 |
| HAND OVER YOUR ALLOWANCES |
Cllr Campbell tells us she wants to 'reach out' to the entire community so let the Dame give her some advice....
She and her cabinet have done enormous damage to the reputation of the council and lives of residents.
If she wants to 'reach out' the Dame has an idea.
Currently, she and her cabinet colleagues are snaffling up nearly £370,000 a year.
Cllr Campbell, if you really want to prove your penitence then you and Cabinet colleagues should donate your allowances for the next twelve months to the victims of Grenfell Tower: it's the very least you can do.
Empty words mean nothing.
Oh, and the Dame hears that Emma Dent Coad will be saying the leader needs to be.....
"competent, experienced, empathetic and trusted."
Doesn't sound like E. Campbell!
An excellent idea, but surely she will not stick with the current Cabinet members? Radical change is decades overdue. Or perhaps not. She may be beholden to RBKC's ghastly old clique for her election. Shades of Mrs May and the DUP?
ReplyDeleteCllr Campbell has a slim chance to establish her Leadership. And she has 24 hours to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn order to signal a break with the past she needs to announce that she has abandoned the Cabinet system and will replace it with the old Committee system.
Immediately she needs to join the North Kensington wave length. For a start she should announce the immediate firing of Robert Black at the TMO and stop paying him £650k per year to sit at home and do nothing. North Kensington residents will understand this gesture. If Black wants to sue for unfair dismissal, let him do so.
Immediately she needs to announce that the TMO has been abandoned and is broken up and replaced by smaller managing agents that can connect up with residents. Listen to them, understand them, build and retain relationships.
The unreserved apology to residents was the correct and overdue move. But we should remember that the idea was crafted by Cllr Moylan and announced on LBC radio four days ago. By the end of today, North Kensington residents will take an instinctive decision. Was the apology genuine or was it crocodile tears?
The idea of calling on Central Government to sort the problem is a grave error of judgement. Cllr Campbell put herself forward and she needs to establish the perception that she is up to the job. She cannot allow herself to signal that it is someone else's problem.
She is already in overtime. The Grenfell Action Group went public on the BBC this morning and said that she is the wrong person for the job. She needs to get them to change their mind very, very quickly.
She needs to work out how she will explain the recent cock up with transport services for vulnerable children. This happened on her watch and resident protests were ruthlessly put down by Hornton Street.
She also needs a new Chief Executive. And fast. When she decided to put her name forward for the Leadership she presumably knew how she would fill the vacancy and had a name in mind.
DeleteIn the meantime she should announce an Acting Chief Executive today. There are seven Officers earning more than £150k in Hornton Street. As a long standing Cabinet Member Cllr Campbell is familiar with the senior staff and she should be capable of making an interim appointment.
These announcements are evidence of a Leader in action.
As one would expect, RCE has provided a masterly analysis of the problems facing Cllr Campbell. Her apology last night came across as wholly inadequate from a major local authority to the victims of a deadly and preventable fire. It's hardly surprising that Grenfell has rejected her approach. It won't do and nor will she.
DeleteMoylan is no doubt gleefully watching events unfold. His ambition knows no bounds. Yet in reality he is the last person in London capable of bringing any kind of succour to North Kensington residents. Commissioners are inevitable.
According to Robert Atkinson, Labour Group leader, E. Campbell is not too bad!
ReplyDeleteThis, despite the fact she screwed up the Disabled Children's Transport.
He also fails to highlight that the sabbatical she took was to swan around helping to organise the America's Cup....in Newport, Rhode Island....oh, how the Chelsea toffs live!
Labour and the Grenfell Action Group, supported by the Mayor of London, need to keep a laser eye on the situation and decide whether Commissioners is the right solution to the immediate problem.
DeleteCentral (Tory) Government will resist the move because the appointment of Commissioners would virtually
guarantee that the Tories would lose the local Government elections in Kensington and Chelsea in May next year.
This is a seminal moment for the residents and voters of the Royal Borough. In the long run, the demographics are almost certainly "Tory". But the incumbents are hopelessly out of touch and inadequate. A period in the wilderness could be the best way to rebuild the local party by clearing out the dead wood.
