Forum Topic

PaulMy suspicion is that David is referring to the Scrutiny Panel meeting.  At that meeting the Chair of Hounslow Homes made some detrimental remarks about Ivybridge residents and one of those residents, who is also a member of the ICG, lost his rag and stormed out muttering sundry expletives in a stern Belfast accent.He was wrong to do this of course, but in his defence he was subjected to provocation which he should not, as a Hounslow Homes tenant, have been subjected to by his own landlord.David's comment about me being "asked several times to control him" is yet another figment of his over-active imagination, I'm afraid, because once the resident had left - and bear in mind this "incident" lasted for all of ten seconds from start to finish - there was nobody left behind to control.I am also at a loss to understand why David thinks I was "leading" the Panel.  It was an ordinary meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, chaired by Councillor Andrew Morgan-Watts, and I was simply giving evidence in the usual way.One bit of mischief I do confess to - when posed a question by Councillor Jiwan Virk I told him I didn't understand it and implored him to elaborate and tell me what he meant.  He couldn't, for the very simple reason that he had been handed the question on a slip of paper by Mr. Langstaff and didn't understand it himself!As David has declared himself to be a champion of the right of participation for all our tenants I am at a loss to understand the basis for his rant, or his references to "political posturing".  The reason the matter spent so long before Scrutiny, at the public's expense, was because of the vociferous objections of his cronies to my efforts to bring this about.  It was they, not I, who were responsible for wasting public money.There's nowt as queer as folk, as they say in A-u-L.

Phil Andrews ● 6444d

Simon I can only hope that will happen..it will need a lot of good will on both sides to make it work..the problem will still lie in the fact that the ICG political group still needs to control the residents groups in order for them to survive by creating a grievance the problem now is that they will in effect be complaining about themselves because they are in charge..my impression now is that the Loacata review is not much more than a political rally for the ICG payed for by the Tax payer..if we look a little closer what do we see demos organised by the ICG who sits on the review The ICG who reports to the committee trying to give the Hounslow Homes view and council view ICG you can not be on all sides of the fence and any conclusion has already been writen its dis-honest and hoping to drag others into this meeting in order to lend it legitamasy well what can I say.Simon if you had attened the many meetings that have been held with the full partnership of Housing remit these questions are allways been asked and changes to policy being put forward...if part of the problem's you had would of been known at the time then that would of been put a stop to at once. This over the visits in groups to view properties.Last year only 75 properties became availble in Hounslow for a list of over 10.000 even with Phils claim of 35 new properties the the numbers dont add up..its dis-honest to build up the hope's of those on locata that somehow the ICG battle cry of sorting out Locata will provide all those people with change the only thing thats happening is the ICG yet again are miss-leading people for political gain..they know the facts but you can get people to believe just as they did in Ivybridge that some how they will sort of the woes but in reality nothing has changed,Yes you could scrap Locata but what would you replace it with..would we go back to the points system which everyone from every party hated, I know all about the old points system when I use to be Council Tenant again the reality is you will never get enought points, you would have to have a family of 30 in the top floor of a block of flats in order to get a 2 room flat downstairs then find your next door neigbour had 31 kids and the years of child rearing had put her in a wheelchair. All this makes perfect reading for the daily mail reader who will be the first to jump up and down and blame imigration..It seems to be part of human nature to have a scapegoat...

Dave Hughes ● 6444d

DaveThis would appear to be a mixture of useful information and silly posturing.  A bit of a regression from the standard which your more recent posts would appear at last to have attained but, like the proverbial Curate's Egg, good in parts.We understand the rules of coalition.  If the Conservatives were to attain 30+ seats at the London Borough of Hounslow they would form an administration in their own right and the coalition would become history.  There's nothing sinister about that, that is the way democracy works.I see no reason why I should ever feel the need to "cross swords" with myself over Housing policy.  There have been compromises, such as the introduction of a contractual RTB on the New Build, but that is the nature of coalition.  There was opposition from some to the concept of New Build, but it was carried through Executive and in order for that to happen, on an Executive with eight Conservatives and two ICG members, some Conservative support for it was obviously forthcoming.  Do the maths.The fact is that we have proceeded with New Build and have done so enthusiastically.  Under the last administration it was simply talk.  So your continued implication that I am opposed to social housing and want to privatise housing stock is quite demonstrably so much nonsense.If you can't be honest about this, why should I trust your (on the surface of it) very reasonable protestations that you support the concept of democracy within our tenants' movement?  The surviving Councillor Hughes was certainly one of my more vociferous opponents at Scrutiny when I was trying to set this in place, dutifully asking questions handed to her on slips of paper by Mr. Langstaff.  And that's without even mentioning the disappearing tenants' surveys...

