At Labour Home a blogger writes:
"Housing, has been an area that has got worse continuously since Thatcher was elected. And Ken was doing his part to help housing for an area that holds 10% of the population. Notice how not even the Mirror, or the Guardian compared this excellent policy with Boris' plan to help affordable housing for those earning OVER £60,000."
Actually, one Guardian writer did:
"...to take advantage of [Johnson's] First Steps home ownership scheme would need an income of £60,000 a year. Four-fifths of London households need not apply."
Wonder who that was? Still, the basic point stands and the repercussions of Mayor Johnson's whole approach to housing and planning in general remain, well, puzzling. Whilst his Deputy for Government Relations is signing off documents under delegated powers, the legal status of his advisor Sir Simon Milton remains mysterious.
Team Boris believes that Sir Simon's providing his advice informally and free of charge gets him round the so-called Widdecombe rules forbidding people simultaneously being Councillors and senior local government executives. Not everyone agrees. And now the Troll has dug out a mayoral written answer (no. 997, from Darren Johnson AM) revealing that Sir Simon won't have to abide by the GLA code of ethics. The answer reveals that instead:
"Sir Simon Milton has agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement, and as this is an informal arrangement, there is no formal process which covers ethics and probity. There is a protocol between Westminster and GLA and Sir Simon Milton covering issues around giving informal advice on any Westminster matter or planning matter where Westminster holds a substantial interest."
Questions, questions, questions. Can we see this agreement on the GLA website, please? Can we see the protocol there, please? Was Sir Simon invited to sign the GLA code voluntarily, if not why not and if so why has he not done so? And can we establish any ways in which Sir Simon's activities and influence are different from what they'd be were he an orthodox planning advisor or director? Does he, for example, have an office or desk at City Hall? Does he expect City Hall staff to follow his instructions? Does he have a personal PA or other staff? Does he claim expenses? Transparency, transparency, transparency...
Recent Comments