Hornton Street is more of a dead forest.
DeleteThis is the house that Cockell built
ReplyDeleteCampbell likes the idea of £75k per year and the job title. But certainly not the responsibility. Its all about dinner party bragging. A true dilettante - Americas Cup today, K&C tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteUntil the next temptation pops up.
The crazy thing is the Conservatives still don't get it .
ReplyDeleteI agree with Angry Tory. Although 'Tory'in inclination, many have been horrified by recent events.
ReplyDeleteMs Campbell can do only one decent thing: Call in the Cavalry - the Commissioners with proper legal powers to investigate anything and everything. Better still the National Audit Office should be requested to conduct extra-ordinary audit of whatever they feel fit.
As it is, the Council takes you all, dear humans, for idiots... What has changed. NOTHING.... Same people, same ties, same ideas, same contempt for the residents of whatever hue. They are all raking it in, salary, allowance, influence.... The ONLY proper change can only happen by holding EXTRA-ORDINARY LOCAL ELECTION. Oh,dear me, anathema to the Tories, as they are likely to be destined to the bin of history...
Well said Badger .
ReplyDeleteWhy would the Conservatives hand over their allowances , when they have sat on £300m of Council Tax Payers money . This lot have no human compassion at all .
ReplyDeleteLiz: Darling, I had to drop Rhode Island to do my duty at the Town Hall in the High Street
ReplyDeleteRupert: Oh you absolute treasure. The peasants in the North have no appreciation of how fortunate they are
Liz: Dearest Rupert. You are such a loyal friend
Rupert: Darling. Only you deserve it
"Politics is not a game"
DeleteEmma Dent Coad was on Radio 4 this morning calling for Martin Moore-Bick to stand down as Chairman of the Grenfell Inquiry.
ReplyDeleteDent Coad is band wagon jumping doing what her constituents want. I listened to a programme on Radio 4 on Sunday where various commentators including Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice, were saying that Moore- Bick is a wonderful human being, with exceptional personal qualities, of outstanding ability who will do an excellent job. He is capable of dealing with people who are over wrought by this tragedy. As a High Court judge he went on circuit in the Crown Court and knows about life.
Further doubts about the inquiry have been raised due to a prior social housing case handled by Moore-Bick, which resulted in a decision which was later overturned by the supreme court: “[his decision] gave [Westminster council] the green light for social cleansing … setting a terrible precedent for local authorities to engage in social cleansing of the poor on a mass scale”, claimed the solicitor representing a council tenant made homeless after refusing to be moved to a location 50 miles outside London.
DeleteI think you find that EDC is listening to resident concerns and acting upon those requests . What a great idea. Why has no one at the Council thought of this before .https://radicalhousingnetwork.org/controversial-social-cleansing-judge-sir-martin-moore-pick-chosen-for-grenfell-inquiry-and-sajids-javids-housing-offer-radical-housing-network-responds/
Delete12.44 You know that you are being selective about Moore-Bick. You have failed to mention many other cases of a social character that he decided on sound principles.
Delete12.48 Dent Coad may be listening. I agree it is a good idea to listen. Would she listen and agree with a racist. I doubt that she would. So why is it right to go along and listen to other comments that they may be underpinned by inadequate thought processes.
Dent Coad listened for all the years that she was on the TMO Board to a catalogue of incompetence and misery wrought on people by the TMO. She cannot deny that she heard many complaints. Dent Coad listened but went along with the tenant management charade; in fact she condoned it.
Dent Coad should be made to answer for not resigning from the TMO Board to speak out against it. 80 people might not have burned or choked to death if she had.
Doreen and Neville Lawrence went to see Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary, to express concerns about the appointment of Sir William Macpherson as the Chair of Inquiry in to their son's murder because they did not like his decisions in immigration cases. I believe they were supported by their Barrister, Michael Mansfield. Straw was having none of it and Macpherson proceeded and did a bloody good job.
Delete12.48 - I think listening to a survivor of Grenfell Tower and acting upon their quite reasonable requests is a bit different to espousing the ideaology of a 'racist '
Delete12.44 So are we just supposed to shut up and accept what we think is the wrong man for the job . Again residents not being listened to. It's super important that the person in charge of the inquiry has the full trust of those affected .
