Keeping Margate Central Clean III (updated)

Over the past week Ive commented on problem areas for waste and street cleaning needing Council action. By and large they've all been solved. Grosvenor Place looks much better now. Addington Road's rubbish has been collected, though I notice its returned through some fixtures. The one for me which has not been solved yet is the broken glass down the alleyway between Byron Avenue and Dane Park brought up here. The Council to its credit cleared away the weeds away Wednesday and this much waste was left at Dane Park opposite the alleyway and for that I thank the Council:

While Im genuinely grateful to the Council for clearing it away, the glass remains. The complaint has been on FixMyStreet since 16th June. 

That is why, tomorrow morning, I will be in that alleyway clearing that glass away. Anyone who wants to help out is more than welcome to join in.

Update 12/08/11:

After 4 hours work, most of the glass has been removed along with a lot of other general dirt. It needs a check by the local street cleaner to get the rest and the dog dirt, and the Council will need to collect the sacks of debris, but the alleyway is looking the best it has done for a while and I know from the comments of passers-by that they agree. 

The area including Byron Avenue, Milton Avenue, Poet's Corner and Cowper Road needs careful watching. Residents say they've complained to the Council directly but they are dissatisfied with the result. There is a serious communication issue here. That alleyway along with the alleyway bisecting it running along the back of Byron Avenue shouldn't have gotten that bad before action was needed. 

After checking the rest of the ward, its definitely this area along with Grosvenor Place, Princes Crescent (junction by Spread Eagle pub) along with the bit of Addington Road mentioned in previous posts which are most of concern. The closer you get to the seafront, the lesser the problem generally becomes. Understandable though since obviously the seafront will get precedence.

I commented in the past about the increased use of seagull-proof bags and I know they are being used in a property in Hawley Square. I ask that the Council look to provide all residents at Hawley Square with seagull-proof bags as soon as can be afforded along with other similar properties. They are proving successful and Hawley Square has a bit of a problem with waste being targeted by the local wildlife and the use of wheelie bins is inappropriate.

Once the issues I've raised about dog fouling and the bits of glass still remaining in the alleyway are dealt with, the FMS complaint will be fixed. In future, any problems I come across will go through the FMS website, not through this blog, though residents are of course welcome to comment here about any issues they have, if they prefer. As we now know, the relevant TDC Cabinet Member is aware of the website and I know he will ensure the information from it is fed into the cleaning schedule. I don't want to be posting articles critical of the Council but if I have to, I will.

With any luck, this is the end of it and a more positive tone will appear soon...

Keeping Margate Central Clean II

To update from last weeks blog, the rubbish from the house I photo'd at Addington Road has been cleared, but the rubbish from the house immediately to the left is still there. 

The following are pictures taken this evening.

A hotspot at Shakespeare Road,first brought up on FixMyStreet on 2nd October 2008, then 1st March 2009, 12th April 2009 and 15 April 2009. I have no doubt the problems continued but residents gave up on the website.

The following is Poet's Corner highlighted on FixMyStreet recently by a resident and on my last blog.

Given the collection was Monday, a sight like this was a suprise. 

Cowper Road, just round the corner from Shakespeare Road.

Before moving on from this part of Margate, I had a good chat with a resident about the way street cleaning and rubbish collection was handled. They felt that while it was good to see a street cleaner on their road, the first in a while, they didnt finish the road and left a little pile of dirt where they stopped... They think the scheduling of the street cleaner could be better for the area. There are little bits of broken glass strewn along Milton Avenue, where kids were playing. They weren't impressed with the way the alleyways were cleaned. This is a complaint that has been brought up before on FixMyStreet. 

Grosvenor Place. Im pleased to see the other end was cleared up where the wind sucks the rubbish down the road though I wonder whether it'll last.

There are still problems to deal with. As a half time status, only a minority of the items on my list sent to the Council have been dealt with. Hopefully the pictures above will encourage action...

Keeping Margate Central Clean?

One of the most visible ways in which this Council acts is through rubbish collection and street cleaning. This May saw more wheelie bins and seagull-proof bags hitting Thanet streets.

FixMyStreet highlights problems like dumped rubbish, broken glass, abandoned vehicles and other problems which make an area look awful. It doesnt seen to be regularly updated though as to whether these complaints are being acted upon, so I had a look at the areas brought up to see how bad it was. Its clear the website isnt up to date and these complaints haven't been followed up.

Locals will of course recognise this alleyway, leading from Byron Avenue to Dane Park. Broken glass dumped rubbish is typical for this alley along with heavily broken up pavement as well. Once you come out, you see a couple of black sacks sat across the road.

Rubbish bags picked up but clearly a street cleaner hasnt been down Poet's Corner. A complaint has been on FixMyStreet for over 2 weeks.

This bit of Addington Road has a frequent problem with rubbish like this.

A check on the TDC website shows that collection for a lot of this wont be until Monday and in the worst case such as the Addington Road photo, Thursday.

