Tories accused of ‘misusing power’ in row over housing stock
10:00am Monday 5th September 2011 in News By David Wiles
Labour leader Jim Grant believes the Conservatives are telling tenants how to vote
A POLITICAL row has erupted over a tenants’ newsletter to be distributed ahead of a ballot to decide whether to offload Swindon Council’s housing stock.
Swindon Council is to ballot tenants on an option to transfer all the properties to a new not-for-profit housing association in order to dodge a £145m bill from the Government.
The Conservative administration says this bill would prevent it from keeping the 10,500 homes at minimum standards of decency. However, the Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability.
The council cannot tell tenants how to vote, but Labour claims that Tories are “misusing council power” through allegedly promoting the transfer in a special edition of Housing Matters, which focuses on the ballot.
The newsletter, which will be sent out today, states on the front page: “The alternative – and the council’s preferred option – is to create a new, independent not-for-profit, local housing association to own and manage the council’s homes.”
On page two it states that the need for significant future investment in Swindon’s sheltered accommodation is “another key reason why the council wants a new housing association with the money and capacity to take on this challenge.”
Coun Grant said: “Tenants should be very angry with the way the council has behaved in promoting tenants moving to a housing association.
“This subtle promotion by the council for moving tenants to a housing association completely undermines their role as offering unbiased information to tenants in order to let them choose.
“Plus the council has absolutely no authorisation to do this. Back at the last full council meeting in July, council agreed to move to a ballot but we never agreed to promote tenants moving to a housing association. It’s a complete misuse of council power that they are doing this.
“Swindon Council’s Conserv-ative administration needs to make up their minds. Are they going to ensure the council plays a neutral role and make sure tenants get unbiased information?
“Or are they going to promote tenants moving to a housing association, in which case they need to authorise this through a council resolution? However, they can’t do both”
In a statement, Coun Russell Holland, the cabinet member for One Swindon, communities and housing, said: “There is no foundation to these claims.
“The council’s position is that there are clear benefits for tenants if they choose to transfer but it is up to tenants to decide.
“My priority is to ensure that tenants have the information they need to make an informed choice. The Housing Matters article was approved by an independent tenants’ adviser.”
Swindon Council is negotiating with the government to move the date of the ballot from as early as November to February to allow a longer consultation period.
Comments(124)
Robfm
says...
10:16am Mon 5 Sep 11
We already know the shadow board wants the transfer to go ahead, so they are hardly independent. The tenants are simply be frightened into complying with SBC's wishes, which is simply appalling and undemocratic. It seems just like the EU, we will make you vote until you vote the right way, 'our way'.
It has already been stated on the SA in a previous article on the transfer, that the £145 million is a spurious argument as the author pointed out the council could pay down this requirement using the £9 million plus they currently pay to HMG, which would no longer be payable.
So in effect they could be debt free and still have the housing stock.
prole
says...
10:19am Mon 5 Sep 11
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The £145M will only be serviced out of the social housing rent account and not through council tax. This account is ring fenced.
"Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability" like the wifi fiasco.......If Labour wants the decision to be Democratic, why don't we have a city wide referendum on the issue, since we are all going to have to pay for this 145million bill through our council tax.
Councillors left and right use Democracy as a political tool...but when it comes to the crunch none are ready for it!
prole
says...
10:22am Mon 5 Sep 11
If the council house stock remains with the council after the ballot, the £158M will need to be paid to central government but the £9.5M subsidy payment from SBC will cease.
SBC will be able to service the £158M debt with the additional £9.5 million that no longer goes to central government without affecting the service.
The difference being that when the debt is serviced, the council house stock will belong to SBC lock stock etc.
The Tory administration are misleading the tenants in saying that servicing the debt will create a £70M whole in the council housing account over 10 years.
This is rubbish, and assumes an interest rate of 6% even though similar finance SBC borrowed for Witchlestow is at a rate of 3%.
Financial institution will compete to finance local authorities who wish to keep their housing stock, as it will constitute a safe haven for investors and interest rates will be low.
I 2 Could B
says...
10:33am Mon 5 Sep 11
The Tory administration focus heavily on the £158m bill from the Government. What they do not say is that the SBC council house account currently pays a subsidy to central government of £9.5M per year.
If the council house stock remains with the council after the ballot, the £158M will need to be paid to central government but the £9.5M subsidy
payment from SBC will cease.
You keep posting this. If I've read it correctly, what you're saying is that if the £158m is paid, SBC save taxpayers £9.5m per annum.
Assuming zero interest rates apply over the entire period (which they wouldn't, but hey), that means it would take the best part of 17 years for SBC to be financial 'better' off. Doesn't sound like the 'attractive' proposition you're attempting to sell it as.
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
10:35am Mon 5 Sep 11
prole wrote:Putting the issue of democratic accountability aside, I find it hard to believe that this council is able to manage a multi million pounds housing stock considering the wifi fiasco and the Regeneration farce.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The £145M will only be serviced out of the social housing rent account and not through council tax. This account is ring fenced.
"Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability" like the wifi fiasco.......If Labour wants the decision to be Democratic, why don't we have a city wide referendum on the issue, since we are all going to have to pay for this 145million bill through our council tax.
Councillors left and right use Democracy as a political tool...but when it comes to the crunch none are ready for it!
This Council owes vast amount of properties in Town and so far this has proved to be more of a liability than an asset, so in view of the council poor past performance, I would support private management instead.
prole
says...
10:37am Mon 5 Sep 11
I 2 Could B wrote:You need to factor in rent increases also. That would bring the timescale down considerably.
The Tory administration focus heavily on the £158m bill from the Government. What they do not say is that the SBC council house account currently pays a subsidy to central government of £9.5M per year.
If the council house stock remains with the council after the ballot, the £158M will need to be paid to central government but the £9.5M subsidy
payment from SBC will cease.
You keep posting this. If I've read it correctly, what you're saying is that if the £158m is paid, SBC save taxpayers £9.5m per annum.
Assuming zero interest rates apply over the entire period (which they wouldn't, but hey), that means it would take the best part of 17 years for SBC to be financial 'better' off. Doesn't sound like the 'attractive' proposition you're attempting to sell it as.
prole
says...
10:40am Mon 5 Sep 11
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The reason we pay the £9.5m is because Swindon BC, under Labour and Tory's have run an excellent account historically. More down to the officers these days though I would have to say.
prole wrote:Putting the issue of democratic accountability aside, I find it hard to believe that this council is able to manage a multi million pounds housing stock considering the wifi fiasco and the Regeneration farce.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The £145M will only be serviced out of the social housing rent account and not through council tax. This account is ring fenced.
"Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability" like the wifi fiasco.......If Labour wants the decision to be Democratic, why don't we have a city wide referendum on the issue, since we are all going to have to pay for this 145million bill through our council tax.