Delete12.44 And you are being selective about EDC .
Delete12.44. I do not believe that there has ever been a judge sitting at first instance in the High Court whose decisions were not later reversed in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords.) Before that case decided by Moore-Bick reached the Supreme Court four different judges, one in the High Court and three in the Court of Appeal, found against the woman who was treated in such a callous way by Westminster City Council.
DeleteThe Supreme Court, unlike inferior courts in the courts' structure, is not bound by precedent. The Supreme Court has the power to depart from binding precedent when it is right to do so in the interest of justice and may have done so in the case that you mention.
Shane's got a point. On Victoria Derbyshire's TV programme this morning, Isis of the Grenfell Tower Action Group called for Moore-Bick to stand down. When it was pointed out that Moore-Bick was an expert on establishing what went wrong in shipping disasters and that these skill were easily transferable for establishing what went wrong at Grenfell Tower, she then conflated a different issue that the Moore- Bick's scope of enquiry was too limited.
ReplyDeleteThe new chair of the “independent panel” advising on safety measures is Sir Ken Knight, a man who previously opposed fitting sprinklers in tower blocks and recommended £200m in cuts to the fire service. How can we have faith in this panel to deliver the protection we need? These two appointments are yet further evidence that the establishment is not committed to providing justice for Grenfell residents, and are unwilling to put in place measures which will prevent a tragedy of this enormity from happening again.”
DeleteAppointing an establishment figure like Moore - Bick smacks of a cover up .
DeleteI don't think anyone's questioning his competence. They're questioning his impartiality.
DeleteI would suggest that ensuring the victims have confidence in whoever is leading the investigation might not be a bad idea. In particular given RBK&C's long standing record of stitching up the residents.
14.28. I haven't heard anyone raise the issue of Moore Bick's impartiality. I have heard activists complain of his commercial law background and his supposed inability to empathise because of that commercial background.
DeleteQuestioning Moore Bick's impartiality or eluding to his competence is more to do with activists wanting "control." Those on the political left, particularly Marxists, are often very controlling people. I think Emma identifies with the hard left. These people seek control not impartiality.
18.48 Anarco syndiclists on the hard left are very controlling people. Corbyn would have some left wing sympathy with them.
Delete18:48 - You appear to contradict yourself. On the one hand you suggest that no-one has taken issue with Moore Bick's impartiality. On the other you say that those who have are merely doing out of some sense of wanting "control". Your second statement contradicts your first.
DeleteI have heard plenty of TMO residents living on properties other than Lancaster West express doubts as to Moore Bick's impartiality. If you haven't perhaps you're not listening to them?
And if you want to have some idea why they might do so consider the role played by John Butler in rubbishing Maria Memoli's investigation into the serious failings at the TMO back in 2009. When some residents expressed doubts as to John Butler's actual role and motive in the whole affair there were plenty of people leaping to Butler's defence and claiming that he too was impartial. But with hindsight it is now obvious those who doubted his role and motives were absolutely 100% right. Butler wasn't impartial and his motives were dishonest ones. Let us hope that those who doubt Moore Bick's impartiality are not also proved right a couple of years down the line.
There's plenty to doubt. Just take a look at what else is happening. Robert Black resigns as CEO of the TMO. Except he doesn't really. He quite happily "stands aside" whilst continuing to cash in his six figure salary. And the TMO Board then go off and waste a lot more of the Council's housing budget recruiting a new, interim CEO to take his place. All very open and honest and entirely sensible. God give is strength!!!
Delete19.40. You suggest that I am contradicting myself in my posting at 18.48.
DeleteI am not contradicting myself at all. Please allow me to correct your erroneous assertion and clarify. I did NOT say that no one has taken issue with Moore Bick's "impartiality." What I said was that I had NOT HEARD anyone do so. There is a qualitative difference in what I said and your spin on what I said to support your claim that I contradicted myself.
I can assure you that I do listen to people and take notice; much more than Blakeman and Dent Coad listened to people when they were Non-Executive Directors of the TMO.