Where are the Ward Councillors who should be showing leadership of their community in demanding action? These problems have been there for some time now and the complaints are there on the FMS website, yet so many of them remain unanswered. Local residents say they contact the Council and yet it persists. How can they have confidence in a Council which to them, isnt performing one of its key jobs?

Refuse collection and street cleaning may not be pretty, but it matters...

Rambling through Ramsgate

A frequent complaint by those in Ramsgate that it's overlooked in favour of Margate, particularly when it comes to major projects such as the Turner Contemporary. I paid a visit toRamsgate this morning to see if that was the case. The simple answer is Ramsgate does perfectly well without it and can do better...

A Harbour which any town would want and which puts Margate's to shame. A Promenade kept tidy and with wonderful views going South. The redevelopment at the Main Sands will complete the regeneration of that area after the sad demise of the Pleasurama. If good use can be made of the former Casino, that would be the cherry on the top. A good High Street which is much busier than Margate's. A raft of good restaurants to choose from. Ellington Park looked gorgeous. Ramsgate should take great pride in what it has to offer.

Ramsgate has to stop comparing itself to Margate. Such a negative approach does the town no favours. Instead it should embrace change and look positively to channel it in the manner best suited for itself. The people best placed to improve Ramsgate are already there. The Councillors - Town, District and County - are elected for a purpose, to improve their wards for the residents. Its up to them first and foremost to lead this change.

The people though have a role to play, demanding more from their Councillors. They should be pushing Councillors to be positive and instead of saying "We dont like this" or "This isnt appropriate" should be coming up with alternatives. This is where community groups come to the fore, supporting Councillors and offering their own ideas and contributions.

Ramsgate must find the confidence to embrace change rather than seeing it as a threat. Change can be difficult and certainly its not always smooth, but it works in the end.

Margate FC and Sainsburys

Two big items of business at tomorrow’s Planning Committee meeting. First is the redevelopment of Hartsdown Park. Approval should be routine seeing as the proposal is an improvement to the previous one which received Full Council's unanimous support back in 2006. There has been controversy round this for a few reasons such as the refusal to grant a Section 73 amendment, which coupled with subsequent discussions on the blogs and the Conservative manifesto pledge that any new applications or leases would require fresh public consultation led to fans questioning TDC’s support of the club. Personally I think the manifesto pledge was unnecessary. Public consultation goes without saying but the pledge sounded like barrier building. I hope this meeting will help to draw a line under all that so that the fans can focus on the action on the pitch rather than off it.

Second big item of business is an application by Sainsburys to create a scheme of development with its current site, and land behind it, including Group Antolin up to the Saga roundabout. Its enormous and in all honesty Ive not had the time to read the report fully but Im sure the local blogsphere will keep an eye on the application.

TDC Full Council (updated)

Another Council meeting last night with negativity clouding most speeches.

First up, there was unanimity over live animal exports. Despite the motion being proposed by Cllr Fenner, it was Cllr Driver who has been the driving force (pun not intended) behind this after setting up the public meeting in Ramsgate and summing up well what the Chamber felt.

Night flights was rather different. The proposed motion (the recommendations of the last Airport Working Party) was seen as invalid because it was deemed to be ‘pre-determination’. The incoming Localism Bill will scrap this rule, but as the moment the rule still stands. Labour’s motion is pre-determination, especially when considered alongside Labour’s manifesto pledges on Manston. Last night Cllrs Hart and Fenner both referred to the importance of the Labour manifesto, something Cllr David Green has also done on his own blog. The manifesto pledge is very clear. Labour doesn’t want night flights and would rule them out. Labour's already decided how they would act were a night flight proposal to appear. It is what it is.

During this debate very heated comments were made by Members, the vast majority coming from Labour. One Member made extremely serious allegations. They know who they are and they know what they said. They should either withdraw those comments or go through the proper process. It should not be aired in the Council Chamber.

This will continue while Labour Leader Cllr Clive Hart fails to keep control of his group. By calling last nights behaviour “robust debate” he only justifies it. Its not good enough to just dismiss it. Ive been to enough meetings to know how normal last night is, but it doesn’t change the fact that its unacceptable.

Thanet is changing. Things dont have to be the way they are, nor should they be. We must strive to change Thanet, transforming its prospects and boosting its profile. Last nights behaviour undermines this by showing Thanet at its worst.

Change must come to the Council Chamber.

Update (17:50):

Cllr Hart has made a statement on Margate Architecture's blog detailing his outrage at the night flights debate last night. Ive already mentioned the rule of 'pre-determination' above which fully explains the reason why the motion was denied. The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes to allow Members time to read the legal advice and they asked questions afterwards for over 10 minutes on top of a 15 minute adjournment from the previous agenda item on live exports. Cllr Hart's comment that the motion is in keeping with the manifesto pledge only further undermines his case.

Cllr David Green has said on his blog that the motion from last night was not because Overview and Scrutiny deferred consideration of the Airport Working Party's recommendations until the next meeting. Cllr Hart states that actually it is the reason. So who's right, Cllr Hart or Cllr Green? Labour's entire policy on Manston is untenable..

