Comments

DAMESATHOME@YAHOO.CO.UK
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Thursday, 19 November 2015

WHOSE SIDE IS THE COUNCIL ON? A RESIDENT CHALLENGES THE DAME

ON MY SIDE?

Dear Dame

I write as a one time member of the local Conservative Party though, at a national level, I still vote Conservative.
However,  the way things are going in RBK&C I am having doubts as to whether I shall continue to do so.




One assumes an alignment of interest between residents and the councillors representing them.
Such an assumption would seem be wrong headed. 
Even the resident associations spend much of their time fighting resident unfriendly plans. 

There are honourable exceptions but, in the main, Conservative councillors fall into a couple of categories: those that do their best to stand up for those they represent and the others who enjoy a cosy relationship with powerful developers.

For councillors, whose lives have been lacklustre, there is a frisson of excitement in hobnobbing with shark like developers.
Pooter Cockell was a prime example. Nothing gave this nonentity a greater thrill than summoning up the personalised number plated Bentley for a trip to the Ritz to lunch with the Barclay brothers, It’s  that 'small boy' syndrome writ large.
Worse still, we find councillors so incapable of grasping detail they become putty in the hands of the officers.

The situation is now so dire natural Conservative voters are lining up against the council.
Crossrail2, Marlborough Primary School and the Odeon, High St, Ken are just a few examples.

Residents drove even the revision to the basement planning laws-against much initial opposition from the Council.

And the Tri Borough fiasco has succeeded in damaging the quality of services, with little financial saving.
The next election is a few years off, but there will be by elections in the interim.

This is the moment to start fund raising and developing an organisation capable of putting up independent candidates able to break the political stranglehold so damaging to the day to day interests of residents.

Yours etc


22 comments:

  1. RBKC is corrupt because despite their complaints, resident vote Tory on autopilot, or these days stay home. In most wards anyone wearing a blue rosette is elected. One able young Tory councillor was unable to tolerate a system in which Tory planning committee members are told how to vote before the PAC meetings. He kept his mouth shut and quietly resigned. This is unfortunate. He should have shared his concerns with his fellow residents.

    The number of people voting Conservative locally is rapidly shrinking. The once great local party now has only a rump of elderly members. There are no young volunteers to pound the streets. To ensure Pooter's seat at the last local election, young Hammersmith Tories were sent to his ward. As a result, Hammersmith & Fulham went Labour. RBKC is an empty shell, lacking the confidence of residents because it represents developers rather than the community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, none of the officer live in K&C so have little aligned interest with residents,

      Delete
    2. I live in Stanley Ward where Pooter languished for god knows how long picking up allowances which he would not have been able to earn in the labour market. I did not see hide nor hair of him during the election campaign nor any of his Hammersmith helpers.

      Delete
  2. How could we continue to vote Conservative when they demolish our homes for profit ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. We feel betrayed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The majority of residents continue to ignore the connection between the council and the developers who are destroying the borough. It's the homes of the poor that are being destroyed, to build empty flats for money launderers. Meanwhile the rich largely sit in their comfortable houses, working out the profit they'll make when they eventually sell up and move to the Cotswolds or Tuscany.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was always thus.

      Delete
  5. I wholeheartedly agree with all the above. Rather nice letter, I say...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council has forbidden officers and Labour councillors from taking any kind of hospitality from developers, potential or actual. This edict arose from experience during the last Administration (pre 2014) when Conservative councillors were wined, dined and treated by developers. An obvious invitation and one which should have been avoided.

    Cllr Stephen Cowan has also obtained over an extra £50mill from developers since the Council elections of 2014 – money which would otherwise have stayed in developers’ pockets. How did he do it? He called in developers and asked for it.

    I should say that I do not vote Labour.

    I understand that you think the tri-borough arrangement is a waste of time and money. I do not think so. Kensington and Chelsea Council can learn a good deal from Hammersmith and Fulham.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is helpful to address matters to officers in Hammersmith and Fulham who are not under the thumb of our councillors.

      Cllr. Maighread Simmonds has been known to put pressure on honest officers to turn a blind eye to complaints from residents with regard to her friends.

      Delete
    2. .
      . I have heard about Condon Simmonds, please tell us what . . . she has done

      Delete
  7. But Tri-borough has not actually saved any money; it has added costs that are concealed from view. It was a vanity project to push Cockell's peerage. It failed on all counts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Perhaps things are being cleaned up a bit now as far as H&F councillors are concerned, but their officers are even more bent and incompetent than the home grown specimens. It's only bi-borough anyway. WCC wisely keeps it's distance. Senior H&F officers have taken over previously reasonably well run RBKC departments and ruined them. Money grabbing and bullying of existing staff are the priorities. Needless to say, not a penny has been saved. As everyone knew would happen, the whole thing is a shambles, with some officers pocketing double dosh.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alan Brown built his reputation at Schroders on good governance in the companies they invested in. Did he realise when he joined the Westway Trust board that Angela McConville wouldn’t know what good governance was if she saw it?

    Did Alan know that Ang put through the alteration in the objects of WT last year when it decided to stop using the land it was given to provide amenities for the local community as originally intended and to become a property development business with no regard for local needs? Not only was there no public consultation beforehand, but they didn’t even hold the community engagement event that they had told the RBKC they’d hold! I expect they held some little private event as a fig leaf but I know they never told the community about it, let alone engaged with the community to explain their intentions.

    The meeting at the Tab would have been the first real community engagement event by the WT executive and it was disgraceful that Ang said she’d come then pulled out on a spurious reason. (Alan Brown will soon realise she has a track record of agreeing to things when it suits her and then doing a U-turn a few days later….) What a lost opportunity!!!

    If Alan Brown is going to come away from his time with the WT with his reputation intact, he needs to stand up and act now, introducing transparency and proper governance from today. He needs to make contact with the North Kensington community immediately to agree a way forward that includes reinstating the amenities Ang has closed or is closing down and improving the 23 acres in partnership with them (everyone agrees the area needs improvement, just it doesn’t want the good things there swept away and replaced with Ang’s sterile vision). Another meeting at the Tab would be a good start. Meanwhile, he should scrap the “Destination Westway” idea which offers nothing to meet North Kensington’s needs, and (in the views of professional property developers, as opposed to the WT jokers) will not succeed so close to Westfield (currently being extended) and the Old Oak Common development.

    How about it, Alan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dame agrees and will feature it. An excellent comment.

      Delete
  10. This is an excellent post, but is on the wrong thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been put across a few threads

      Delete
  11. It is helpful to address matters to Hammersmith and Fulham officers who are not under the thumb of our councillors.

    Cllr. Maighread Simmonds has been known to put pressure on excellent RBKC officers to ignore complaints by residents in order to protect her special friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please tell us more about Simmonds and the protection afforded to her special friends. There is no point insinuating. We need it out in the open if Simmonds is to get the bird at the next election.

      Delete
    2. Special eating places where she is favoured. Those canvassing for her. Officers are told not to implement table and chair licences, electrical inspections, etc, etc,

      Those residents which canvass for her are afforded special favours.

      Delete
    3. Miaghread Handlebar22 November 2015 at 07:18

      Simmonds has become very toxic for the Tory Party. She might resign.

      Delete
    4. She has been toxic for a very long time.

      She grooms residents on council estates to vote and do special favours for her.

      Delete

Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.