I agree with you about John Butler. Maria Memoli interviewed Butler and told me that in her opinion he was a decent man who would be suitable to adjudicate on the technical matters that her report did not address owing to her lack of technical expertise. Unfortunately, the Council under Jean Daintith changed Butler's terms of reference and that is why we ended up with the sham that you mention. I really don't think you can successfully correlate the impartiality of Sir Martin Moore-Bick with the lack of even handedness of the Council and John Butler.
It seems, 19.40, that when you are losing an argument you try to widen it.
If you have not HEARD anyone suggest that Moore Bick might not be entirely impartial then you really haven't been listening. Wander around any TMO managed property, talk to any of the residents, many fear a white wash, many do not think Moore Bick will be impartial. That's not a widening of any argument. It's an observation. One that is probably more accurate than yours because I have actually spoken to many TMO residents and I suspect you have not.
Delete20.51. People obviously say different things to you. Please enlighten all Dame Hornet's readers as to why Sir Martin Moore-Bick is thought to be incapable of being "impartial" based on what people have said to you. Your case making the claim of a lack of impartiality on the part of Sir Martin might stack up if you clearly enunciate the position of those who engage with you. .
DeleteI still think it disingenuous of you to correlate Moore-Bick, with the Council and John Butler's adjudication to make some sort of stab at questioning Sir Martin's impartiality and, ultimately, his integrity.
People can have opinions and express them without having to enunciate them at length. Some TMO residents have expressed a view that they have little faith in the enquiry or the person leading it. I have not proceeded to interrogate them as to why that should be and I have not claimed that their views are justified. I have merely stated that such views are held and are commonplace, which they are. If you choose to believe otherwise then so be it. You can believe what you like.
DeleteAs far as Butler is concerned - he was merely an example of how the residents have been misled before. A supposed "independent" adjudicator was anything but, despite assurances to the contrary from many "reliable and knowledgeable people" at the time. Given such a precedent I would suggest that extreme scepticism is both called for and justified.
21.43. I do not disbelieve what you are saying and am sorry if I gave that impression. But without the case being made out as to why people on Council Estate's doubt Sir Martin Moore-Bick's ability to be "impartial" such comments and opinions are nothing more than a slur. Without a properly argued case, I cannot accept your position on impartiality or your weak correlation with the Butler adjudication.
DeleteEmma Dent Coad listens to people on Council estates or at least she says she does. Funny she did not mention Moore Bick's supposed lack of impartiality in her interview on Radio 4's Today programme yesterday.
DeleteWhy don't you ask her?
DeleteShe may have concluded that such views are hard to justify. And that she should therefore not lend them any credence by repeating them.
But equally she may have concluded that there's little to be gained by objecting to Moore Bick, that the government is going to stick to its guns despite any objections, and that her efforts on behalf of the victims and residents are put to better use dealing with other issues.
Who knows?
10.57. You never would know with her. Ms Control Dent Coad is in command
DeleteWasn't Campbell on the TMO Board at the time of the 2008 debacle? I seem to remember another Councillor, possibly Emma Dent Coad, saying how disparaging she was about "these people" who brought the TMO down at an EGM.
ReplyDeleteHow is Campbell going to do what the people want by getting rid of Robert Black's Executive Team and getting rid of the TMO?
Campbell has been on the news apologising to the Grenfell Tower victims. Now Liz, actions not words please
The Justice For Grenfell group should organise and put up candidates at the next council election
ReplyDeleteI hope the Justice for Grenfell people put up candidates in the next local elections. They would do a much better job than those who have represented them for years. If Emma resigns as a Councillor, they could put up a candidate to oppose Labour in Golborne Ward. They can stand in any ward in K&C provided that they are on the electoral roll in K&C.
DeleteI don't think Labour have a problem in that Ward.
DeleteWe all know where the blame lies - in the blue corner.
Delete15.34 & 15.38
DeleteLabour has a massive credibility problem in Notting Dale Ward.
