So the Council meeting is about to start, with Dome owners AEG due to give a presentation on what, if anything, is plan B now the casino is not an option- or is it? Eyes down...
Nigel Fletcher - Dale & Co.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Question Time
So the Council meeting is about to start, with Dome owners AEG due to give a presentation on what, if anything, is plan B now the casino is not an option- or is it? Eyes down...
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Press react with shock
The Evening Standard has given my comments on the casino decision front page treatment, quoting my 'curse of the Dome' remark on page 1 and as the inside page headline. I was also booked to appear on Newsnight, but have now been dropped because of the Lord Levy story. I shall certainly have a lot of questions for AEG when they appear at Council tomorrow.
Casino decision - It's Manchester!
Well, no-one predicted that! Manchester wins. Thanks for nothing, Mr Prescott. View my full press release here.
Well, no-one predicted that! Manchester wins. Thanks for nothing, Mr Prescott. View my full press release here.
It does seem rather odd to me that Chris Roberts, the Leader of Greenwich Council, has made no mention of sorrow or disappointment in his press release. Not to worry that we may have lost £350m of investment in the Borough (in his ward!), let's just pat the winners on the back, eh?
We've all got some fairly crucial questions to ask the developers AEG at the Council Meeting tomorrow.
We've all got some fairly crucial questions to ask the developers AEG at the Council Meeting tomorrow.
This morning at 11am the 350 million pound question for the Dome is answered as we discover whether Greenwich has won the licence for the super-Casino or not. 350 million is the amount of investment from AEG which hinges on the decision going our way, so the stakes are high. If we win it will be despite Labour's clumsy handling of the issue- if we lose, many will conclude the controversy damaged the bid. Only another two hours to go
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Snow!
Reassurance that my youthful side hasn't been totally eclipsed by mature cynicism, as my excitement at seeing snow this morning over-rode the biting coldness. This is a view near my flat. Not quite so chuffed to be sat on a bus in a traffic jam now. Hurrah for mobile blogging though!
Monday, January 22, 2007
How to win friends...
Good to see discipline in the London Labour party is still strong. After the arrest of Downing Street Director of Government Relations Ruth Turner, a series of Labour Party loyalists spoke out to criticise police tactics in the case. Amongst those who commented were David Blunkett, Lord Puttnam and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, who said she was "surprised" and "slightly bewildered" by the arrest.
These comments were then attacked in a frank interview given to yesterday's Sunday Times by Greenwich's London Assembly Member (and former Council Leader) Len Duvall, who as Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority understandably took issue with senior officers' judgements being called into question by politicians with a vested interest in the case. Duvall told the paper:
“They [the Met’s inquiry team] are not after a political scalp. People like Blunkett, Puttnam and Jowell ought to be very careful about rushing in to make any statements at this moment. At an appropriate time, stuff will go into the public domain that will justify the police’s approach. When information comes into the public domain they will need to reflect very carefully on what they have said in the past 24 hours. I think they are going to look f****** stupid. Quite frankly, this is a mess created by the people involved in the situation. This childish, ‘we’re being picked on’ [attitude] is like Big Brother.” (Sunday Times)
Refreshing stuff. Except that within hours of the papers hitting the streets, Duvall (who is also Chairman of the London Labour Party) had second thoughts (from who, we can only guess) and issued a "clarification" of his remarks, retracting his criticism of Tessa Jowell, as Dizzy reports here.
Good to see discipline in the London Labour party is still strong. After the arrest of Downing Street Director of Government Relations Ruth Turner, a series of Labour Party loyalists spoke out to criticise police tactics in the case. Amongst those who commented were David Blunkett, Lord Puttnam and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, who said she was "surprised" and "slightly bewildered" by the arrest.
These comments were then attacked in a frank interview given to yesterday's Sunday Times by Greenwich's London Assembly Member (and former Council Leader) Len Duvall, who as Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority understandably took issue with senior officers' judgements being called into question by politicians with a vested interest in the case. Duvall told the paper:
“They [the Met’s inquiry team] are not after a political scalp. People like Blunkett, Puttnam and Jowell ought to be very careful about rushing in to make any statements at this moment. At an appropriate time, stuff will go into the public domain that will justify the police’s approach. When information comes into the public domain they will need to reflect very carefully on what they have said in the past 24 hours. I think they are going to look f****** stupid. Quite frankly, this is a mess created by the people involved in the situation. This childish, ‘we’re being picked on’ [attitude] is like Big Brother.” (Sunday Times)
Refreshing stuff. Except that within hours of the papers hitting the streets, Duvall (who is also Chairman of the London Labour Party) had second thoughts (from who, we can only guess) and issued a "clarification" of his remarks, retracting his criticism of Tessa Jowell, as Dizzy reports here.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Police report on Casino effects
It is being suggested on the GreenwichWatch site that Greenwich Council may have had something to do with the "suppression" of a report by the Metropolitan police into the effects a Casino at the Dome would have on crime and police resources locally. Parts of this report, apparently fed into the earlier PWC study, were leaked to the Observer newspaper at the weekend (see here).
