Call for devolved powers to tackle London's 7,000 vacant shops

The capital has almost 7,000 vacant shops, costing the London economy £350 million in lost trade and earnings, a new study has revealed.

Streets Ahead, produced by London Councils, which represents the capital’s 33 local authorities, looks at the capital’s high streets and makes a range of recommendations to improve the local economy.
The study calls for the government to grant councils more powers to curb betting shops, payday lenders and fried food outlets, which can damage high streets. It shows that devolving more powers to councils would help stimulate growth and new jobs.

Dianna Neal, Head of Economy, Culture and Tourism at London Councils said: 

 “The study’s findings highlight the need for the radical devolution of power and resources to councils to help businesses adapt to a changed consumer environment.

“The government could halt further decline by devolving powers to councils to support high streets, such as the ability to stop the damaging spread of betting shops, payday lenders and fried food outlets.”
Boroughs currently do not have the power to control retail outlets which can deter visitors and also have damaging wider social effects, adding to obesity, gambling addiction and serious debt. Recent changes have also made it easier to turn offices into residential units, also undermining growth and local decision making.
The study features a number of innovative case studies as to how boroughs are supporting their local high streets. For example:

 -          The London Borough of Harrow’s Inward Investment Strategy team has worked with banks and property agents to develop investment guides to its local district centres, highlighting local demographics and available properties. The average vacancy rate for retail frontages in town centres across the borough has fallen for the second year running from a high of 7.5 per cent in 2009/10 to 6.5 per cent in 2011/12.
-          The London Borough of Sutton developed a ‘meanwhile lease’ for previously vacant units. This provides an industry standard legal instrument to minimise administrative and legal costs for both landlords and tenants and to enable temporary occupation to take place without the need for lengthy legal procedures, encouraging new enterprises and bringing innovation and creativity back to the high street.

Dianna Neal added: 

 “Councils are already innovating, but giving boroughs additional  powers and resources would go a long way in really creating the conditions for high streets to succeed – creating much-needed jobs.”

Greens leaflet Kensal Green station after UKBorders raid

Brent Green Party leafleted commuters at  Kensal Green station this morning following yesterday's raid by UK Borders officers in which thre people were arrested.

It is reported that they were at Cricklewood station this morning and also at Stratford;

The leaflet (see below) set out the rights of people who are stopped by the officers.

Sarah Teather doubts PM's claims on 'racist van' campaign

Sarah Teather MP, Liberal Democrat, Brent Central, reacting to David Cameron's spokeperson's claim  that the 'racist van' campaign was working, said:

I am extremely sceptical that these adverts are having any effect other than to annoy and upset local residents. The reaction over the last week would certainly suggest that Conservative Ministers are among a very small minority who think the vans are a good idea. "I await the detailed statistics and analysis of the trials which backs up No 10's claim with bated breath. But I dare say that this is a desperate attempt to try and save face in the face of overwhelming public hostility.

With the campaign now condemned by Vince Cable as 'stupid and offensive' and in somewhat milder terms by Nick Clegg, we have to ask how much longer the Liberal Democrats can continue in coalition with such a morally bankrupt and divisive Conservative Party.

Jenny Jones condemns Coalition's 'senseless' lurch to right on immigration

GREEN Party London Assembly member Jenny Jones has condemned the Coalition Government’s “senseless” lurch to the right on immigration.

Last week, the Home Office’s ‘Go Home or Face Arrest’ vans were piloted in London. They were branded #racistvan by critics on Twitter and Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable described the campaign as "stupid and offensive."

UK Border Agency checks on the immigration status of targeted individuals at London Underground stations have been described as “sinister and disturbing” by London blog Wembley Matters.

“In their efforts to claw back UKIP votes the government seems to have taken leave of their senses. First the intimidation by the racist vans, now blatant discrimination against ethnic minorities going peacefully about their legitimate business“, said Jones.

“Immigration is not the overwhelming problem for the rest of us, it's the semi stagnant economy and poverty pay for millions. When will this government see the damage their vile policies are causing?”


In 2011, Green Party conference passed a motion opposing the government’s cap on immigration. It said we should stop “treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem”. Today, it’s important to restate that.

Brent Greens condemn Kensal Green station raid

The Brent Green Party has released the following statement following the UK Border Agency raid at Kensal Green Station this morning.

Shahrar Ali, Brent Green Party spokesperson said:

UKBA are duty-bound to carry out stops on individuals only on the basis of specific intelligence, not willy nilly on spec as happened at Kensal Green this morning. Every right-thinking citizen of Brent and beyond has cause to be alarmed at this naked violation of process. The report that there have been three arrests changes not one iota that our civil liberties are under threat, not from our neighbours but from state-sanctioned racist van slogans. I am appalled at the wicked designs of this government.