Councillors left and right use Democracy as a political tool...but when it comes to the crunch none are ready for it!
This Council owes vast amount of properties in Town and so far this has proved to be more of a liability than an asset, so in view of the council poor past performance, I would support private management instead.
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
10:57am Mon 5 Sep 11
prole wrote:if Swindon has "run an excellent account historically" as you say, why is it that the list for housing keeps on growing, 1000s of people are denied the chance to have a place to live despite their best efforts and intentions.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The reason we pay the £9.5m is because Swindon BC, under Labour and Tory's have run an excellent account historically. More down to the officers these days though I would have to say.
prole wrote:Putting the issue of democratic accountability aside, I find it hard to believe that this council is able to manage a multi million pounds housing stock considering the wifi fiasco and the Regeneration farce.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The £145M will only be serviced out of the social housing rent account and not through council tax. This account is ring fenced.
"Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability" like the wifi fiasco.......If Labour wants the decision to be Democratic, why don't we have a city wide referendum on the issue, since we are all going to have to pay for this 145million bill through our council tax.
Councillors left and right use Democracy as a political tool...but when it comes to the crunch none are ready for it!
This Council owes vast amount of properties in Town and so far this has proved to be more of a liability than an asset, so in view of the council poor past performance, I would support private management instead.
I know many people working hard, spending half their wage on private rents whilst a substantial proportion of "life tenants" are sucking the life out of us all.
If these hard working people had a council or housing flat, they could spend more in the town sustaining the local economy and employement.
The council may generate a profit but is failing to address the issue it is supposed to address: Social housing for people in NEED!
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
10:57am Mon 5 Sep 11
prole wrote:if Swindon has "run an excellent account historically" as you say, why is it that the list for housing keeps on growing, 1000s of people are denied the chance to have a place to live despite their best efforts and intentions.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The reason we pay the £9.5m is because Swindon BC, under Labour and Tory's have run an excellent account historically. More down to the officers these days though I would have to say.
prole wrote:Putting the issue of democratic accountability aside, I find it hard to believe that this council is able to manage a multi million pounds housing stock considering the wifi fiasco and the Regeneration farce.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:The £145M will only be serviced out of the social housing rent account and not through council tax. This account is ring fenced.
"Labour group opposes the transfer, claiming it would reduce democratic accountability" like the wifi fiasco.......If Labour wants the decision to be Democratic, why don't we have a city wide referendum on the issue, since we are all going to have to pay for this 145million bill through our council tax.
Councillors left and right use Democracy as a political tool...but when it comes to the crunch none are ready for it!
This Council owes vast amount of properties in Town and so far this has proved to be more of a liability than an asset, so in view of the council poor past performance, I would support private management instead.
I know many people working hard, spending half their wage on private rents whilst a substantial proportion of "life tenants" are sucking the life out of us all.
If these hard working people had a council or housing flat, they could spend more in the town sustaining the local economy and employement.
The council may generate a profit but is failing to address the issue it is supposed to address: Social housing for people in NEED!
itsamess
says...
11:08am Mon 5 Sep 11
The operative part being central govt
will lose 9.5m per year of the housing income which comes entirely from the housing budget--not council tax.
Therefore it only affects the council tenants and correct that only they vote.
Whoever runs the housing still has to pay the 145m--except the dice being loaded against the council as if the new body take over the debt is reduced by half--when in fact there is no debt because the govt has always had that income from the council.
Could that simply be the govt grabbing funds?
Hardly surprising our council wants to get rid--just another service they do not have to provide.
I 2 Could B
says...
12:08pm Mon 5 Sep 11
if Swindon has "run an excellent account historically" as you say, why is it that the list for housing keeps on growing, 1000s of people are denied the chance to have a place to live despite their best efforts and intentions.
The UK, although efforts were made to take it down that route, is not a communist country. We don't simply build thousands of free houses for people who don't fancy paying their way (well, we do, just not as many as people like you would like).
We already have one of the most spectacularly generous welfare state and benefit systems in the world, hence so many people find emigrating to the country so appealling, but I'm afraid it's not possible for taxpayers to simply pay for houses to be built for everyone who is unable to afford them.
As ever, your economics don't add up. Yes, if we gave everyone a free house they'd have more disposable income, but if each house costs £100k to build and the people living in them earn £15k per year, it'd take about 20 years before any of it made the remotest of financial sense.
Also, the devaluation of the existing property market would devastate our already fragile economy to the point of oblivion... and would only get worse as those families who rely on their property for their pension would again need free housing and the whole cycle would begin again.
Your lot failed, economically, by trying to persue an ideology of giving everyone everything they want for free... but forgetting that somebody, somwhere actually has to pay for it all.
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
12:41pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I 2 Could B wrote:I am certainly not a communist and social housing is certainly not a communist idea.....it may come as a surprise, but victorian employers started building houses for their workers and families....and this is particulary true in Swindon.
if Swindon has "run an excellent account historically" as you say, why is it that the list for housing keeps on growing, 1000s of people are denied the chance to have a place to live despite their best efforts and intentions.
The UK, although efforts were made to take it down that route, is not a communist country. We don't simply build thousands of free houses for people who don't fancy paying their way (well, we do, just not as many as people like you would like).
We already have one of the most spectacularly generous welfare state and benefit systems in the world, hence so many people find emigrating to the country so appealling, but I'm afraid it's not possible for taxpayers to simply pay for houses to be built for everyone who is unable to afford them.
As ever, your economics don't add up. Yes, if we gave everyone a free house they'd have more disposable income, but if each house costs £100k to build and the people living in them earn £15k per year, it'd take about 20 years before any of it made the remotest of financial sense.
Also, the devaluation of the existing property market would devastate our already fragile economy to the point of oblivion... and would only get worse as those families who rely on their property for their pension would again need free housing and the whole cycle would begin again.
Your lot failed, economically, by trying to persue an ideology of giving everyone everything they want for free... but forgetting that somebody, somwhere actually has to pay for it all.
150 years ago employers understood the benefits of providing workers with safe, stable and affordable housing......modern capitalism would not have been possible without it.
I 2 Could B
says...
12:51pm Mon 5 Sep 11
What didn't happen 150 years ago is everyone having their salary stolen from them in order to build free, or cheap, housing for 2m people that didn't work at all or for 400,000 new immigrants per year.
Spot the difference?
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
1:09pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I 2 Could B wrote:I can only agree with you.....
Yes, absolutely. Employers would have very good reason to do so in those days - and it's why they pay salaries to enable people to rent or buy property these days. The better the job you manage to secure, the more money you'll be paid and the better housing you can afford. It's all very simple.
What didn't happen 150 years ago is everyone having their salary stolen from them in order to build free, or cheap, housing for 2m people that didn't work at all or for 400,000 new immigrants per year.
Spot the difference?
Emma Faramarzi
says...