I tend to suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy in these matters, so I'm not getting too indignant about this yet. I wasn't aware of the report before, but it is clearly of public interest for it be made available, so I have requested a full copy from Council officers under Freedom of Information. In the meantime, a source linked to the Observer/ Channel Four investigation has sent me a PDF file of an extract, quotes from which form the basis of the Observer story.
I reproduce a part of this below, from which you can see that the police officer's assesment is that 'There is nothing at present to suggest alarm', and that the casino itself is unlikely to have a significant impact on crime. The bigger problem he identifies relates to alcohol licencing in other parts of the development. His final point is that the developer, AEG, should be made responsible for funding any increased police resources which become necessary, an idea which I fully support, and which I will be pushing hard if we win the licence. Anyway, here's the extract:
It is being suggested on the GreenwichWatch site that Greenwich Council may have had something to do with the "suppression" of a report by the Metropolitan police into the effects a Casino at the Dome would have on crime and police resources locally. Parts of this report, apparently fed into the earlier PWC study, were leaked to the Observer newspaper at the weekend (see here).
I tend to suspect cock-up rather than conspiracy in these matters, so I'm not getting too indignant about this yet. I wasn't aware of the report before, but it is clearly of public interest for it be made available, so I have requested a full copy from Council officers under Freedom of Information. In the meantime, a source linked to the Observer/ Channel Four investigation has sent me a PDF file of an extract, quotes from which form the basis of the Observer story.
I reproduce a part of this below, from which you can see that the police officer's assesment is that 'There is nothing at present to suggest alarm', and that the casino itself is unlikely to have a significant impact on crime. The bigger problem he identifies relates to alcohol licencing in other parts of the development. His final point is that the developer, AEG, should be made responsible for funding any increased police resources which become necessary, an idea which I fully support, and which I will be pushing hard if we win the licence. Anyway, here's the extract:
The Net Tightens...
Shockwaves and other journalistic cliches have echoed round Westminster as the 'Cash for Honours' row takes a new twist: Blair's Head of Government Relations Ruth Turner was arrested at her home this morning and released without charge after questioning. Crucially, she was questioned on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, as well as on offences related to the initial inquiry. This indicates police are looking into a potential cover-up, which has echoes of the Watergate scandal and could be much more dangerous for Tony Blair...
Sicknote Greenwich
Another night, another meeting. Tonight was the Finance and Central Services Scrutiny Committee - perhaps one of the more yawn-inducing titles for a council body, but all worthy business involving the nuts and bolts of how the Council works. Or doesn't work, given the first item we dealt with - a report on sickness absence amongst council staff.
In short, there's a lot of people whose wages are paid by us hard-pressed taxpayers who are calling in sick on a regular basis - in some areas such as 'craft/manual' workers in the social services department, employees are taking an average of 26 days off a year. We are told action is being taken and rates are coming down, but one of my colleagues wasn't exactly reassured by a reference in the background briefing to the fact that 'effective action is taken in all cases in excess of 80 days absence.'
We also had a report on the new 'Great Get Together/ Talk Cafe' events which were piloted over the summer as a new form of engagement with the public, and which I had praised at Council before Christmas (see post below). I repeated again my view that they are an improvement on the previous dreary 'Time To Listen' public meetings, but raised a slight concern that it is not clear what will happen to the comments, complaints and suggestions which people submit when they visit the events.
We were told specific issues are being passed onto ward members and relevant Council services, but I think the wider issues and suggestions which come up need to be fed into the democatic process with an opportunity to be debated properly, ideally at Council. One of the few good things about 'Time to Listen' was that reports on each meeting were submitted to full Council meetings and could be debated if necessary. I will keep pushing for a similar mechanism to apply to these new events.
And that was pretty much it - no unexpected interruptions, unless you count the lurking presence of the dear Council Leader keeping a watchful eye on his Labour minions, whose ranks were unusually depleted. Maybe they all had sicknotes...