Phil Andrews ● 6444d

Yes as hard as it might seem Chris Langstaff was already putting to motion what we where trying to with Hounslow Homes I know this is another hated word but Haftra was very involved more often than not Haftra helping to lead the way forward..taking on new homes started with the developments in Feltham however the problem has allways been one where as I have said needs to compete on a level playing field the problem is trying to ring fence the property so that we do not loose any more homes..what most other Councils did was to move the homes on to a H.A, in Housnslow the tenanats did not want change from being council tenants as they would loose security of Tenure as well as still being left with trying to bring the homes up to decent standards with out the money..Hounslow Homes was one way around this and it was hoped by proving that the council could be responcible and could be trusted in manageing homes that we could bring about that level playing field..A couple of years ago I went to now stop choking when I say Labour Conferance to tackle Lord Rooker on this issue who at the time was the main minister for Housing at the time. what we got was the Blue Skies agreement because he gave up trying to convince people that he was right..The Blue skies agreement was a fresh look at housing but it really never gave the Tenanat movement any real options to move forward, some of the problem is around the part of the Housing movement being stuck in the 70s and wishing for a reversal in the Tory housing act as you know thats just not going to happen simply put and as the Tories have made quiet clear you reverse we will re-implement it.Its not the first time I have tackled misisters, I did a hell of a lot work in the era of The Housing Action Trusts something Cllr Lee still admires which was a discredited policy which would of meant the whole sale sell of of all council housing to any landlord and I mean any landlord.Now getting back to the issue, Haftra has been helping to drive that change by being part of the partnership and its not been an easy ride for them as they have to take the views from all the tenanats groups and represent them to the board as well as conversly taken back the views of Hounslow Homes to the tenants..We can only hope that the new change and policy development which is now going on in Central Goverment is finally going to let Hounslow Homes fully develop...now you can stamp your feet and jump up and down and play ego game's or you can do what is required for the good of the Tenants and activly lead that change which in effect is going to lead you to cross swords with the admistration over policy and like any political party that has gone before when in leadership you have to take the responciblity which also means you have to take ownership for some of the things you may not like. you can not sit on both side's of the fence and pick and choose. For all your bluff the ICG are not that big a group the Tories if they gain more seats will kick you out on to the streets as soon as..at the moment you are convienient in keeping them in control thats all..I hear stirings this week of discontent but I will wait for the papers to arrive....remeber you are not the only independents we could yet see you ousted.