1:55pm Mon 5 Sep 11
prole
says...
2:22pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Emma Faramarzi wrote:More about saving money we do not have. I believe Labour objected to the expense of £1M + for the ballot without research. Two ballots have been abandoned in the last 8 years because initial feedback has shown that it would have been voted down with a large majority.
Every single Labour Councillor voted against giving the housing tenants the right to vote on this decision. My question to the Swindon Labour party is "why did you attempt to deny the council tenants the right to choose?"
The Conservatives say that they do not have time to research prior to the ballot due to the time constraints of Central Government wanting the money.
Bit of a Hobsons choice situation.
Even Angrier Monkey
says...
3:57pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I 2 Could B
says...
4:17pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Emma Faramarzi wrote:Labour's aim, as with any socialist organisation, is to ultimately remove all choice and democracy from the people because they believe the State/they know best.
Every single Labour Councillor voted against giving the housing tenants the right to vote on this decision. My question to the Swindon Labour party is "why did you attempt to deny the council tenants the right to choose?"
Remember, Labour - via Tony Blair - are the party that signed the UK up to the Human Rights Act in 1998 despite frequent and consistent polls indicating that c.90% of the British population would rather not be bound by it and have to suffer the disastrous consequences.
Labour are the party that took the UK to an illegal, never-ending and massively expensive war, despite the majority not wanting us to go to war.
Nothing the current coalition government has done comes remotely close to rivalling Labour in terms of utterly undemocractic folly.
I 2 Could B
says...
4:28pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Not to mention the revelations at the weekend from Alistair Darling, which confirms our worst fears that the UK econcomy suffered more than it should have done during the recession specifically due to Gordon Brown's inability to govern correctly and ease the problem.
Let's hope this horrendous bunch of arrogant and dangerous amateurs aren't let loose on the nation again for a long, long time.
prole
says...
4:56pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Even Angrier Monkey wrote:I do not think either option is a burden on the council tax account. I believe that if the vote is to stay with the Council then the £1M expense will come out of the Council House Rent Account. If the vote is to opt out then it will be covered by the housing association purchase.
I'm for whichever option will cost me least in subsidy, sorry I mean council tax
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
5:07pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Agree, absolutely terrible. Reminded me of when Mrs Thatcher was cosying up to General Pinochet. He reportedly made a habit of sending chocolates and flowers to her during his twice-yearly visits to London and took tea with her whenever possible.
He was of course later was detained in London following a request for his arrest and extradition by two Spanish judges investigating some of the 4,000-plus political murders believed to have been committed during his 1973-1990 rule.
I 2 Could B
says...
5:17pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Indeed, latest reports indicate that Blair's friend Gaddafi killed as many as 2000 of his own people in just 3 days during August alone.
And then there's Gaddafi's various terrorist activities around the world, including the UK.
Good old Blair.
Robfm
says...
5:31pm Mon 5 Sep 11
In fact if SBC borrowed the entire amount against the housing stock they could start building much earlier, or is it the case that SBC, looking at their projections for 2011/12 have a zero credit rating.
It just does not stack up to me to virtually give away these houses for £66 million, this makes the wifi stupidity look almost acceptable.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
5:34pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I Too
says...
6:16pm Mon 5 Sep 11
So all the centering on Westminster / central goverment is just a distraction from the incompetence of Swindon Borough Clownschool
prole
says...
6:42pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Robfm wrote:Very poignant comment:
It seems to me some are missing the point here. This housing stock is worth about £1 billion. If as Prole says we pay down the debt even over 17 years, SBC are then have a growing asset which could be used to finance the building of more council houses.
In fact if SBC borrowed the entire amount against the housing stock they could start building much earlier, or is it the case that SBC, looking at their projections for 2011/12 have a zero credit rating.
It just does not stack up to me to virtually give away these houses for £66 million, this makes the wifi stupidity look almost acceptable.
It is fair to say that Labour would like to keep the council housing stock and add to it and I am sure they will campaign for this.
Conservative would like to privatise social housing along with the PCTs. They will campaign to this end.
I do not think that there is anything controversial in this broad statement.
This problem is that in amongst all this rhetoric the tenants are being done a disservice in being lead by the Council in one direction to suite the machination of the leading group. There needs to be balanced and factual argument, and this is not happening, therefore sites such as this will spring up to try and redress the balance.
http://keepourcounci
lhomes.wordpress.com
/
prole
says...
6:43pm Mon 5 Sep 11
It is fair to say that Labour would like to keep the council housing stock and add to it and I am sure they will campaign for this.
Conservative would like to privatise social housing along with the PCTs. They will campaign to this end.
I do not think that there is anything controversial in this broad statement.
This problem is that in amongst all this rhetoric the tenants are being done a disservice in being lead by the Council in one direction to suite the machination of the leading group. There needs to be balanced and factual argument, and this is not happening, therefore sites such as this will spring up to try and redress the balance.
http://keepourcounci
lhomes.wordpress.com
/
Robfm
says...
7:05pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Russell Holland
says...
9:25pm Mon 5 Sep 11
First, Council housing is paid for by tenants rents. This money is put into the Housing Revenue Account. That account is ring fenced. Therefore the rents can only be used for spending on housing. Council tax cannot be used to subsidise Council housing.
Second, put really simply the Government would calculate how much rent should be paid and how much was needed for repairs etc. by formula. If you had more rent than your deemed expenditure then you had to pay the money to the Government. This is the so called negative subsidy or tenant's tax. Under this scheme last year tenants paid £9.5million to the Central Government. This scheme is called the subsidy system.
Third, starting under Labour and continuing under the Coalition a decision was made to scrap the subsidy system. But because some Councils would lose out a formula is calculated to enable a similar degree of investment that would have been provided under the subsidy system. So Councils are allocated a debt - for Swindon this is £145million.
Fourth, for some Councils the cost of paying the debt is less than the subsidy so they win. For Swindon even though we get to keep the £9.5million servicing the debt will mean there is a shortfall for £72million over 10 years. The £145million will be paid for from tenant's rents, in just the same way the subsidy is paid for by tenants' rents.
Fifth - it is true that the Housing Association would borrow money to invest in the stock - this amount will exceed the amount which the Council could borrow. This will be paid for by tenant's rents.
So the subsidy or the £145million or the moneys borrowed by the Housing Association will all be paid for by tenants' rents. The difference is that with the Housing Association everything that is borrowed will be invested in the housing stock in Swindon.
The Council's position is that there are benefits to a tranfer but it is up to tenants to decide by a ballot. The Council did not have to go to ballot. The Council could have just accepted the £145million debt without balloting tenants.
Labour voted against going to ballot.
Labour are now actively encouraging tenants to vote no.
I say let the tenants' choose. I am happy to provide all the information they can to help them make a decision.