Judith Blakeman has represented that Ward as a Labour Councillor for years. She acquiesced in tenant mismanagement by serving on the TMO Board and by not resigning to put paid to the daftest experiment in social engineering ever inured, the so called "Boroughwide TMO." She could be forgiven if she were as daft as Maighread Condon Simmonds but she is not at all daft. She is an intelligent sophisticated politician, a former Leader of the Labour Group, who wants it both ways now that there has been a disaster. She now criticises the TMO publicly in the media for the way in which the tenants of Grenfell Tower were bullied over the major works and cladding issue but she should not have continued to serve on the Board of a Company that treated poor people so badly; being bound by collective responsibility. She knew that the TMO tells lies, bullies tenants and commissions sub-standard major works. I am afraid there is excrement on her and EDC's carpets. They should both ride off in to the sunset. Neither of this gruesome twosome have called for the winding up of the TMO. I wonder why
The Labour group should demand that the TMO be wound up. The Council can either take management of its property back in house or farm it out to the private sector. Either is better than the status quo. Tenants and leaseholders simply do not have any confidence in the TMO.
DeleteAs a syndicalist, I would bring Dent Coad and Blakeman up before a workers' militia. Only the workers are competent to judge them.
DeleteLABOUR MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO GET OFF SCOT FREE. CORBYN CANNOT JUDGE THEM
Hear, hear 19.51. More of this from the local Labour Party please. If Corbyn says do it, they would do as they were told.
DeleteI am not sure, but think that this TMO lark has gone disastrously wrong... Why is RBKC so, so special and have a TMO? How do other Boroughs manage? In house, most of them. Unless, of course, there are private financial interests vested in the whole ghastly mess....
DeleteSimple: RBK&C does not have a real TMO. It never has. It has an aberration that it was only permitted to create with government consent.
DeleteA TMO is supposed to be a small not-for-profit organisation created to manage a single Council property by the residents of that property. RBK&C TMO is therefore not really a TMO.
RBK&C isn't quite an ALMO either. ALMOs are Council owned property management companies which may or may not have tenant representation on their Boards. RBK&C TMO isn't really an ALMO because, in theory, it is owned by its members rather than the Council.
Of note: RBK&C TMO is however a member of the National Federation of ALMOs but not a member of the National Federation of TMOs (who regard it as some kind of aberration). It is therefore closer to an ALMO than a real TMO.
As far as what other boroughs do:
Some boroughs have always managed their housing in house (e.g. Wandsworth).
Some boroughs have previously had ALMOs but have since shut them down and brought the management of their properties back in house (e.g. Hammersmith and Fulham).
Some boroughs still have ALMOs.
No other borough has a "borough wide TMO".
The biggest difference however is their attitude to real TMOs. Other boroughs encourage their residents to manage their own homes by creating their own TMOs and there are many such TMOs in existence in Westminster, Wandsworth, Lambeth, Hackney and elsewhere. RBK&C does not. RBK&C does not want its tenants and leaseholder having a proper say in how their homes are managed. The Lancaster West EMB was neutered as soon as RBK&C TMO was created and when the residents of the World's End Estate wanted to establish their own TMO to manage their homes the Council fought them every step of the way for over 6 years!
09.34 I agree with everything you say.
DeleteMartyn Kingsford, the first TMO Chief Executive, was determined that the Boroughwide TMO that he worked up when he was Director of Housing of RBK&C would take over all housing management functions from the Council and proceed in the same bureaucratic and authoritarian way that the Old RBK&C Housing Department always did. The Boroughwide TMO was really devised so that the jobs of Council Officers in housing management services would not be at risk from compulsory competitive tendering. Do you remember the myth that was propagated back in 1995 that we would have a French Water Company take over our housing if we did not sign up to the TMO?
Tenants never really took control of policy in any sort of meaningful way. How could they when one long serving Board Member in Martyn's day was illiterate. He did as he was told, like so many of the Resident Board members did, and got some sops for the estate that he lived on in return for his compliance. When Gordon Perry too over the "inner sanctum" on the Board came in to existence which gave certain high profile Resident Board Members power.
The so called Borougwide TMO is as you say an "aberration." I wonder why Emma Dent Coad and Judith Blakeman have supported what we all agree is an "aberration" by collectively serving on the TMO Board for years.
From what a Tory councillor once told me anyone expressing any doubt as to the appropriateness of the arrangement with the TMO was told that the only alternative the Council would countenance was "wholesale privatisation" of its housing stock.