Dave Hughes ● 6444d

DavidThat was such an intelligent and sensible posting that instinctively I find myself wondering whether somebody else has logged into your account.  If it was indeed you then might I suggest that you aspire to the same high standard whenever you venture to share your wisdom with us in the future?There are a lot of people in my community who would agree with you.  Isleworth ward has, I believe, proportionately more local authority housing than any other in the borough.  Both as Lead Member and as a ward councillor I am acutely aware of the extent of the crisis which we are faced with in this borough.Your party's political achievement has been to divide that community against itself, with the larger part of it having turned its back on you.  The consequence of this has been six lost seats and with it control of the council.  For some peculiar reason you and yours apparently view this as cause for self-congratulation.If only you could see beyond your desire to regulate, infiltrate and control communities you might, as another poster has already stated on another thread, have been in a better position to have continued the good work which you seem to believe that your administration did.  But it is not for me to give your party advice - let's face it, you wouldn't heed it anyway - so let's just leave that there for now.David, you will remember your outburst on this forum on the subject of the Hounslow Homes Management Agreement Review, which I conducted last year.  My real agenda, you told us, was to steer the Review towards the conclusion that we should sell off all our housing stock.  Even Councillor John Connelly told you at the time that there was nothing about my Review to suggest that I would do this, but you persisted with your wild and unsubstantiated claim regardless.It is now a matter of historical record that the Review concluded with a recommendation to continue the Management Agreement with Hounslow Homes for a further five years.  My agenda, insofar as I had one, related solely to the issue of Tenant Participation.  I had resolved from the day that I took on the Housing portfolio that I would introduce the principle of a right of participation for all our tenants, irrespective of political views or affiliation.  It was what the ICG was created to do in the very first instance, back in 1994.This (to most people) self-evidently reasonable aspiration was bitterly opposed by members and supporters of your party on the council, within HFTRA and at all levels within Hounslow Homes.  The ferocity, not to mention the characteristic underhandedness, with which the campaign to derail the Review was conducted did, for a short while, come as something of a surprise.  You fought as though everything you owned and stood for depended on it, which of course in a way it did.But guess what?  At the end of it all, when the smoke had cleared, I had achieved my objective.  Those who couldn't live with it had voted with their feet and we now have a good working relationship between company (under new management) and council, with the company quite rightly operating at arm's length and without undue interference, but within the strategic direction offered to them by me as Lead Member.  No mean achievement for an idiot, don't you think David?The question which I still grapple with, however, is whether you really believed that I wanted to sell off our housing stock, or whether this was simply a distraction tactic because you knew you couldn't generate any sympathy by crying foul over my efforts to bring democracy to our tenants' movement.  Maybe you will enlighten us now that it is all done with?The only circumstances in which I would ever consider transferring the management of our housing stock would be if the relationship between the council and the ALMO broke down to such an extent that we could not work together.  This was indeed a possibility under the old management and perhaps this is what you were driving at at the time - using your political influence to ensure a breakdown in the relationship and thereby deliberately creating the very situation which you were warning of.  I believe your party in its current guise is perfectly capable of trying this.But you miscalculated.  Had we been minded to terminate the Agreement with Hounslow Homes my advice would have been not to sell off the stock, but to bring it back in-house.Now let's move on to the subject of New Build.  Well, six bids were approved by the then London Housing Board last year and no fewer than three of them were made by the London Borough of Hounslow.  Once we had received approval I recommended three New Build projects to the Executive and all three were approved.  Another achievement by the idiot. So David, whatever you may say to the contrary the fact is that Tory/ICG Hounslow will not only be building more local authority housing than your administration managed in 35 years (not through your own choice, I grant you), but also more than any other council in London.  We also have the Extensions and Adaptations programme, not to mention the family-sized dwellings which we rescued from your friends at Co-Op Homes.I believe in social housing.  I don't believe that any local authority in London, whoever runs it, can do enough to fully address its housing problems, but we are demonstrably doing more about trying than your administration ever did.Let's hope that when and if you ever come to form another administration in Hounslow, you will this time devote less energy to trying to control our tenants and more to trying to house them.

Phil Andrews ● 6445d

The reason why the council cant build houses anymore Simon is in the days where Councils could they had to borrow money in order to build estates and buy land, this all goes back to 60s 70s the hayday of Council building, this was put to an end with a number of Housing Acts instigated by the then tory goverment which lead to the Sale of council Homes and the infamous HAT law, with the sale of council a house the councils where never given the money back even if they had to pay the loans on which the money was raised in the first place, this money was held by the goverment, when councils complained they could not afford the repairs to the homes the goverment refused to give money to the councils to do the repairs, the last council house to be built in the uk was in Manchester I think in 1983 near Bevin House..named after a great leader of this country..with the mass sales it became clear that a council just could not afford or be able to justify the expenditure if at the end of the day the house was sold off at less than what it cost to build..nobody could justify this and watch as somebody makes a proffit when they sold the House and in London huge profits from the tax-payer.The H.As however where later to be given more money to build but not enought to replace the council builds, the only way the council could provide new homes was by working in partnerships this would in some way when the estate was built be able to move some of the housing list into new homes.Now a number of estates across the country needed a bit more than a new kitchen and the only way to provide regenatration of an area was again this type of partnerships.I hope this explains a little Simon, because its a subject you can write many books on, I should know having been on many a documentry over the years.

