Shelter Scotland are urging the Scottish Executive to abolish the right to buy.
The reasons are ostensibly understandable - there is a shortage of affordable homes to rent. Their thinking, however, is flawed: retaining a sitting tenant (by preventing them from buying) does not create a new home or shorten the waiting list.
Allowing a council house to be bought, does not make it disappear from overall stock. The occupants who, up to the time of purchasing, are council tenants, become home owner occupiers; owners indeed, of a house bought affordably. The Right to Buy is truly an affordable home purchase scheme. Well done Mrs Thatcher.
Some reforms are necessary. For example, all revenues raised should have to be used to support further access to affordable homes. The best way, I believe, would be to turn the revenue into grants to those on the waiting lists, towards deposits for new homes - in other words, used to subsidise purchase, making purchase more affordable. A variety of ways could be devised.
Let's stop knocking a policy that has achieved a high home ownership ratio - an advance from the time when Scotland had fewer home owners proportionately than then communist East Germany.
Showing posts with label Leuchars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leuchars. Show all posts
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Monday, 23 January 2012
Battle for British Unity
It is time that people realise that the Battle for British unity will be fought in Scotland.
The future of the United Kingdom will be decided right here, in Scotland. This is the political battleground. The attack on the UK began when a Labour Government and Donald Dewar created the Scottish Parliament. That was the equivalent of offering the SNP a beachhead and Alex Salmond has long since secured it.
The SNP have carried out political guerrilla raids, creating as many divides as possible, giving away freebies here to cause disgruntlement in England. The Scottish Parliament has been the battlefield tank forcing divides over student fees, prescription charges, and so called free home care. Even Tories in Holyrood have succumbed to the momentum, believing somehow that more autonomous power will mend the widening gap.
The shockwaves are now rippling to the surface, discombobulating the English, many of whom are now reacting exactly as Salmond wishes. We now see the predictable reaction which Salmond wanted as formerly sober minds in England call for an English Parliament.
They would rue it - we all will.
Already, in Scotland, MPs and the proper Parliament are being alienated from the electorate.
Very few people ever go to see an MP about a reserved powers issue - people need to see their highest elected representatives about more domestic concerns: housing, hospitals, pharmacies or schools threatened with closure, vandalism, crime rates and police numbers, yes, even dog dirt. In Scotland, this means that MSPs have the better interface with the electorate while our Scottish MPs become aloof, are channelled towards weighty national and international issues.
These are vital issues but the interaction of Westminster MPs and British subjects in Scotland, and Wales, is waning; the domestic issues that keep MPs in touch, which keep their feet on the ground, are no longer there in Scotland.
The same happening in England as well, will make the UK government increasingly remote from the people. The "assemblies" will become the focus and the Union will erode; that is why I say we must not replicate the error of the devolved bodies as constituted.
UKIP has a firm and sensible policy on this: the electorate should elect one MP for their constituency and that MP should be in Westminster most of the time and in the devolved more local parliament for the remainder.
The devolved body, the Scottish Parliament here, would continue as it is, but devoid of MSPs. In England, when Welsh and Scottish MPs are at work in their devolved home, English MPs would deal with England’s devolved issues. That means both UK national and domestic roles remained linked, through MPs who will keep a direct interface with the electorate and, exactly what is needed, excessive government is cut with fewer politicians overall with time on their hands to think of ways to rule us.
UK party leaders must not be tempted to balance the books by adding more overloaded assemblies to the mix - trim out instead - and engage the UK's number 1 enemy, Salmond, here, in the beachhead which he has established in Scotland
The future of the United Kingdom will be decided right here, in Scotland. This is the political battleground. The attack on the UK began when a Labour Government and Donald Dewar created the Scottish Parliament. That was the equivalent of offering the SNP a beachhead and Alex Salmond has long since secured it.
The SNP have carried out political guerrilla raids, creating as many divides as possible, giving away freebies here to cause disgruntlement in England. The Scottish Parliament has been the battlefield tank forcing divides over student fees, prescription charges, and so called free home care. Even Tories in Holyrood have succumbed to the momentum, believing somehow that more autonomous power will mend the widening gap.
The shockwaves are now rippling to the surface, discombobulating the English, many of whom are now reacting exactly as Salmond wishes. We now see the predictable reaction which Salmond wanted as formerly sober minds in England call for an English Parliament.
They would rue it - we all will.
Already, in Scotland, MPs and the proper Parliament are being alienated from the electorate.
Very few people ever go to see an MP about a reserved powers issue - people need to see their highest elected representatives about more domestic concerns: housing, hospitals, pharmacies or schools threatened with closure, vandalism, crime rates and police numbers, yes, even dog dirt. In Scotland, this means that MSPs have the better interface with the electorate while our Scottish MPs become aloof, are channelled towards weighty national and international issues.
These are vital issues but the interaction of Westminster MPs and British subjects in Scotland, and Wales, is waning; the domestic issues that keep MPs in touch, which keep their feet on the ground, are no longer there in Scotland.
The same happening in England as well, will make the UK government increasingly remote from the people. The "assemblies" will become the focus and the Union will erode; that is why I say we must not replicate the error of the devolved bodies as constituted.
UKIP has a firm and sensible policy on this: the electorate should elect one MP for their constituency and that MP should be in Westminster most of the time and in the devolved more local parliament for the remainder.
