building by at least a year. Now Cllr Bob Wharton and Sarah Teather MP are going round lamenting the fact that Brent is desperately short of school places, when their delay of the new school has been a major contributor to that problem.
Thursday, 3 September 2009
Barnet and Brent Cross
I am having a bit of a Barnet day as this evening I will be going up to Brent Town Hall for a meeting about the Brent Cross development (which is on the other side of the A5 to Dollis Hill).
Barnet Conservative Flight Plans
It would seem that despite their admiration for EasyJet, Barnet Conservatives do not always make use of their services, at least if you believe the Taxpayers Alliance HERE. Perhaps Cllr Freer and his colleagues were afraid that they might get pregnant and have an experience like THIS.
UPDATE: Although Tory councillors don't like to use EasyJet themselves, Brian Coleman thinks it good enough for royalty HERE. This may also be the only recorded instance of Cllr Brian Coleman offering to pay for something for someone else.
UPDATE: Although Tory councillors don't like to use EasyJet themselves, Brian Coleman thinks it good enough for royalty HERE. This may also be the only recorded instance of Cllr Brian Coleman offering to pay for something for someone else.
Barnet Council's easyJet Approach
Cllr Mike Freer might like to reconsider Barnet Conservatives' new easyJet approach to Council services after reading this POST in the Economist's Gulliver blog. Essentially, easyJet did its level best to stop a pregnant woman from embarking, and try to charge her a fee for sorting out her journey.
I wonder whether Barnet Conservatives will have a similar approach in public services? If so, it would certainly make a radical change, where most Council's currently supply a fairly standardised service and a standard fee (if its not provided free).
For example, the amount spent per pupil can be as much as £100,000 per year for a child with severe needs. That would be many times the average. If Barnet Conservatives are going to break the existing cross party consensus on basing such decisions on the needs of the child, some families are going to have to shell out an awful lot to look after their child. Less dramatically, suppose you had two sixth formers; one specialises in arts, and the other specialises in science subjects. The scientist will probably cost more to educate than the arts student, because scientists need expensive things like laboratories. Will the scientist have to cut back on (say) sports to afford the physics course?
What about people who are difficult to deal with: people with severe anti-social behaviour difficulties say. If Social Services encounter somewhat who is disruptive will they at some point decide that person has used up their personal budget and stop dealing with them?
Will Council officers have incentives to avoid difficult issues in order to process as many units within a given budget as possible?
And what about buying privilege? I see there is a suggestion that those prepared to pay extra charges should be able to jump the queue for planning permission. That sounds like a policy designed to help property developers and rich individuals at the expense of the poor/average. Would it apply in other areas? For example, will areas that pay more get a better service? Say an extra warden for the local park. That would change the criteria for where money is spent from social need (often the poorest areas) to wealth.
I also wonder whether this might become socially divisive. For example, in Brent and (I imagine) Barnet meals on wheels will give you a choice of what you eat. I think in Brent you can have kosher, vegetarian, Indian, British and something else. Suppose kosher food costs more than the vegetarian option, will Jewish people be asked to pay more? Would this affect community relations?
Finally, I think the really big issue with Cllr Freer's warmed over Thatcherism will be the same as it was in the 1980s. Local government is about to go into an area of very limited budgets. All this "choice" will become synomynous with cuts. As 25 years ago, Conservative marketisation proposals will be discredited as just spin with "efficiency" meaning not improved services but a worse service with less money spent on it in an effort to keep the Council Tax as low as possible.
I wonder whether Barnet Conservatives will have a similar approach in public services? If so, it would certainly make a radical change, where most Council's currently supply a fairly standardised service and a standard fee (if its not provided free).
For example, the amount spent per pupil can be as much as £100,000 per year for a child with severe needs. That would be many times the average. If Barnet Conservatives are going to break the existing cross party consensus on basing such decisions on the needs of the child, some families are going to have to shell out an awful lot to look after their child. Less dramatically, suppose you had two sixth formers; one specialises in arts, and the other specialises in science subjects. The scientist will probably cost more to educate than the arts student, because scientists need expensive things like laboratories. Will the scientist have to cut back on (say) sports to afford the physics course?