DeleteNow this is only what this particular Tory councillor had been told but it is very possible that those expressing any doubts in the Labour group were told the same.
Personally I have serious doubts as to whether the Council would actually follow through with "wholesale privatisation" but perhaps all these Councillors did not. Perhaps they feared the Council would proceed to privatise its housing stock if it was not allowed to have its way. The Council, namely those running it in the cabinet, was quite simply blackmailing them all.
Whatever the case then the case now is that the TMO is clearly not fit for purpose and all political groups should be reviewing their standing policy towards it accordingly.
13.17 I have also heard it said that the alternative to tenant management would be wholesale privatisation of the housing stock. I am satisfied that RBK&C Tories wanted to abrogate all housing management responsibilities to the TMO and wash their hands of the most difficult and expensive service the Council provides. Unfortunately, the Council as landlord is responsible for what has come to pass at Grenfell Tower.
DeleteI am seriously concerned that two high profile Labour Councillors, Emma Dent Coad and Judith Blakeman, went along with the tenant management concept. They are supposed to be opposition to the Tories in Kensington and Chelsea and they knew that the TMO was an incompetent, deficient and pathetic mess. I would like them both to explain why they supported the TMO by serving on the Board for all those years when they knew the true situation
Were they both worried that their Labour empire of Council tenants would dissipate if they spoke out and Council housing ended in RBKC?
Or perhaps they were rightfully concerned for the welfare of the Council tenants and leaseholders that would be impacted by such a privatisation?
DeleteThe end result of "wholesale privatisation" would not be pretty - the mass rehousing of thousands of households impacting tens of thousands of residents; true social cleansing of the borough on a scale seen nowhere else.
That was certainly the concern this particular Tory Councillor had (they're not all callous bastards) and I would expect Labour councillors to be no different.
14.24 So we need a public meeting with the pair of them in attendance so they answer to the Court of Public Opinion. The outcomes that you predict from the privatisation of the housing stock has not occurred in those Councils who have embarked on voluntary stock transfers to housing associations or in the case of one Authority that had a wholesale transfer of the housing stock to a private company. I think the pair of them were more concerned about their socialist principles than doing right by those who lived in Council housing - particularly those who lived at Grenfell Tower.
DeleteThere are indeed now several authorities who have transferred part of their stock to private companies. I am not aware of a single case where the end result wasn't the existing residents of those properties, whether tenants or leaseholders, being shafted by massive increases in rents and service charges. Increases that effectively result in their forced relocation.
DeleteThe Council weren't threatening a transfer of its housing stock to a housing association, they were threatening something like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/03/labour-mps-urge-haringey-council-to-rethink-housing-sell-off
Someone's hatred of the TMO and Labour is blinding them to the horrors of the Council's preferred alternative ...
DeleteNot at all. I do not hate Judith Blakeman or Emma Dent Coad. I hate what they have done in supporting the TMO by serving on its Board for years. They cannot seek absolution because they may have envisaged the outcomes you describe if the housing stock were transferred from the TMO. They have both made a serious error of judgement following this course of action and blame does not just rest with the Tory Council.
DeleteI know people who work in housing and there are examples of stock transfers that have been different to those which provide fuel for your argument.
I do not hate the Labour Party. I voted Labour in the General Election because there were four policies in their manifesto that I believe were in the public interest.
I dislike the TMO with a vengeance for very good reasons- too numerous to particularise on here. There are many who agree with me about the TMO.
A stock transfer was not suggested. What was suggested was "wholesale privatisation". A stock transfer would require some level of tenant involvement and agreement (there is a ballot). A privatisation exercise that passes for regeneration like those in Lambeth and Haringey, or even next door in Hammersmith and Fulham, does not. And I suspect that's what the Council would have had in mind.
DeleteMy associates in housing tell me that "wholesale privatisation" has occurred in other districts without the deleterious consequences you mention. However, I accept that in some districts the dreadful consequences you mention have come to pass. Notwithstanding this, I am very much committed to public ownership of housing.