The devolved body, the Scottish Parliament here, would continue as it is, but devoid of MSPs. In England, when Welsh and Scottish MPs are at work in their devolved home, English MPs would deal with England’s devolved issues. That means both UK national and domestic roles remained linked, through MPs who will keep a direct interface with the electorate and, exactly what is needed, excessive government is cut with fewer politicians overall with time on their hands to think of ways to rule us.
UK party leaders must not be tempted to balance the books by adding more overloaded assemblies to the mix - trim out instead - and engage the UK's number 1 enemy, Salmond, here, in the beachhead which he has established in Scotland
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Fife Council - Pick a School - but only the one we allow....
Mike Scott-Hayward, UKIP councillor, has declared that Fife Council is now seen BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC as being guilty of using guesswork to determine public opinion, and technological flannel to circumvent consultation.
"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.
"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.
"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.
"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.
"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"
Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.
"It's a mess"
"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.
"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.
"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.
"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.
"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"
Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.
"It's a mess"
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
RAF Leuchars closure and UK's Defences
Whilst the impact on St Andrews matters locally, the economic implications will be balanced by the use of the base by the army.
The real implications of what the Cameron and Clegg Government, however, is doing is unforgiveable.
From the time he first came forward to lead the Conservatives, in a contest against David Davies, Cameron dismayed me - he showed then in answers to questions about restoring our traditional regiments, that he has a poor grasp of the overall value of the Armed Forces. It is one reason why I left the Conservatives and joined UKIP.
Other politicians have been parochially vigorous but have not put their careers on the line in the defence of the Armed Services overall. This base closure is just another drastic step in a disastrous chain of events which MPS have sat and watched - indeed, condoned.
Coupled with the concept of building aircraftless aircraft carriers, scrapping ships and reducing the Britsih Army to the point where they couldn't fill Wembley Stadium, this new round of cuts puts us in a position now where we will not be able properly to defend the interests and safety of Britons. The Coalition clearly believes our future role is to play a second fiddle within a European Union Force. Holding on to the nuclear deterrent is all that will gives us credibility within that Force. Balance has gone - the impact is greater than any local disruption we may see North East Fife in the base changing from the RAF to the Army. Folk need to look at policies in future and not have simple pavlovian responses when we have the chance to influence, or choose, future governments.
The real implications of what the Cameron and Clegg Government, however, is doing is unforgiveable.
From the time he first came forward to lead the Conservatives, in a contest against David Davies, Cameron dismayed me - he showed then in answers to questions about restoring our traditional regiments, that he has a poor grasp of the overall value of the Armed Forces. It is one reason why I left the Conservatives and joined UKIP.
Other politicians have been parochially vigorous but have not put their careers on the line in the defence of the Armed Services overall. This base closure is just another drastic step in a disastrous chain of events which MPS have sat and watched - indeed, condoned.
Coupled with the concept of building aircraftless aircraft carriers, scrapping ships and reducing the Britsih Army to the point where they couldn't fill Wembley Stadium, this new round of cuts puts us in a position now where we will not be able properly to defend the interests and safety of Britons. The Coalition clearly believes our future role is to play a second fiddle within a European Union Force. Holding on to the nuclear deterrent is all that will gives us credibility within that Force. Balance has gone - the impact is greater than any local disruption we may see North East Fife in the base changing from the RAF to the Army. Folk need to look at policies in future and not have simple pavlovian responses when we have the chance to influence, or choose, future governments.
Tuesday, 5 July 2011
Fife Health Board Experiment going wrong........
It is time to question the value of the elected local Health Board being piloted in Fife.
The Health Board is in charge of NHS Fife - with half its members being elected. This is a move designed to make the Board more accountable to users, more democratic and in tune with local need.
Well, that is falling apart, as far as I am concerned. I have watched in disbelief as the Board has jiggled pharmacy services in Leuchars and Balmullo, going from bad to worse. In an exercise which now seems to me to have been designed to kick the issue into long grass, the Board set up a special sub committee to examine and resolve the question of who gets what pharmacy in this rural part of Fife.
Two appointed board members were joined by two elected members, none of whom, I understand, represents East Fife, to make the important decision to either allow the GPs in Balmullo to have a pharmacy, or not.
The vote against the local plans, supported by the local people, was 3 to 1 against local needs. I don't call that a system designed to represent local views.
UKIP has a policy whereby this is exactly the sort of issue that should be decided by a local referendum - especially where a so-called local board is seen to be biased against local views.
The Health Board is in charge of NHS Fife - with half its members being elected. This is a move designed to make the Board more accountable to users, more democratic and in tune with local need.
Well, that is falling apart, as far as I am concerned. I have watched in disbelief as the Board has jiggled pharmacy services in Leuchars and Balmullo, going from bad to worse. In an exercise which now seems to me to have been designed to kick the issue into long grass, the Board set up a special sub committee to examine and resolve the question of who gets what pharmacy in this rural part of Fife.
Two appointed board members were joined by two elected members, none of whom, I understand, represents East Fife, to make the important decision to either allow the GPs in Balmullo to have a pharmacy, or not.
The vote against the local plans, supported by the local people, was 3 to 1 against local needs. I don't call that a system designed to represent local views.
UKIP has a policy whereby this is exactly the sort of issue that should be decided by a local referendum - especially where a so-called local board is seen to be biased against local views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)