The people of Brent will not stand for it. We stand united against those who seek to terrorise society, who spread fear and incite hatred.

Brent Council leader condemns 'divisive and intimidating' UKBA tactics after station raid

Three people were arrested this morning after the UK Border Agency raid on Kensal Green underground station. Locals said officers behaved in an intimidating way. Cllr Muhammed Butt in a statement to the Kilburn Times condemned the raid, coming as it did after last week's controversial tour of the borough by the 'racist van' which urged 'Go Home or face arrest'.

Full story on the Kilburn Times website HERE

UK Border Agency target Brent station in check for 'illegals'

 

UK Border Agency at Kensal Green station this morning (via@mattkelcher)

Monday morning commuters at Brent's Kensal Green station were shocked this morning to find a group of black-clad heavies in the booking office stopping passengers as they tried to get to work.

It was the UK Border Agency doing checks on the immigration status of targeted individuals. I saw a similar raid at Wembley Park station in the evening rush hour about 6 weeks.

I found the sight sinister and disturbing, especially when one young woman was surround by between 6 and 8 border guards questioning her in front of passing commuters who were possible her neighbours.

A threatening and humiliating experience.

This morning's raid sent shock waves around the borough as it appeared to coincide with the controversy around the 'racist van' campaign which told 'illegal' immigrants to 'Go Home or face arrest'. Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council and ace Tweeter PukkahPunjabi from Willesden Green have been in the forefront of resistance to what they view as a crude campaign by the Tories to win back votes from UKIP. Sarah Teather, Brent Central's Lib Dem MP condemned the racist van campaign and was followed on Sunday by Vince Cable who called it 'stupid and offensive'.

Is this the Home Office's response?

 Advice for people stopped in such raids is available HERE

The PFI scandal that led to NHS Trusts going bust

I received the posting below as a comment on Natalie Bennett's NHS speech LINK  but I feel it is important enough to be published as a Guest Blog:

What an excellent assessment of the problems facing the NHS, and what needs to be done to protect it! Thank you for publishing this speech, Martin.

I write as someone who was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes in my late 20's. My care through the NHS for more than 35 years must have cost a lot of money, but because of it I was able to continue with a relatively normal working life, and pay large amounts of income tax and NIC. That, to me, is the way things should be.

Hopefully, with a newly-diagnosed Type 1 diabetic in the cabinet, there might be a better appreciation of the NHS within government, but I won't hold my breath!

I spent 25 years of my working life as a Tax Inspector, and in the early 2000's had to consider the first accounts of a company which had won a PFI contract to build a small hospital and provide all of its support services for 30 years. I was concerned at the odd accounting treatment of the transaction, which it appeared would guarantee that the company would automatically make losses (for tax purposes)until the final year, when it would make a huge profit. The losses each year would be set against the trading profits of the two large groups which owned the company 50/50 (one a construction group, the other a major services provider).

I asked for a copy of the PFI contract, and other supporting documents, to see whether I could challenge what looked like artificial tax avoidance, and after a lot of delay and prevarication, I eventually received them. The contract was about 150 pages long, and very complex, but effectively meant that the NHS (or hospital trust involved) would repay the £30m capital cost of the building, plus a generous rate of interest on the "mortgage" for this amount, over the thirty years. The company could charge whatever it wanted to (with very little chance of the NHS being able to challenge the amount) for the services provided during the thirty years, with no chance of the hospital renegotiating the contract, finding another provider or taking the services back "in house".

How had the NHS allowed itself to be tied up in such a bad contract? Because of instructions from the government that, in order to encourage private companies to get involved in PFI projects, it would guarantee to pay their legal and professional costs of entering into contracts. So, in the case I was looking at, the NHS had paid £1.5m for the company's lawyers and accountants to draw up a contract which "stitched-up" the NHS and gave the opportunity for tax avoidance by the two big groups behind the PFI company (one of which had a former cabinet minister as its Chairman).

Why were Chancellors Ken Clarke and Gordon Brown so keen on promoting PFI contracts? Because it kept the cost of providing major capital projects "off Balance Sheet" as far as the government's accounts were concerned. They could claim to be providing new hospitals without this being charged against their budget deficit, even though the eventual costs of doing things this way would be much higher (hence NHS Trusts going bust).

I'm afraid that the Official Secrets Act prevents me from identifying the hospital and companies involved, or from disclosing the outcome of my investigation of the accounts, but it was an episode towards the end of my career in the Inland Revenue that left me frustrated by the actions of my "masters" in the Treasury!