Another night, another meeting. Tonight was the Finance and Central Services Scrutiny Committee - perhaps one of the more yawn-inducing titles for a council body, but all worthy business involving the nuts and bolts of how the Council works. Or doesn't work, given the first item we dealt with - a report on sickness absence amongst council staff.
In short, there's a lot of people whose wages are paid by us hard-pressed taxpayers who are calling in sick on a regular basis - in some areas such as 'craft/manual' workers in the social services department, employees are taking an average of 26 days off a year. We are told action is being taken and rates are coming down, but one of my colleagues wasn't exactly reassured by a reference in the background briefing to the fact that 'effective action is taken in all cases in excess of 80 days absence.'
We also had a report on the new 'Great Get Together/ Talk Cafe' events which were piloted over the summer as a new form of engagement with the public, and which I had praised at Council before Christmas (see post below). I repeated again my view that they are an improvement on the previous dreary 'Time To Listen' public meetings, but raised a slight concern that it is not clear what will happen to the comments, complaints and suggestions which people submit when they visit the events.
We were told specific issues are being passed onto ward members and relevant Council services, but I think the wider issues and suggestions which come up need to be fed into the democatic process with an opportunity to be debated properly, ideally at Council. One of the few good things about 'Time to Listen' was that reports on each meeting were submitted to full Council meetings and could be debated if necessary. I will keep pushing for a similar mechanism to apply to these new events.
And that was pretty much it - no unexpected interruptions, unless you count the lurking presence of the dear Council Leader keeping a watchful eye on his Labour minions, whose ranks were unusually depleted. Maybe they all had sicknotes...
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Order ! Order!
A slightly surreal interruption to what was otherwise a fairly ordinary two-and-a half hours of Woolwich area planning committee tonight. Shortly after we had dealt with the extention of a controlled parking zone and moved onto a controversial tree felling issue (stay with me on this), a middle-aged lady wandered into the committee room and started asking where Nick Raynsford was. Told that as the local MP he was probably at the House of Commons rather than the Town Hall, she became rather angry and, ignoring requests to leave, started shouting about her grievances. These seemed to have something to do with her plumbing, but I couldn't be sure. With no security staff on hand, Committee Chairman Cllr. John Wakefield stepped in and managed courteously but assertively to escort her from the room and we continued with the meeting. Hopefully if she does ever catch up with Mr Raynsford he'll be able to offer her rather more help than our array of bemused faces did.
MP Raynsford - in demand.
A slightly surreal interruption to what was otherwise a fairly ordinary two-and-a half hours of Woolwich area planning committee tonight. Shortly after we had dealt with the extention of a controlled parking zone and moved onto a controversial tree felling issue (stay with me on this), a middle-aged lady wandered into the committee room and started asking where Nick Raynsford was. Told that as the local MP he was probably at the House of Commons rather than the Town Hall, she became rather angry and, ignoring requests to leave, started shouting about her grievances. These seemed to have something to do with her plumbing, but I couldn't be sure. With no security staff on hand, Committee Chairman Cllr. John Wakefield stepped in and managed courteously but assertively to escort her from the room and we continued with the meeting. Hopefully if she does ever catch up with Mr Raynsford he'll be able to offer her rather more help than our array of bemused faces did.
MP Raynsford - in demand.
Happily, I learn that last night's security alert on my patch was resolved without danger. Police were called to the unattended briefcase near the Carphone Warehouse at around 3.30pm and the road was sealed off for three hours, but bomb disposal experts were not required and the case was removed by 6.30pm. A news report is available here.
I applaud the local police and members of the public for their handling of this incident, which is a timely reminder of the need to be vigilant at all times. But, as a local politician, I must say it also reinforces the need to get more police for Eltham North, to allow a dedicated team to deal with issues on the High Street without impacting on those available for the rest of our neighbourhood.
I applaud the local police and members of the public for their handling of this incident, which is a timely reminder of the need to be vigilant at all times. But, as a local politician, I must say it also reinforces the need to get more police for Eltham North, to allow a dedicated team to deal with issues on the High Street without impacting on those available for the rest of our neighbourhood.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
[Famous last words - as soon as you say the internet is working at home, the problems begin. Luckily the men from the Council have been round again, and things seem to be working OK again now. Fingers crossed.]
I haven't had the chance to blog any comments on last month's council meeting, which took place a couple of days before Christmas, so by way of a catch-up, here are some thoughts from my perspective. First up, I took the opportunity during questions to the Leader and Cabinet to ask about the new form of 'community engagement' activity which has been trialled since the elections last May.
