on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HjRx3ukB1V/ – February 28, 2012 at 01:35PM
Greenwich Peninsula
28 Feb
Trees in Bletchley
28 Feb
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/Hi4XdVkBzj/ – February 28, 2012 at 09:53AM
Misty morning in Milton Keynes
28 Feb
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/HijBc2EByH/ – February 28, 2012 at 06:46AM
A Parish Council for Forest Gate?
20 Feb
In 2007, the Government passed legislation which permitted the creation of community councils in London, with the aim of enhancing community governance in urban areas. These new community councils would have similar powers to the parish councils that exist elsewhere across the country.
Central government – both this one and its Labour predecessor – wants to encourage localism, a greater devolution of power and decision making to the lowest possible level. A Government white paper last year set out support for new parish councils and made it clear they wanted to see more councils established to take greater control over local services
Already local residents in Queen’s Park and London Fields have started campaigns to set up their own councils to change their community for the better.
Would it make sense for us to have our own council in Forest Gate?
It wouldn’t mean leaving Newham, just having some powers transferred into the hands of local people and an ability to spend money on the projects we consider priorities. For example, the new council would have to be consulted on any planning applications, such as the one submitted by Obsidian for the re-development of our town centre. The lack of effective planning enforcement is something that has long blighted Forest Gate Town Centre. Other possible powers which could have a positive impact on how we as residents could improve Forest Gate include managing community and leisure centres, establishing a ‘village hall’, street cleansing and community safety. It may even be possible to take over the local parking provision to ensure that it better reflects the needs and desires of the local population.
The new council would be funded by a precept – an additional amount of money collected alongside the council tax. It might also receive a grant from Newham to enable it fund services it took over from them.
In order to establish a new parish council here Newham, as the ‘Principal Local Authority’, would have to first undertake a ‘community governance review’. They could decide to do this themselves, or we can petition them to do so. If 10% of the electors in the affected area signed the petition Newham would be legally obliged to carry out a review within 12 months.
Together the existing wards of Forest Gate North and Forest Gate South are home to about 20,000 people, but the area covered by the council need not exactly match those boundaries. However, that makes a sensible starting point for thinking about this.
I think there are exciting possibilities here for local people to re-engage in the governance of our community, but what do you think? Is this an idea worth pursuing? Why not head over to Woodgrange Web and join the debate – http://bit.ly/yKo35I
Wanstead Flats in the snow
5 Feb
on Instagram http://instagr.am/p/oRjUA/ – February 05, 2012 at 11:37AM
Word Up – Office for iPad?
6 JanThis is something I wrote for my company’s blog, which was published yesterday:
In the past weeks, Microsoft has released a slew of iOS apps, including SkyDrive (with 25 gB of free online storage), OneNote for iPad, Halo Waypoint, and My Xbox LIVE, Lync 2010 for iPhone and Lync 2010 for iPad, in addition to previous releases like Bing, Photosynth, and OneNote for iPhone.
And there are strong rumours that Office for iPad is in the works. With Windows 8 tablets like to appear at some point in 2012 and Windows Phone 7 already in the market, the big question is why would Microsoft bolster its rival’s business by offering products which may keep them away from its own devices? At first glance, it looks like madness.
But Microsoft is a software company first and foremost (notwithstanding their excellent range of PC mice & keyboards, and the XBox business). 90% of their revenues comes from software, so it makes sense to put its software on as many platforms as possible. Right?
Well, kind of. Most of those apps are free (OneNote allows 500 free notes, then it costs £2.99), so there’s no revenue attached. But there’s huge value in user data. By putting apps on to the only tablet with any significant market scale and tying them back to online services they get to see exactly how users behave. It’s like a giant user testing laboratory and Microsoft engineers will use that information to figure out the best implementation of their apps on their own tablet version. Putting XBox LIVE on iOS extends the platform onto the world’s most popular handheld gaming device.
But those arguments don’t hold true for Office. The two cornerstones of Microsoft’s business are the revenues it earns from its Office and Windows franchises. Nothing, but nothing, is allowed to compromise that. Ever.
Although there is a huge and flourishing market for premium (i.e paid-for) apps on iOS, price expectations are set pretty low. Even for iPad there are few apps priced over £9.99. Apple’s own iWorks app (Pages, Keynote and Numbers) cost £6.99 each. Even with their larger feature sets it’s hard to see how Microsoft could charge anywhere close to the current lowest price for Office on Windows or Mac (the Home & Student edition is £72.99 on Amazon; the business edition is £100 more expensive but includes Outlook).