This is not about Labour or Conservative or Jim Grant or me or the Coalition Government. It is about tenants.
prole
says...
9:43pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Russell Holland wrote:Russell Holland says"For Swindon even though we get to keep the £9.5million servicing the debt will mean there is a shortfall for £72million over 10 years."
Few points.
First, Council housing is paid for by tenants rents. This money is put into the Housing Revenue Account. That account is ring fenced. Therefore the rents can only be used for spending on housing. Council tax cannot be used to subsidise Council housing.
Second, put really simply the Government would calculate how much rent should be paid and how much was needed for repairs etc. by formula. If you had more rent than your deemed expenditure then you had to pay the money to the Government. This is the so called negative subsidy or tenant's tax. Under this scheme last year tenants paid £9.5million to the Central Government. This scheme is called the subsidy system.
Third, starting under Labour and continuing under the Coalition a decision was made to scrap the subsidy system. But because some Councils would lose out a formula is calculated to enable a similar degree of investment that would have been provided under the subsidy system. So Councils are allocated a debt - for Swindon this is £145million.
Fourth, for some Councils the cost of paying the debt is less than the subsidy so they win. For Swindon even though we get to keep the £9.5million servicing the debt will mean there is a shortfall for £72million over 10 years. The £145million will be paid for from tenant's rents, in just the same way the subsidy is paid for by tenants' rents.
Fifth - it is true that the Housing Association would borrow money to invest in the stock - this amount will exceed the amount which the Council could borrow. This will be paid for by tenant's rents.
So the subsidy or the £145million or the moneys borrowed by the Housing Association will all be paid for by tenants' rents. The difference is that with the Housing Association everything that is borrowed will be invested in the housing stock in Swindon.
The Council's position is that there are benefits to a tranfer but it is up to tenants to decide by a ballot. The Council did not have to go to ballot. The Council could have just accepted the £145million debt without balloting tenants.
Labour voted against going to ballot.
Labour are now actively encouraging tenants to vote no.
I say let the tenants' choose. I am happy to provide all the information they can to help them make a decision.
This is not about Labour or Conservative or Jim Grant or me or the Coalition Government. It is about tenants.
This is the disputed piece. Unless the council publish details for independent revue how this shortfall is achieved then it is just a manufactured figure to be used as leverage to achieve an end result to suite a political outcome.
The ballot revolves around the probity of this shortfall.
Sorry Mr Russell, but I can not find it within myself to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Russell Holland
says...
9:56pm Mon 5 Sep 11
http://ww5.swindon.g
ov.uk/moderngov/mgCo
nvert2PDF.aspx?ID=37
330&J=5
There is work taking place on an Offer document which will have more detail.
I will do some research for you to see what other documents are available.
Thank you for your contribution to the thread it is important to focus on the implications of the decision for tenants.
Just out of interest - do you think the Council was right to go to ballot or do you think we should have just accepted the £145million?
Russell Holland
says...
9:57pm Mon 5 Sep 11
http://ww5.swindon.g
ov.uk/moderngov/mgCo
nvert2PDF.aspx?ID=37
330&J=5
There is work taking place on an Offer document which will have more detail.
I will do some research for you to see what other documents are available.
Thank you for your contribution to the thread it is important to focus on the implications of the decision for tenants.
Just out of interest - do you think the Council was right to go to ballot or do you think we should have just accepted the £145million?
itsamess
says...
10:09pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Housing associations have not said much so far.
Russell Holland
says...
10:17pm Mon 5 Sep 11
On housing associations generally I attach a link to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, a very well regarded charity, who did research on this
http://www.jrf.org.u
k/publications/impac
ts-housing-stock-tra
nsfers-urban-britain
prole
says...
10:41pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I can understand that it would not get full support.
Just to pre-empt, I am not going to be impressed with the party bollocktics of "Labour voted against the ballot therefore they are pinko reactionaries that are against democracy and freedom."
Their opposition to the time-scale and cost was valid and they acted as an opposition should act and I agree with them that October does not give enough time for proper consultation therefore making it impossible to support because it is unrealistic and unfair.
Russell Holland
says...
10:54pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I think a ballot is the right thing to do.
prole
says...
10:57pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Cllr Holland,the benefit of the doubt comment above was not personal but reflect my feeling about all information coming out of the council.
itsamess
says...
10:59pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Yes i do appreciate there will be 4
councillors--but without labour there
is no balance and i understand the 4 experts to be council officers--as i say there seems to be less than a level playing field.
As the council is clearly pro transfer i am afraid there does not appear to be a fair mix. There has to be some form of equality--could it be there is a distinct air of lack of trust in the
current council?
Russell Holland
says...
11:01pm Mon 5 Sep 11
From my perspective I really do want tenants to make an informed choice so the more discussion and questions the better and I completely agree that party political points won't add much to the discussion.
prole
says...
11:09pm Mon 5 Sep 11
If you had more time you can knock around doors to see if you have a cat in hells chance of getting this through and save the council house account £1M and a lot of hassle if you know you are going to lose.
It would not be the first time the ballot has been aborted.
Cllr Holland, When this was voted on in the council, what was the ballot date suggested in the agenda?
Lets not forget the issue that it looks like the council are going to put out material that is biased towards a transfer. I am surprised that this is within the rules of a ballot.
Russell Holland
says...
11:11pm Mon 5 Sep 11
The experts won't be council officers because if tenants vote to transfer then the officers will become employees of the new association so they would not be able to be on the board.
The Council position is that there are benefits to transfer but it is neutral as to how tenant's vote. There is an independent tenant adviser to ensure fairness.
itsamess
says...
11:11pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Perhaps if the council in planning the future builds would give companies other than SCS a chance as in every likelihood they would provide a better build at a better price.
Russell Holland
says...
11:21pm Mon 5 Sep 11
So in respect of the income from housing - how that is used will be the same whether or not there is a transfer.
prole
says...
11:22pm Mon 5 Sep 11
itsamess wrote:This is truly joined up thinking.
Without any political preferences on my part--i see the income from this housing as beneficial to the town--and a platform to build more.
Perhaps if the council in planning the future builds would give companies other than SCS a chance as in every likelihood they would provide a better build at a better price.
itsamess
says...
11:27pm Mon 5 Sep 11
In my view this process has been poorly thought out.
itsamess
says...
11:39pm Mon 5 Sep 11
I leave you with my thought that i do not see this process as fair nor impartial.
prole
says...
11:42pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Russell Holland wrote:Just checked and the plan was to have the ballot in November. This is what was voted on in the council.
Prole - you will note from the article that negotiations in respect of ballot timing are taking place. I will give an update when I can.
I think a ballot is the right thing to do.
Your response suggests that the ballot has been pushed out to a later date. This would be good news if that is the case.
But also vindicates those who voted against cos they objected to the time-scale being too tight.
Russell Holland
says...