Prior to that, as avid Council-watchers will know, we had what were called 'Time to Listen' meetings, which took place in different parts of the borough every couple of months, with local people invited to come and air their concerns in the presence of their councillors and Council officers. Unfortunately, I fear it was only the 'avid Council-watchers' who knew or attended these doubtless well-intentioned exercises. Whilst I dutifully attended my share, I always felt rather awkward turning up at a draughty hall on a dreary midweek evening to find a couple of dozen determined residents (if that) sitting patiently on plastic chairs whilst their elected representatives faced them from behind a long table, like a low-budget version of The X Factor.
Needless to say, it was often only those with a major grievance or particular bee in their bonnet who turned up and subjected themselves to such a stilted form of communication, and only the loudest and most confident voices that were heard. Not terribly democratic. I was very pleased when the whole charade was abandoned after the May 2006 election.
In its place the Council has now been trialling a new concept - the "Talk Cafe". Instead of booking a hall and expecting the grateful multitudes to come flocking, the Council has come to them, setting up stall at local festivals and public events. It's a much more informal approach, with suggestion boards available alongside information displays, and Councillors make themselves available to chat over a cup of tea or coffee. After attending my first one at the Eltham Lights Up event before Christmas, I was amazed at the difference - the tent was busy and lively, and I and the councillors with me probably talked to more people in half an hour than at all the previous year's "Time to Listen" meetings put together. The suggestion boards also proved a hit, with all of them filled with varied hand-written comments by the end of the evening ("More CCTV please!" ; "Eltham is losing out to Woolwich" and so on). My question to the Leader was simply to ask that the suggestions be taken note of and reported back on, and that consideration be given to developing the concept even further, perhaps on the website. I'm pleased to say both Chris Roberts and Deputy Leader Angela Cornforth agreed the trial has been a success, and I'm told the suggestions will indeed be used in some way. I'll keep you posted on this subject again, as it's one of the few things the Council have got right recently. And of course it is also a good way of exposing what people really think of the Labour administration's performance, so I'm bound to like it! Happy New Year.
I haven't had the chance to blog any comments on last month's council meeting, which took place a couple of days before Christmas, so by way of a catch-up, here are some thoughts from my perspective. First up, I took the opportunity during questions to the Leader and Cabinet to ask about the new form of 'community engagement' activity which has been trialled since the elections last May.
Prior to that, as avid Council-watchers will know, we had what were called 'Time to Listen' meetings, which took place in different parts of the borough every couple of months, with local people invited to come and air their concerns in the presence of their councillors and Council officers. Unfortunately, I fear it was only the 'avid Council-watchers' who knew or attended these doubtless well-intentioned exercises. Whilst I dutifully attended my share, I always felt rather awkward turning up at a draughty hall on a dreary midweek evening to find a couple of dozen determined residents (if that) sitting patiently on plastic chairs whilst their elected representatives faced them from behind a long table, like a low-budget version of The X Factor.
Needless to say, it was often only those with a major grievance or particular bee in their bonnet who turned up and subjected themselves to such a stilted form of communication, and only the loudest and most confident voices that were heard. Not terribly democratic. I was very pleased when the whole charade was abandoned after the May 2006 election.
In its place the Council has now been trialling a new concept - the "Talk Cafe". Instead of booking a hall and expecting the grateful multitudes to come flocking, the Council has come to them, setting up stall at local festivals and public events. It's a much more informal approach, with suggestion boards available alongside information displays, and Councillors make themselves available to chat over a cup of tea or coffee. After attending my first one at the Eltham Lights Up event before Christmas, I was amazed at the difference - the tent was busy and lively, and I and the councillors with me probably talked to more people in half an hour than at all the previous year's "Time to Listen" meetings put together. The suggestion boards also proved a hit, with all of them filled with varied hand-written comments by the end of the evening ("More CCTV please!" ; "Eltham is losing out to Woolwich" and so on). My question to the Leader was simply to ask that the suggestions be taken note of and reported back on, and that consideration be given to developing the concept even further, perhaps on the website. I'm pleased to say both Chris Roberts and Deputy Leader Angela Cornforth agreed the trial has been a success, and I'm told the suggestions will indeed be used in some way. I'll keep you posted on this subject again, as it's one of the few things the Council have got right recently. And of course it is also a good way of exposing what people really think of the Labour administration's performance, so I'm bound to like it! Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)