Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Are they Local?

I’m experimenting with video. If you’re on dial up, tough! Join the 21st century.

16 comments:

  1. I think I can identify the two Redbridge cabinet members on which these are modelled!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Current, of course!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You wouldn't have vested interest there now, would you, Morris?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It looks like a Council Meeting to me, just a lot more missing.Just waiting for one of them to slip off their seats, clutching their £30,000 electronic voting cards, to be fair we dont know how much the electronic voting system cost, because they decided to have it anyway and never asked the cost.
    but my guess at £30,000 is as good as any council officers, unless somebody actually does know and wants to whistleblow.

    Dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just what we need to liven up Rebridge Life - available from Libaries ( with apologies to the Libraries service).
    "Go to the libary in your own home" - see p.7 of Rdebridge Lie.

    Dopeyf

    ReplyDelete
  6. B21 - I don't normally like getting into political banter - However, I wish - Oh how I wish some (c)abinet Members would pay as much attention to speakers as these two 'puppets' are paying to the photogrpaher.
    At Area 2 the other night one such Cabinet Member found it difficult to concentrate on the speakers - but, of course; only word for it is; rambled on about his opinion how necessary land-sales are to the economy of Redbridge.
    Not once did he mention that land-sales may be a quick-fix to this Cabinet - but what, when the land is used up, how will funds be substituted! We all know that is all in the (waves hand and wrist in true Cabinet fashion here) a lot of land that Redbridge owns and this is only 2% 3% - 5% now.
    A sustainable income is found in Assets being providers.
    Nor did this cabinet Member comment on the poor quality of the contracts Redbridge agree to and certainly did not touch upon Value for Money and penalties for late completion.
    Oh by the way anyone joining our party in the GLA Mayor's festival this weakend?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dopeyf,
    Perhaps they meant the libarium?
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re Richard or rep comments about the area 2 meeting.
    I am hazarding the first guess:
    double barrelled?
    If I am right, I want a prize!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rich or rep.
    I don't understand the clue! ('naked')
    Husband has already had a go at me for poor memory recall.
    He claims it could be the ex Cabinet member recently replaced by B21 speaker this week.
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  10. The description given by Richard or rep suggests to me two additional words to the member's name - staring mad!

    Have neither the cabinet members nor council officers yet understood that land values, like house prices, are falling as part of the property slump? This means that they will have to flog off even more land and property to realise the cash rquired for their grandiose, over-ambitious and unsustainable building schemes. Many school students could have told them that.

    Big conversation? It begins to appear as even more irrelevant than it was before it took place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not that I want to get Morris to have a go at me, but should it not be raving instead of staring?
    And me thinking all the fun was at Area 3 meetings, it seems we have been upstaged!
    annesevant

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dopeyf - the cost of the new audio system/voting system is £100,000. This is apparently part of a rolling maintenance programme and is decided by Officers not Cabinet.

    Undoubtedly, the sound for the public was dire, and the loops for the hearing-impaired were poor to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  13. One of many reasons why I gave up local government - too many expensive schemes decided, and too much residents' money spent, by unelected and unaccountable officers rather than by the elected representatives of the residents.

    Democracy? Utter bulwarks!

    ReplyDelete
  14. dear anonymous, the £100,000 predicated in the council papers was for the sound/voting system and general maintenance of the council chamber, after much effort I elicited from the council that the sound/voting system was £70,000
    but as it was never intended to have only one part, the cost for either part cannot be split out, (believe that if you will), I agree the sound was bad, I will probably need a loop in the near future,but there was certainly no need for the voting system, the overtime for officers to count the votes would probably have lasted for 25 years,what is more we could have had webcasting for more than a year for the cost of electronic voting.If £100,000 of expenditure is spent without any reference to councillors, you have to ask the question why have we got them at all? a very expensive and useless
    collection apparently. especially ten of them. Unless of course you something we dont.I am sure B21 would be a very discreet middleman.

    dopeyf

    ReplyDelete