Dave Hughes ● 6445d

Simon the Tories have no intension of building new council house's they do not believe in Social Housing evan if we have a 60.000 strong waiting list and only 700 hundred properties a year availble the council in effect has stoped being the the social provider of housing, not even the the housing associations are going to provide the houses needed as they are under threat of their houses sold off..Hounslow Homes needs to be able to compete on a level playing field with the Housing Asso if has any chance of survival, there is a point at which Hounslow Homes becomes un-viable to continue if it does not have enought homes..Now how many times have you seen the Tories and its on web-cast as well cheering the sales of Council homes well whoopee do dah every one lost and not replaced means you have less chance of being re-housed.Add to this mixture the fact Hounslow Homes needs to be able to expand and take on Management of other authority housing in order to provide funds into Hounslow Home's to continue...the problem being you have a total idiot now who is lead member for housing blindly doing what the tories want which is the destruction of the Social Housing provision in Hounslow could you put a bid together knowing that other authorities know you have this idiot in charge. On to top of that  this idiot needs if he really cares about housing to be moving the debate forward that Hounslow Homes should be able to compete against Housing Assoc for money from the Housing Corporation and from central goverment...So where does that leave someone like you...you have to see the bigger picture..all the council is left with is homes that are too small and that nobody wants to buy all the properties of any size have been sold off long ago..the Housing Association properties have there own lists the only time the council gets a say in allocation is when deals are done to demolish estates and are replace with H.A housing this is only for a limited period...Get real Simon wake up....

Dave Hughes ● 6445d

No Gloat intended just as much as I do not know what you are on about..It was tended more as fact finding mission as it would seem that Mr Anderson has returned to the fold...the only reason one could point to such an about turn is that Cllr Fisher Cllr Bowen and yourself have been involved in queue jumping the housing list since the housing list is 60.000 strong 10.000 active people looking on locata and only 700 hundred properties available in a year something has got to give...I have no problem with Clrs fact finding for the constituent or helping them to be accessed for the right band if they have not made known circumstances that the housing dept is unaware of..That is all part of Cllrs role and if its on these grounds then you will have done a good job..However what seems to be the case someone who was regarded as one of your leading lights at one time or another suddenly brings his case on to these forums which maybe stupid on his part and yes I will say would be difficult on your part as a Cllr to deal with as a conflict of interest.......What we are then treated to was an outpouring from Mr. Andreson on why cant Locata be changed so that in essence people who are local and white get the houses...We then have Bowen in the local press with his promise of change for local people to get the Housing.We then have locata at Scrutiny who is on this committee Cllr Fisher we then have Bowen and Andrews who at some point will be putting in their view as Housing is there portfolios.....Who seems to be the ones involved in the locacta marches none other than the ICG....I think running with the foxes and hounds springs to mind...We also have a housing officer who seems to be in racist agreement about who gets the houses however I do not know if this person works for Hounslow or was using a false name..I hope this is just circumstantial and what I hope not to happen is that you are opening Pandora’s Box which you have every racist in Hounslow coming to your cause while at the same time offering your plausible denial as you so often do on these forums.

Dave Hughes ● 6446d

Posted by: Dave HughesDate/Time: 29/11/07 17:57:00Before trying to judge other's you may need to look at yourself first i.e locata thread unless that was another ego massage for Phill to fake his credentials, the amazing thing about that thread was the fact a housing officer was blatently expousing racist views, but did Phill do any thing NO...FIRSTLY I KNOW WHAT I STATED IN THE LOCATA POSTINGS AND I STAND BY THOSE VIEWS..AND THOUGH PHIL DID NOT TAKE ON MY CASE ISSUES CLLR PAUL FISHER AND CLLR BOWEN DID...I DONT HAVE TO GIVE PHIL A EGO NOR WILL I DO..I WAS POINTING OUT THE NF BUISNESS IS OLD AND BORING AND IF PHIL IS A RACIST THEN I AM PRINCE ANDREW...I am not going harp on at you as it seems his masters voice will be calling you to heel soon.This has nothing to do with the Labour party just because I vote Labour does not mean I speak for labour.PHIL IS NOT MY MASTER, NEVER HAS BEEN NOR EVER WOULD BE, I SOMETIMES DISAGREE WITH HIM AND AGREE ON THINGS LIKE I DO WITH ANY POLITICIAN FROM ANY GROUP.Am I putting myself up for election NO for the last time.Has Phil Andrews yet once answered any question on policy or defended the policies he is voting for NO....How can a Community group vote for the destruction of Community service's and Jobs and think the population just want to adore Phil, politics does not work on willy waving and other pathetic gestures but on what you do for your Community and so far following over 100 threads from Phil nothing of how he has a vision for Hounslow only the pathetic whine of needing reasurance from the Mass-Debaters on this forum ever ready to knock one out for Phil.DAVE WHY DONT YOU ADMIT YOU WERE BEHIND THE FAKE POSTER ON HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO ATTACKING PHIL AND STATING HE USED ME AND I SHOULD BE ON THE NEW R.A AS I DID ALL THE WORK SEE WE BOTH KNOW IT WAS YOU...WINK WINK