What about people who are difficult to deal with: people with severe anti-social behaviour difficulties say. If Social Services encounter somewhat who is disruptive will they at some point decide that person has used up their personal budget and stop dealing with them?
Will Council officers have incentives to avoid difficult issues in order to process as many units within a given budget as possible?
And what about buying privilege? I see there is a suggestion that those prepared to pay extra charges should be able to jump the queue for planning permission. That sounds like a policy designed to help property developers and rich individuals at the expense of the poor/average. Would it apply in other areas? For example, will areas that pay more get a better service? Say an extra warden for the local park. That would change the criteria for where money is spent from social need (often the poorest areas) to wealth.
I also wonder whether this might become socially divisive. For example, in Brent and (I imagine) Barnet meals on wheels will give you a choice of what you eat. I think in Brent you can have kosher, vegetarian, Indian, British and something else. Suppose kosher food costs more than the vegetarian option, will Jewish people be asked to pay more? Would this affect community relations?
Finally, I think the really big issue with Cllr Freer's warmed over Thatcherism will be the same as it was in the 1980s. Local government is about to go into an area of very limited budgets. All this "choice" will become synomynous with cuts. As 25 years ago, Conservative marketisation proposals will be discredited as just spin with "efficiency" meaning not improved services but a worse service with less money spent on it in an effort to keep the Council Tax as low as possible.
Willesden West Labour Party and Priorities
Today is the anniversery of Britain entering the Second World War, and it reminds of a story of Willesden West Labour Party (the precursor to Brent South Labour Party). It so happened that Willesden West Labour Party had a General Committee (GC) meeting on the day war was declared. Sure enough, item 9 on the Agenda was "Outbreak of War". But they never got to it. It seems the Willesden West Labour Party had more important things to discuss than the outbreak of the Second World War.
Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Streetparties
We had a very good street party in Kensal Green back in July. The only drawback with it was that it was illegal. That is because there is considerable bureaucracy involved in blocking a street off legally. You have to give a statutory notice, arrange for bollards to be put in and taken away, and the whole thing costs between £1,000 and £2,000.
My colleague Cllr Mary Arnold tried to get the Council to change this at a Council meeting some time ago. There had been problems organising street parties in her part of Kilburn for the Millenium. The Liberal Democrat in charge of these matters smugly told her he would try to get a change in time for the next Millenium. That really is what Brent Liberal Democrats are like.
Meanwhile, a community part is planned at Furness Primary School for Sunday 13 September by the Friends of Odessa and Palermo Roads.
My colleague Cllr Mary Arnold tried to get the Council to change this at a Council meeting some time ago. There had been problems organising street parties in her part of Kilburn for the Millenium. The Liberal Democrat in charge of these matters smugly told her he would try to get a change in time for the next Millenium. That really is what Brent Liberal Democrats are like.
Meanwhile, a community part is planned at Furness Primary School for Sunday 13 September by the Friends of Odessa and Palermo Roads.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
Furness Road Pocket Park
Furness Road Pocket Park is often the subject of complaints about how run down it is, so I hope people don't think that I have neglected. The trouble is that it is just not very well adapted to improvement.
I did manage to get the dog mess bin (above) installed, as this seems to be the main thing people use it for, but there are problems achieving anything more ambitious. As well as being quite small and next to a major road, the ground slopes away towards the railway line in an awkward fashion. For the moment it seems to be better to concentrate on getting improvements to Tubbs Road Pocket Park (where the Junction Association have things well under way) or Bramshill Open Space across the border in Harlesden (where the Council disgracefully knocked down facilities and is delaying putting them back up).
Hazel Road Anti-Social Behaviour
I chaired a meeting of various agencies at the LEAP Centre in Hazel Road today, talking about the interventions needed to prevent Anti-Social behaviour in Hazel Road and thereabouts. It looks like things might finally be moving in a positive direction, and we could be getting a long term plan together.