So Microsoft has to make a judgement call – will Office for iPad sales be additive to desktop sales, or cannibalise them? And would a lower price on iPad exert significant downward pressure on Office prices for PC, even if the tablet versions are functionally limited?
My best guess is that there may well be more iOS apps from Microsoft through 2012, but we won’t be seeing Office for iPad anytime soon. The risk to core revenues is simply too great. Those looking to move their entire working lives to iPad will have to wait a little longer, or explore the non-Microsoft options.
A Conversation with Councillor Gray
4 Jan
In a comment on John Gray’s Labour Blog (which is actually it’s title, not a description I’ve given it) I asked, in relation to what I perceive to be a lack of transparency in the way Newham council conducts its business:
Why is vital business always conducted behind closed doors at Labour Group meetings rather than in public council meetings?
Why were the public and the press excluded from the [council’s] discussion about the new £40 million offer to the OPLC?
Councillor Gray replied:
I am amazed that there is anyone who can question the huge overall benefit from the Olympics and that any council (especially a Labour Council) would not want to have a direct public ownership stake in the stadium.
I was a Council officer (in a different council) for over 15 years and political groups have always debated and voted on policies in private.
Unsatisfied by this response, I pressed the matter further:
You say “I am amazed that there is anyone who can question the huge overall benefit from the Olympics and that any council (especially a Labour Council) would not want to have a direct public ownership stake in the stadium.”
Apologies if I’m being a bit thick, but I’m afraid you’re going to have to enlighten me. Whilst I agree that there will be overall benefits to London and the UK from hosting the Olympics (even at the vastly expanded cost of £9 billion) and I am personally looking forward to attending a number of events in the summer, I cannot see why Newham council would want to have a direct stake in the future ownership of the main stadium once the Games are over. If the benefits are so obvious, why aren’t Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Redbridge taking a similar stake? Why isn’t the Greater London Authority?
Of course the Olympic stadium should remain in public ownership, but the OPLC is a public body, so Newham’s investment won’t make the ownership any more public than it already is.
The question therefore remains, what additional benefits will Newham people derive from the proposed £40 million investment that they will not get if the stadium legacy is wholly funded by OPLC?
The answers to that may lie in the report that you and your colleagues considered back in December when you approved the £40 million investment offer, but that document has not been published and your meeting was held behind closed doors. Quite why an arrangement between two public entities should be regarded as ‘commercially sensitive’ is beyond me.
Councillor Gray again responded:
Again, purely in my personal opinion, I don’t know why (and maybe they are putting in a bid for all I know) but suspect that the simple answer is that the stadium is in Newham. I also think that the GLA have no legal ability to do what you suggest. Nor at this time the political inclination.
The OPLC is a “public body” at the moment, but that doesn’t mean that it will be always.
Look, I believe in public ownership, I am a believer in “Municipalism” and that the role of a Council is not just to be an “enabler” of services. ??????The potential of the Stadium is enormous and IMO (sorry BBM) it is quite right and proper that the Council wants to play a prudent role in its future.
Whether you think it is a good thing or not all, public entities have a duty to negotiate to get the best commercial arrangement possible, whether it is a with a private or public body – so of course, you cannot make your negotiation position public.
Feeling that my basic question had gone unanswered, I tried again
You talk about potential and municipalism, but make no mention of concrete benefits to Newham people resulting from the £40 million we are putting in.
The business case for the investment that the council approved would have included some kind of benefits analysis as part of the return on investment calculation, so there must be a list of them written down somewhere. Why not just share that?
If this investment is such a great deal for the people of Newham, why aren’t the mayor and the council trumpeting it from the rooftops?
This prompted the following, frankly unenlightening reply
I honestly think that I have as much as is possible at this moment.
The key thing to remember at this time is that there is no “deal” to actually talk about. There is a proposal which is being negotiated. The proposal (as in any other negotiation) could be turned down, amended or withdrawn. In the midst of negotiations you just don’t generally trumpet things from the rooftops
And there I think we must leave it.
The post to which the comments were attached has sunk down below the first page of Councillor Gray’s blog and I sense that we’re really only talking to each other. To his credit John Gray has remained entirely polite in his replies to me, which is not a courtesy he always extends to commentors on his blog or others he perceives as political opponents. And at least he has a blog, which is more than can be said for the mayor or any of his other colleagues (as far as I am aware).
Maybe at some point we’ll find out what we’ll be getting for our money, but I’m not holding my breath. Sir Robin is hell bent on taking some kind of control of the Olympic stadium, and spending a big chunk of our cash to do it. The idea that he might explain himself to the people who will actually paying for it is not one that will detain him, even for a nanosecond.
forestgatedotnet 