Simon Anderson ● 6449d

Hi Alan, how nice to have you back.You've been quiet for so long that I thought you had taken stock of your life and left the New Labour Party.  All that spinning, scheming, telling fibs on the doorsteps and frightening people must inevitably take its toll on the conscience of a basically decent bloke like yourself sooner or later.I am surprised that as a confirmed politico you need to ask about The Green Book.  It is a small pocket book (coloured green, surprisingly) outlining the political thoughts of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qathafi - Colonel Gaddafi to some.As it is theory it is actually quite benign, if probably naive.  It rejects the philosophies of capitalism and communism and advocates a system of government of popular committees involving residential communities and trades unions.  It is not dissimilar in parts to workers' co-operativism.Of course the practice is usually different to the theory, and whether Gaddafi's Libya has actually followed the path laid out in the book is a matter of opinion.  Most people's opinion, I would imagine (including mine), would be that it hasn't.  Libya is widely believed to have been a sponsor of terrorist groups around the world, although it seems to want to come in from the cold these days.I first read the book in about 1984 and was impressed by it.  It didn't take much to impress me when I was 22.  I became an advocate for it within the National Front and was pleased when my then comrades came round to adopting it as a basis for their own policy a few years later.  Some of them did so with sincerity, others because they were tempted by the prospect of some easy Libyan dosh (which was never forthcoming incidentally, although the NF did take ownership of about sixteen hundredweight of virtually unsellable Green Books).The idea of rule by the people is one which I carried over from my days with the far-right, but in a far more moderate and practical form.  The mischievous and unscrupulous (okay let's call the beast by its name - the New Labour Party) will look for some mileage out of a statement like that, but I have never veered from the belief that communities, and people, should be the masters of their own destinies as far as is practically achievable.  The fact that Colonel Gadaffi professed to believe in something along the same lines does not by itself make it wrong.  At different times all of the major political parties in the UK have courted ideas not dissimilar (I believe Tony Blair at one stage was an advocate of Citizens' Juries).  Of all of them though, in my view, New Labour is the furthest away from putting it into practice.Contrary to what I managed to convince myself in the 1980s it is how post-revolution Libya turned out, not the theory, which placed Gadaffi and Libya beyond the pale where most other governments were concerned.Interestingly (for some I guess), whilst in the NF in 1988/89 I donated a copy of the book to Hounslow Council to be placed in the local library.  I was warned as I did so that Hounslow would not accept any book which advocated either racism or terrorism.  Having read the book, to my surprise, it was accepted by the censor and placed in the library at the Treaty Centre.  It might even still be there for all I know.So there you are Alan,  I have saved you a trip to Southampton.  If you want to know anything more about my misguided youth to stick on your leaflets with the date obscured, please don't hesitate to ask.