11:52pm Mon 5 Sep 11
Russell Holland
says...
11:58pm Mon 5 Sep 11
http://ww5.swindon.g
ov.uk/moderngov/ieLi
stDocuments.aspx?CId
=285&MId=5063&J=2
prole
says...
12:05am Tue 6 Sep 11
Russell Holland wrote:Surely not all officers will become employees of the new association. Some will have to be retained to monitor the housing on behalf of SBC for statutory purposes.
itsamess - I agree that an opposition Councillor should be on the shadow board but if Labour do not wish to be on it then that is their decision. It is up to the Shadow Board but I think if Labour are unwilling to go on it then liberal would be the next best choice because there should be a mix.
The experts won't be council officers because if tenants vote to transfer then the officers will become employees of the new association so they would not be able to be on the board.
The Council position is that there are benefits to transfer but it is neutral as to how tenant's vote. There is an independent tenant adviser to ensure fairness.
How will these be funded by SBC as there will be no social housing account.
This would be a transference of a negative cost to the council that would have to come out of the council tax pot as the housing association funds will be ring fenced.
Russell Holland
says...
12:23am Tue 6 Sep 11
I 2 Could B
says...
5:18am Tue 6 Sep 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside wrote:I know, didn't they make a mess of things.
Indeed, it's almost like it was all Blair's fault, just like the entire world's economic crisis is all Gordon Browns fault and nothing to do with scandalous banking practices that major banks are now being sued for.
BTW, those banks being sued... the FSA was set up specifically by an economic and financial 'expert' precisely to avoid such eventualities.
And that economic and financial 'expert' was? Oh yes, Gordon Brown.
Even the FSA's own CEO publically stated that the organisation was not fit for purpose and could never have done its job properly from day one.
Interesting that American banks are sueing UK banks for issuing sub-prime mortgages, wasn't it not long ago that the pro-Labour crowd were still pretending poor old Mr Brown had come unstuck because of the nasty American banks? What a joke. Even Darling has now publically accepted Brown's responsibility for the recession and economic crisis, yet Labour supporters are so blinded by the propaganda that they still think he was just hard done by.
Robfm
says...
7:44am Tue 6 Sep 11
Russell Holland came to the forum to be questioned and whilst his answers clearly leave more unanswered questions, he has at least done his best. I do have a number of questions though.
1. I have already asked who this Independent Tenant adviser is.
2. Why would the HA be more able to borrow against the housing stock than SBC.
3. How can the Shadow Board act in an impartial way when they have already stated it is their wish to transfer, as have the Council.
4. Whilst accepting that the pay back of the £145 million is down to the ring fenced account, what is to stop SBC loaning money to the Housing Department secured against the housing stock worth a conservative £1 billion, in the knowledge that there would be at least £9.5 million a year available to pay down the loan, and plenty of equity in the housing stock to raise further monies to undertake refurbishments where appropriate and to also build knew housing.
Finally the point about contractors made earlier is very valid, having looked at the millions paid to SCS, it does seem from the outside that only a minor attempt at competitive tendering ever takes place. The figure paid for the Culvert works outside my pub was to say the least extortionate, it could have easily be done at half the price and twice as quickly.
Russell Holland
says...
8:00am Tue 6 Sep 11
The independent adviser is a firm called DWA.
The Housing Association can borrow more for investment in homes because first of all it will not have to pay the £145million to the Government and second it will be in a better position compared to the Council because the Council will have limits as to how much the Council could borrow. Put really simply the Council would start off with a credit card which is already got a lot on it and with a lower credit limit compared to the Housing Association.
The Council's position is that there are benefits to transfer but it is not running a "yes" campaign. The Council's position is it is up to tenants to decide. When I say the Housing Association is independent, I mean if tenants choose to transfer then it will be a separate organisation from the Council.
If tenants choose to remain with the Council then the Housing Department would remain part of the Council, I do not think it would be possible for the Council to loan to itself. In any event there are limits as to how much the Council can borrow.
Robfm
says...
8:18am Tue 6 Sep 11
I seriously question that the giving away of a £1 billion pounds worth of assets against such a small, in comparative terms, debt is a wise decision even to contemplate at this time of austerity.
It would not be a to harsh thing to say that tenants perhaps should realise upgrading at this time would not be seen by other rate payers as a priority given so many essential services being stripped to the bone.
Having had experience in Cotswolds of the consequences of a transfer and read about them in many other parts of the country, it is my view that tenants would be jumping into the fire from the frying.
pan.
Robfm
says...
8:34am Tue 6 Sep 11
http://www.dwa-housi
ngconsultants.co.uk/
swindon.htm
itsamess
says...
8:53am Tue 6 Sep 11
Do the council have the full accounts
of the housing dept. From the discussions so far and the eagerness
to dispose of what is a statutory duty
to provide social housing it becomes clear the council still has to retain some control. That being so--who pays for that part of the service?
How long for example would it take to make the housing account figures available for inspection by an independent accountant as clearly the figures will show why the council is so desperate to get rid of this part of their service.
Robfm
says...
9:00am Tue 6 Sep 11
ngconsultants.co.uk/
Tenant%20Zone/Swindo
n/2009%20SWINDON%20F
INANCE%20REPORT%20-%
20FINAL%20-%20pdf.pd
f
Perhaps you should read the above economic Impact Assessment undertaken by 'Independet' Auditors commissioned by DWA.
itsamess
says...
9:30am Tue 6 Sep 11
I prefer the full accounts to be examined as this figure of 9.5m ties in
with another item.
Already read the 'commissioned' report.
Robfm
says...
9:39am Tue 6 Sep 11
The conclusion certainly doesn't stack up with the available financial options.
The £9.5 million has been well explained by Prole and not been denied by Russell Holland, so it is fair to conclude that SBC could easily retain the stock, divest itself of the debt, raise the necessary cash, whilst pressing HMG to deliver additional administrative and fiscal support in coming years, against a growing Council House portfolio.
Russell Holland
says...
9:57am Tue 6 Sep 11
Council housings for itself through rents. Council tax is not used for housing. This is really important - it is tenants rents that pay for the update. Tenants rents will be used to pay for the £145million that is why I think they should be able to choose.
Itsamess there comprehensive accounts. I repeat the Council's position is that there are benefits to a transfer but it is up to tenants to decide. My role is providing the information they need.
There are differences between the housing revenue account and the general fund - I cannot really conveniently summarise them here. If you have specific questions feel free to e-mail me.
itsamess
says...
9:58am Tue 6 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
10:06am Tue 6 Sep 11
Russell, I know that the accounts and house funding are separate but the DWA/Moody report states that SBC could change the rules to allow a different approach, it's not set in stone.
So it really is about ideology rather than fiscal prudence. No one in their right mind would sell a billion pounds worth of assets for £66 million to avoid paying £145 million. Unless of course your names Gordon Brown.