DeleteThe fact remains that two Labour Councillors stuck with the TMO through thick and thin, an organisation that they knew to be venal, incompetent and ghastly, just because of their dogmatic commitment to public ownership of the housing stock. There is no excuse for them taking this line. They should have made the matter a public one by mobilising tenants and leaseholders and by mounting a campaign to end the tenant management sham and stop the wholesale privatisation of the housing stock. All good socialist stuff. Council tenants would have backed them. Instead, they must accept their share of responsibility for acting pragmatically and for giving way to expediency. I do not hate them but do not like what they have done.
I have just read this. 79 people have died in public housing in Kensington and Chelsea. This TMO mismanaged the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. The TMO should not have been tolerated or indulged by the powers that be
DeleteI agree Theresa. Tolerating and indulging the TMO was wrong. I don't think they thought that 79 people would die.
DeleteUnless Emma Dent Coad MP answers questions and does some straight talking regarding the reasons why she supported the TMO for all those years by serving on its Board, we can only speculate about her reasons for giving succour to a housing provider that she, and her constituents, knew to be incompetent and not fit for purpose. During her time on the Board, Emma had first hand knowledge of tenant dissatisfaction and she saw tenants revolt at least one of the two Extraordinary General Meetings of the Company's membership in 2008. She was definitely present at the first EGM in 2008 but I cannot be certain that she attended the second one.
DeleteTo settle the lack of confidence that some are expressing to the Dame, I think she should call a meeting, inviting everyone of her constituents to attend, along with Jeremy Corbyn so that her voters may record a vote of confidence or otherwise in her continuing as
their Member of Parliament. This course of action is not unprecedented. as Zac Goldsmith resigned so that a by election could be triggered over the third runway at Heathrow. I realise that Emma might not want to trigger a by election but a meeting is the very least that she should do.
hope Corbyn is reading this so that he finds out how unprincipled the K&C Labour Party is.
DeleteHold your horses. Emma is very critical of the Council over Grenfell. She underplays the situation with the TMO. Corbyn said to a Grenfell victim, "Emma is your MP she will speak out." Not holding my breath
DeleteDon't worry. The Dame has seen off better politicians than the current hyphen Emma Dent-Coad.
DeleteRemember
Phelps
Sir Pooter
Danny Boys Moylan
Paget Brown
Feilding Mellen
and one or two officials
Dear Dame,
DeleteDo you remember seeing Emma off when the Labour Councillors sacked her as opposition leader?
This all seems to be drifting towards another car crash with the obvious solution being the Commissioners. But there are local elections in 10 months and if the Tories bring in the Commissioners then a high profile safe Tory Borough will be lost to Labour. The Tory DNA will fight tooth and nail to prevent this. It will look for a different solution.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the merger of Westminster and the Royal Borough? Central Office will be ruthless in clearing out Hornton Street and closing it down. The Westminster Officers and Cabinet will double their importance and have a clear run at it.
What do we know about these guys?
Something I used to do frequently was study the advertisements of my competitors and ask myself the question: "What did they have in mind when they briefed the Agency?". This is a great source of competitor intelligence.
DeleteI have just been studying the Westminster Council website. It is a huge source of information about their culture, priorities, personalities. A Tory Council (44 Conservative Councillors, 15 Labour, 1 Independent) but a very different look and feel to Hornton Street.
Everyone should study the website carefully.
A Director of the building company who produced insulation panels for Grenfell Tower that subsequently failed all safety tests is also a top government advisor.
ReplyDeleteMark Allen is a technical director for the UK arm of the French multinational Saint-Gobain, a Director of Celotex, which produced the insulation used in the tower. Mr Allen regularly advises the Tory Communities Secretary Sajid Javid on building safety standards and regulations.
Virginia Sang was a member of the Lancaster West Estate Management Board. She raised objections about the building of the Kensington Aldridge Academy school on the site of the former car park of the estate - as a result their board was disbanded and the KCTMO brought in to manage the estate. She raises some very important questions as to why K&C council chose to build a school in the car park of the Grenfell Tower estate against the objections of residents and the Estate Management Board.
ReplyDeleteThis is called 40 years of mismanagement and 'dodgy deals '. Time for the National Audit Office to step in .
ReplyDelete