Phil Andrews ● 6450d

"Or maybe you would like to answer why you as an excutive member posted links to EXTREME NAZI WEB SITES on with these forum  pages in your rant on search light.Or was it again just how you where trying lead people to these sites but of course you dont except responciblity for that."Actually I have answered this, in a posting which I made at 23:22:00 on 18/11/07on the thread entitled "Anybody else noticed the 44 million missing in the Council pension".  For  convenience I reproduce it below.Obviously it wasn't the response David wanted to hear, so he'll be on here again later today or tomorrow repeating the claim that I have not responded to his allegation.Sarah, please don't be asking David for the weather forecast.  He could give you yesterday's and still get it wrong. ========================================================== ==========================================================Posted on 18/11/07 at 23:22:00:I apologise in advance for diverting what has become a sensible discussion on the issue at hand - the Council's pension fund - but David's allegation that I "tried to get people to visit extreme right wing web-sites" intrigued me so much that I felt obligated to revisit the posting in question just to satisfy myself that there was no truth in it.When David made the accusation I had presumed it was simply another untruth of the kind for which he has already made something of a reputation for himself, such as the "Paul Fisher claimed he'd never met Sarbjit Gill" fib, and the equally false allegation that I had made references to people being "red commies".I was surprised and disappointed therefore to discover that there was a tiny element of truth to this latest claim, inasfar as one of the three websites which I directed visitors to does indeed seem to be linked to some kind of right-wing site (organisation unspecified), although the specific link I gave was to an advertisement for a book by Larry O'Hara, who is a green anarchist and an outspoken anti-fascist.The other two "extreme right-wing sites" to which David refers belonged in fact to Anti-Fascist Action and a "liberatarian communist" organisation called Libcom.Anybody who is interested can see the post in question, which was made at 01:24:00 on 10/07/06 under the thread "Today's Chronicle: local Labour Party stoops to lower levels", and judge for themselves whether my purpose was, as David implies, to trick people into visiting extreme right-wing sites.When I posted the link to the O'Hara article I was unaware that it linked to any other site (I found all three articles via Google and had not previously had any knowledge of any of them). Needless to say it was never my intention to direct anybody to a site which had connections to any extreme right-wing organisation, however I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to anybody who may have visited the site and followed the link to the homepage.Whilst we're on the subject, O'Hara is probably the leading expert on the Searchlight organisation's activities and his writings on the matter are well worth a read.  They say a man is judged by the company he keeps.  If the same applies to political organisations then Searchlight and the New Labour Party would seem to deserve each other.

Phil Andrews ● 6453d

I have been following this discussion with great interest. I am absolutely staggered to learn that Mr. Hughes used to be a councillor, is he typical of the calibre of member which ran the authority until the recent change? If so it is not difficult to see why they lost.I confess to a healthy distrust of politicians of every hue but to be told that another individual has posted something which I can see for myself he hasn't posted is not only dishonest but deeply insulting to my intelligence.Looking back through the thread it is clear that Mr. Taylor has not once suggested that council employees sit around drinking tea. It is equally clear that Mr. Andrews was criticising the culture imbued at the Civic Centre rather than individual officers. Other allegations of statements allegedly made by Mr. Fisher on another thread and Mr. Andrews again - "red commies" - seem equally groundless but I shall continue looking through the various pages in case I am wrong. This man just seems to make it up as he goes along, and I shudder to think what kind of drivel he feeds to his public when he knocks on their doors asking for their vote.Most of all it is disturbing that nobody else from his party would seem to have tried to rein him in, suggesting that his bosses are approving of his behaviour and possibly even inspiring it.I have never voted Conservative or Liberal but I would seriously consider voting for anybody else if Mr. Hughes was standing for election in my constituency.  Seriously, I think about council meetings populated by him and others like him and my mind really boggles. Is this for real?

Adam Meyer ● 6454d

"In the words od Mr Taylor himself..." ???      Not sure if Mr Hughes meant odd or old here but both are discriminatory! In any event I believe Mr Hughes started this thread as a debate on an alleged 300 job cut at the Council and his expectation that the Union Rep will be given his P45.  I believe most have tried to openly debate or express their views on the subject but Mr Hughes seems to have missed the plot of the thread he initiated. My wife is a Council Worker (and in my opinion grossly underpaid) and,  like  Elisabeth Anne KnightI. I would take exception, if I believed that anyone was sneering and attempting to denigrate all those hard working council workers who serve us daily. It would be an extremely sad day if any hard working Council Workers were to lose their jobs and I don't believe ANYONE wants to see that happen. Mr Hughes has expressed the view that we will see  300 more people on benefits. Unfortunately it seems that Mr Hughes has not followed Gordon Brown's policy on 'Benefits' too carefully.  What Mr Hughes cannot stomach is the fact that the new administration took control because people wanted change. The new administration has promised change.  People, pride and performance are the cornerstone behind the Hounslow Plan and the changes being made across the authority are to help shape and deliver the council and its services. Its not about a 'cull' and its not about people being 'lucky' to survive the cull as Mr Hughes would lead you to believe. Its simply a matter of a new administration trying to deliver its promise to change for the better. Removing duplication and wastage, redeploying resources and identifying funding that can be ploughed back into services will naturally mean changes in structures and staffing and independent experts have been appointed to evaluate accordingly. If the last administration had managed more effectively and actually listened to the electorate, we wouldn't be in the sad state we find ourselves now and very sadly this may end up as an own goal for Mr Hughes' team.

Steve Taylor ● 6454d