Russell Holland
says...
10:18am Tue 6 Sep 11
You are right that there therefore legitimate arguments for or against transfer but I think tenants should choose because we do know that there will be a shortfall over the next 10 years.
Whether the houses are owned by the Council or the Housing Association they will be assets which can be used for the benefit of tenants.
The ideology argument is interesting - given that the houses are for tenants whether they owned by a housing association or the Council does not to me make any difference. So to me the ideological argument is more around whether the state should run everything or not.
itsamess
says...
10:18am Tue 6 Sep 11
I did ask you the specific question as to how soon the housing accounts could be made available for inspection
or is that not simple enough?
It does appear the council is too keen
to offload what should be a valuable
resource--self funding.
Robfm
says...
10:42am Tue 6 Sep 11
How you ask? Well the answer is simply a good percentage of those who live in Council Houses are in receipt of housing and other benefits, do they not come from the General account.
So what I think you are saying is that in the medium terms this would save money but in the long term SBC/Rate payers would make money.
I know I used the analogy before but that is the exact same logic Labour used when selling off the 'family silver' in pursuit of their nanny state ideology.
Given the leaflets subject of this article it is very clear the ruling group are not being impartial at all.
prole
says...
5:13pm Tue 6 Sep 11
More questions left than answers but it is a start to getting a better understanding of the issues.
itsamess
says...
5:45pm Tue 6 Sep 11
Highly unlikely to get the answers here as issues are being raised that have no bearing on the housing issue.
I do mean that bob is confusing the general fund as the councillor stated which is the separate housing and general fund (council). Housing benefit is paid from govt funds rather than council and applies to anyone in need who pays rent.
Personally i do believe the shadow board should have a full breakdown of
the housing depts finances which will show all incomes and outgoings--in otherwords all the details--the true figures. That would prove where wastage exists and by who--greedy contractors etc--overspends on staff.
The HAs could give their views on how
they can reduce costs and everyone would know how much money is made
or is possible to be made.
The usage of benefit claimants is not an issue as that is paid by govt.
Robfm
says...
6:02pm Tue 6 Sep 11
itsamess
says...
7:05pm Tue 6 Sep 11
You misread what the councillor said.
@9.57 he referred to the housing revenue fund and general fund.
As you should already be aware housing benefits are for anyone who pays rent on any property and is a govt benefit.
Russell Holland
says...
9:51pm Tue 6 Sep 11
Bob the point has been made about the general fund and the housing revenue account. It is also important to make the point that people who live in social housing pay Council tax same as everyone else. I don't think whether or not they have benefits is an important factor so far as the transfer vote is concerned because it is their home.
I can only repeat the Council thinks there are benefits for tenants in having a Housing Association - that is why we are going to ballot. But we are not trying to tell tenants how to vote. It is their choice.
I come back to the point that the housing stock is their to be used for the benefit of people who need help with somewhere to live. To the extent that it can be used as an asset in the public interest that will be true whether or not there is a transfer.
itsamess
says...
11:24pm Tue 6 Sep 11
I have taken the time to read your background which is very impressive
and note you have experience in all the relative areas of housing landlords and tenancy etc and a host of others.
You have however ignored the important question as to if the accounts for the housing revenue will be made available--or not.
My view is very simple--i believe the shadow board and the eligible voters
should have all the facts and figures
available in order to see which is the best option--rather than limited claims
the council has forwarded. In other
words in my view a fair ballot could not take place on half the facts.
As i am in london tomorrow on another matter i have forwarded a message requesting advice on this
matter too.
Russell Holland
says...
11:50pm Tue 6 Sep 11
I welcome discussion on this issue and it is really good that we have been able to get down to the detail of what this is really about.
itsamess
says...
12:40am Wed 7 Sep 11
what true income the council gets from housing.
I have listened to all the claims as to why tenants would have to wait for new kitchens etc. Which means very little.
What it is really about is the tenants having all the information as to who will provide the better service and indeed if the council retained the stock could they generate the income to pay off the loading--or debt with ease. How can folk vote on an issue of such importance with only half the facts--
Robfm
says...
6:01am Wed 7 Sep 11
That said the transfer is not in my view either in the tenants or the rate payers interest.
One last question Russell, who legally owns the Houses, is it the rate payers as a whole through SBC.
itsamess
says...
6:43am Wed 7 Sep 11
I will not be speaking to any lawyer as to the actions of the council as i have no idea of anything they have done wrong yet.
What a stupid question--who owns the Council houses.
Robfm
says...
6:48am Wed 7 Sep 11
As for false assumptions, then what was this meant to imply.
'As i am in london tomorrow on another matter i have forwarded a message requesting advice on this
matter too.'
Ergo whoever you are meeting in London you will seek advice from on this housing transfer. That is exactly how it reads.
Anyway it's too early in the day for your silly word games.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
8:04am Wed 7 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
8:19am Wed 7 Sep 11
Russell Holland
says...
9:17am Wed 7 Sep 11
We have had legal advice on the points about the role of the Council during the ballot process which is being finalised I am going to make that available as well.
Agree - this is a good discussion so please let's keep it on the tenants.
The housing stock is owned by Swindon Borough Council.
Robfm
says...
9:28am Wed 7 Sep 11
I would be interested in receiving the various additional financial reports Russell, I have the various consultation documents, obviously you have my email address, thanks.
itsamess
says...
11:07am Thu 8 Sep 11
Apologies for not responding sooner as my meeting overran to the point i have only just left the gentleman who
was to advise me on this issue which resulted in a meeting arranged in oxford tomorrow.
Thank you for the above information.
As you will appreciate i have no political motives and thus my aim is purely as i have said to ensure the shadow board have all the facts as to all the finances involved to enable the board in a simple form both sides of the coin.
Make up of the board can be construed as a political issue-purely on allegations made. From a very brief conversation with the gent i met
he suggests further scrutiny of the 4
independent experts is essential for obvious reasons. The other point being how the tenants will be advised in a simple document in simple terms
the for and against both options.
A final point of issue being if the tenants will have a say on which HA would provide the best service.
Do you have a date for the proposed vote?
Robfm
says...
11:39am Thu 8 Sep 11
itsamess
says...
12:47pm Thu 8 Sep 11
Not at all-i am simply taking advice to ensure the tenants have all the information made available to them to enable them to vote on an issue of
importance to them.
Thus the facts and figures will tell me
all i need to know. If i do find anything--untoward--
i will take the matter up with the appropriate body.
The difference between you and i is
your politically motivated aims to hijack the discussion--whereas i am simply trying to ensure the folk who have to make that decision have all the information on which to base that decision.
If i or an adviser do find anything out of place i will most certainly have the matter raised in the correct place-not on a public comments site as that is likely to prejudice any enquiries.
itsamess
says...
12:55pm Thu 8 Sep 11
is clearly committed to making all relative documents available--to his credit.
Robfm
says...
12:56pm Thu 8 Sep 11
All your secret squirrel stuff is now a legendary bore. Russell because of direct questions has revealed that SBC/rate payers would be better off in the long term following my solution.
So it's no brainer, don't trasfer
itsamess
says...
1:58pm Thu 8 Sep 11
You are basing your claims on wide assumptions despite being told the HA
is entirely independent of the general account--if you have any proof any of the general account is used to support
the HF by all means let everyone know as at this point you are like a headless and legless chicken with no direction. A very amateur politician.
Secret squirrel-- what a lovely phrase.
I have discussed this on a public site
with the councillor dealing with the issue and i have every right to do so.
The only aim for me is to ensure the tenants have all the information.
I do not see the councillor supporting your 'solution' as he has always stated
it is the tenants who decide.
I do not pretend to represent anyone
and would not force my opinion--if i have one on anyone.
Robfm
says...
5:49pm Thu 8 Sep 11
10:18am Tue 6 Sep 11
Bob - if you are asking me if as a result of the self financing system over the very long term Swindon will be better off then the answer is yes. Swindon is better off for being able to keep the £9.5million (and that amount may have increased over the years).'
Russell Holland
says...
6:13pm Thu 8 Sep 11
That is true for the Council or for a Housing Association.
The problem is the £145million debt if there is no transfer. Even with the benefit of keeping the rents there is a shortfall of £72million over 10 years.
So I say let tenants decide what they would like to do.
I gave an update last night on the date of the vote - we are still waiting to hear back from the central government.
itsamess
says...
8:10pm Thu 8 Sep 11
Thats a good one--you know--the councillor supports your solution. Do you mean the solution that has been on the table from day one as has the option to transfer to a HA?
My reading being the factor of the money to be paid back for the debt as being a major issue.
So bobby remember a very important
fact--if for any reason funds have found their way from either account to
the other another scenario comes to bear.
I will leave it there-other than to say you could not have studied the DWA
report very well. Perhaps if you tried
to study more instead of wasting all your efforts in being abusive towards me- you may just learn somehing.
Robfm
says...
7:30am Fri 9 Sep 11
As for a conflict of accounts there would be absolutely nothing wrong in SBC lending the housing account funds, on a normal commercial basis, as they did for Wifi, so more spurious information from the person who want tenants to be informed.
Anyway I am sure Russell will personally contact you with further info, oh that's right he can't you don't do email do you, not secure in your secret squirrel world.
At least we have peace from you for 3 days next week.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
8:23am Fri 9 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
8:57am Fri 9 Sep 11
itsamess
says...
9:51am Fri 9 Sep 11
When you attempt to make yourself
sound smart--you fail. Usually due to
not having the intelligence to think
before you write.
Me-well if anyone from this council makes a claim--the wise thing is to
verify the accuracy.
You are blinded by your politically motivated thoughts and claims that anyone who dares disagree with you
is a liar.
Asking someone that teaches public law and associated subjects and a
former LE auditor is very wise i think.
There again you will very likely add that to your growing number of
qualifications.
itsamess
says...
10:06am Fri 9 Sep 11
Did you know there are very few of the very few elected councillors ukip
have that were actually elected.
Most get elected then switch to ukip--should be banned.
Robfm
says...
10:08am Fri 9 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
10:19am Fri 9 Sep 11
itsamess
says...
11:20am Fri 9 Sep 11
If a candidate is elected on a local council under the banner of one party
and transfers to another party in my view that should not be allowed as clearly the political minded voters will have voted for the party not the person--in that respect they should have to stand down and a by-election called.
Perhaps you should research how many were re-elected at the next vote.
Anyway must pop along to the uni.
Lunch and chat.--Have a good day.
Robfm
says...
11:25am Fri 9 Sep 11
Given you claim to live in Swindon, that's the only place you could 'pop along' too, and I don't think they have onsite dining facilities.
By the way Steve Wakefield was a Tory, then re-elected an Independent and then re-elected a Labour Councillor I do believe.
Russell Holland
says...
4:21pm Fri 9 Sep 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
4:37pm Fri 9 Sep 11
Robfm wrote:Well that would be today then, like most days. So stop lying and pretending to be the thread police.
Punctured I look forward to the day you post on thread, but sadly that won't happen either.
Given you claim to live in Swindon, that's the only place you could 'pop along' too, and I don't think they have onsite dining facilities.
I know you are ten years behind everyone else Robbo but have you not heard of mobile devices?
Robfm
says...
4:59pm Fri 9 Sep 11
I note Walter didn't answer my very reasonable question, as in what is an LE Auditor.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
7:07pm Fri 9 Sep 11
itsamess
says...
10:25pm Fri 9 Sep 11
You do get in a lather when a term is used that you are not familiar with and launch into you usual nonsense--and assumptions. Sorry if you do not understand something--i am not here to explain something to a person who claims so many qualifications and research skills.
Memory is not very good either is it bobby as you appear to have forgotten my primary place of work.
Oxford Brooks does indeed have many
outposts covering a wide range of degree courses with very good standing. As of course does Oxford
university itself. Again that is my business--not yours other than i prefer to talk to the engineer--not the oily rag.
You seem unaware of the wide variety
of secure communication systems and
i most certainly would not disclose my details to you as you are the most abusive and ignorant excuse for a human being i have come across.
The object of this thread is interact
with a councillor on what could be a very important issue which was going well until you decided you are the only fit person to discuss the issue and thus try to throw the thread off track.
itsamess
says...
12:21am Sat 10 Sep 11
As i now have a better understanding
of the legal and financial machinations
in this issue i can only confirm my
interest is solely to ensure the folk eligible to take part in the vote are fully informed of both options in a language that is simple to understand.
I would hope some form of easily accessible independent advisers will be available.
I have no need to form an opinion either way--nor to influence the vote either way. However i do question why the council do seem keen to dispose of such a valuable asset.
I will use this weekend to study some relative documents and if required will take advantage of your offer-or indeed use the direct procedures.
I do apologise for the interuptions to what is an important debate.
Russell Holland
says...
7:25am Sat 10 Sep 11
That article was checked by the independents tenants adviser.
I agree with you that I want people to take part in the vote in an informed way.
So far as I am concerned the reason for the vote is because we have an identified £72million shortfall in our capital investment programme over the next 10 years because of the way in which central government is changing how council housing is finance.
Here are some links that give the background
http://www.communiti
es.gov.uk/documents/
housing/pdf/1955064.
http://www.parliamen
t.uk/briefing-papers
/SN04341
http://www.communiti
es.gov.uk/documents/
housing/pdf/1831498.
http://www.jrf.org.u
k/publications/impac
ts-housing-stock-tra
nsfers-urban-britain
http://ww5.swindon.g
ov.uk/moderngov/mgCo
nvert2PDF.aspx?ID=37
330&J=4
I am still waiting to get all the financial information together there has been a lot of work going on the Offer document at the moment.
Robfm
says...
7:54am Sat 10 Sep 11
As for the LE Auditor comment you merely once again confirm you 'kite fly' and when challenged, use the why should I tell you tack. I asked a genuine question, searching the words used reveals absolutely nothing related to Auditing.
Russell, a £72 million short fall in the short term capital account pales in to insignificance against what the Councils reported shortfall is to be this year.
We have seen what happens when debt is paid down in the short term (Labour Government), there is nothing left for the future.
These houses belong to the rate payers, all the rate payers, a Billion pounds worth of assets will be squandered on the spurious notion that in these times of fiscal constraint tenants may have to wait for upgrades, something we all have to do at times like this Russell.
Frankly that is being used to buy the vote.
itsamess
says...
9:00am Sat 10 Sep 11
Thanks i think i have most of that. I do not find it very readable--which is a point i have made before.
I will contact you as soon as i have studied all i have-and if i need other
documents.
Robfm
says...
9:09am Sat 10 Sep 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
9:27am Sat 10 Sep 11
Russell Holland
says...
9:53am Sat 10 Sep 11
It is complicated - I have done my best to give a fair summary above.
There is also an extensive discussion going on at talkswindon
Bob - I do look forward to ongoing questions - because this is complex the more we talk and more we discuss the more understanding there where different people are coming from and the facts can be clarified.
Robfm
says...
9:58am Sat 10 Sep 11
1. Giving away £1 billion of our assets.
2. Tenants exposed to an inferior service.
The rest is just window dressing because SBC have made up their minds, you and I both know that.
itsamess
says...
11:13am Sat 10 Sep 11
It has to be said you are a complete
hypocrite--aptly pointed out by yourself.
It is you that is purposely attempting to ruin a constructive debate.
Face it--you continuously attempt to discredit numerous councillors as you clearly believe you could do a far better job despite having very low intelligence. Clearly the voting public of swindon have rejected you on several occasions. Your aggressive and abusive demeanor is apparent to all.
There is no advantage to me advising you as to the specific term used for a particular type of auditor other than it
is a mixture of 2 professions.
As for my superior intelligence--you cannot compete with that 100%.
I have the same right as you to raise
any issue with the councillor-however
in my case it is purely to ensure the only legally entitled persons having a vote get readable information as to the options. It appears to me the councillor is committed to that.
You on the other hand are trying to
forward your opinion on political issues--and without all the information. If you believe there is anything untoward with the process you should use the correct procedures
backed up with facts that support your claim. Do remember--you are no more than a common citizen of this town--as i am--but i simply want the folk who have this vote are fully and simply informed if the options
open to them.
Councillor Holland was clearly chosen
for his experience in all the areas of
this dept with a good degree and legal
experience.
Now do get it out of your head that you are an important part of the community as you have failed in every attempt to become a borough councillor.
itsamess
says...
11:49am Sat 10 Sep 11
Sorry i was reading and trying to write at the same time which delayed my last post.
I cannot realistically see any point in
my further debate on this thread as bob is determined to turn it into a farce. I will complete my study of the documents i have--some of which have been sourced through other channels.
I am considering having a booklet made up of all the clarified facts-meaning the 2 options the tenants have to decide--at my expense--but drawn up jointly by a very experienced public advocate and an
experienced accountant. To be delivered to all council tenants. I would assume a public register will be available-redacted to conform to
HR law. Could you advise as to any objections.
Robfm
says...
4:48pm Sat 10 Sep 11
If Russell didn't think you were a bit of a nutter before hand, he probably does now.
By the way Walter nothing farcical about want tenants or rate payers ripped off. I have stated the only facts that really matter.
Robfm
says...
4:58pm Sat 10 Sep 11
Russell Holland
says...
5:05pm Sat 10 Sep 11
I really think some people may like to post but don't want to because they see personal disagreements being played out.
Itsamess just to clarify the Council does have the independent tenants adviser (who have access to their own expertise) which checks everything out. All of the key points will be set out in the offer document. While you are welcome to go through all the paperwork yourself, that will be a big undertaking, so you may like to wait until the offer document is ready. Because so much work is going in on the offer document it may take me a bit of time to collate the documents. You can e-mail me anytime.
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
6:41pm Sat 10 Sep 11
You pretend to be acting in the interest of social housing users but you are here for nothing more than to be abusive, belligerant and to raise your own profile. Well you have failed and although I didn't think your reputation could get any lower you have well and truly buried it with this wicked farrago of disrespect.
I just hope people who really matter are not put off from joining in future debates by your disgraceful, self-serving malevolence of other commenters.
itsamess
says...
10:48pm Sat 10 Sep 11
Once again you show a total lack of
basic knowledge of council matters. Council owned properties do have to be listed as assets. There is no requirement for the council to disclose
tenant details. Royal mail i feel sure
would be happy to handle the bulk
mail operation--if that was neccesary.
Councillor Holland in my view does
appear to have thought these matters out very carefully-specifical
ly
to ensure the tenants are fully aware
of their right to vote--and to collate all
the relevant information.
How do you reach a conclusion that
either the tenants or the ratepayers
could be ripped off as the housing account is a singular account freestanding and therefore not supported by the general account or is
that too difficulf for you to understand
I welcome any evidence or point of fact you rely on to make such a claim as to the rip off you speak of.
Are you saying a fully democratic vote
by the tenants creates this so called rip off? No bobby you are simply saying that the tenants should take your advice--very biassed advice.
In fact there is quite an element of risk to both the options by the factor of the right to buy scheme-in the unlikely event all the tenants used that right--where would that leave your valuation?
Finally i re-itterate an LE Auditor is a person trained in 2 different skills-very specific skills.
itsamess
says...
12:15am Sun 11 Sep 11
Thank you for your information. I will wade through what i already have.
I generally use skype for communication as that prevents any unwanted contacts and allows live conversation or conference with others.
As you realise this debate is being driven off its aim-which is purely to
allow the tenants to have all the information in order to make their choice. I agree it is wiser to continue
through a different media with no such interference much as i prefer the discussion to be open to all.
Russell Holland
says...
8:49am Sun 11 Sep 11
Robfm
says...
10:16am Sun 11 Sep 11
As for Skpe being secure dream on Walter.
Back to housing so a billion pounds worth of assets should be sold for £66 million. I'm glad you are as fiscally aware as the Council seems to be Walter when it comes to rate payers money.
I 2 Could B
says...
10:21am Sun 11 Sep 11
A.Baron-Cohen says...
10:14am Mon 5 Sep 11
Councillors left and right use Democracy as a political tool...but when it comes to the crunch none are ready for it!