Cllr Hart now calls the debate "intense" rather than "robust". Will he go the whole hog and just admit that his Members behaved appallingly and that one of them made a serious allegation and will withdraw it at the soonest opportunity?

A Tale of Two Towns

If ever there was a town with two sides, Margate is it. The Old Town, now the New Town, reinvigorated by the opening of the Turner Contemporary and a number of other businesses around the Harbour now sees countless tourists coming to Margate, something which years ago would have been unthinkable. The Margate Museum is opening with the fantastic support of local volunteers. Congratulations to the Friends of Margate Museum on their success.

The Old Town is what was Dreamland and Arlington Square. Back in the day, they were bustling with huge crowds. The Pride of Margate, mere relics. Faced with proposals of redevelopment, it's opposed by local residents because of a lack of trust in those proposing it, possible heavy traffic and noise and because the main store is going to be a Tesco's.

Looking back at the New Town, those reasons are exactly the ones raised with the Turner Contemporary and look what happened. It’s a complete turnaround and even those who had doubts about it now preach of what a great success its become. Locals working there speak of the enormous change and what benefits it will bring to Margate. Margate Football Club is looking to build a new stadium which will contribute to a vibrant Margate seafront and community spirit, not to mention helping to bring tourism to the town.

The proposals for the rebuilding of Arlington Square are well known and the arguments are as well versed. I don't doubt their sincerity or the strength of opinion in the Labour ranks through their two Ward Councillors that the plans need to be carefully scrutinised but we must not put the cart before the horse. Central Government has approved (Ed-not approved but allowed to be taken locally) the plans and now we can look forward to it coming back to Council to make it a reality.

Change is fuelling the regeneration of a town which has for too long been looked upon with derision. But the town mustn't be complacent. Instead we must strive to improve it further so that Arlington Square and Dreamland is once again the Pride of Margate and earning Margate the envy of Thanet.

Going deaf?

The TDC Cabinet meeting tonight was short but sweet. Only one question for me remains. Did Cllr Clive Hart support TDC in passing the Article 4 Direction on HMOs? He spent so long making the point that this was necessary only because the Government changed the rules on this that I couldnt make out whether he actually supported it or not...

On another point, I've been to 6 meetings at TDC this current political year and in at least half of them there have been problems with the microphone system in the Council Chamber and the system's been abandoned in two of them. At first you could just laugh it off as gremlins but its a serious problem now and it stopped being funny a while back. It is very hard to hear Members sat near the Chairs bench from the public gallery. The reason for the problem is well known so why is it taking so long to sort it out?

Arlington Tesco's approved...sort of

The Planning Committee approved the outline application to build a Tesco's, a car park and associated shops at Arlington on Wednesday evening. Although it didnt. It took a few attempts to explain to Members that TDC cannot decide on granting planning consent by itself because the Tescos is too large for them to call it. Instead it has to be referred to the Secretary of State, but that TDC gives its recommendation. All delightfully complicated.

The three speakers against the application were very good and stuck to planning issues in their speeches. Far too often I see speakers talking about non planning issues which basically cant be considered by the committee. If you are to speak against an application, your chances are vastly increased by speaking on planning grounds.

An amendment was proposed to refuse night time deliveries. It was explained that such an amendment could not be accepted even if a majority of Members agreed because it was considered unacceptable to the applicant. It did sound absurd but clearly its a red line for the applicant.

It was always going to be close and when a Conservative Member spoke against the application it seemed the application could be refused. When it came down to the vote though, it was a 7-7 split which makes me wonder if that Member voted with their speech (I was in the spillover room so couldnt see). The tiebreaker is the Chairs vote which is by convention to vote with the officer's recommendation. It now comes before the Secretary of State.

Comment was made during the debate that "You're not helping yourselves" and a dismissive wave made towards the public gallery when they booed a comment made by a Member. I don't blame the residents for being upset at the plans and for booing. Its a monster of an application which will lead to huge disruption to their homes and they are worried that promises made to them will either be bodged or simply forgotten. One resident walked out of the meeting in frustration after making some choice comments about the officers which I couldn't possibly repeat here.

My feeling is that if we weren't in such a dire economic situation, the residents scheme would be more attractive. But you have to deal with what you have, not with what you want. As with Iris Johnston and others, I hope it comes before Full Council for detailed consideration and that continued public consultation takes place as there are still a lot of questions to answer.

Arlington Square is the sorriest sight in Thanet and the residents support its redevelopment - but change needs to work with the residents, not against them.

Labour move on night flights

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 31st May discussed night flights and the recommendations arising from the Airport Working Party [AWP]. The minutes from the AWPs last meeting was not immediately available at the start of the meeting. The issue appeared of there being a number of new members and whether it would be right to debate the report from the AWP with those new members not having had the time to consider it. After a split vote, the Chair, Cllr King decided after some time not to proceed with it that night and to bring it back at the next meeting.

Labour was not happy at all because they wanted the AWPs recommendations brought up with Cabinet, something they had said just before the meeting started. Shouts of "Disgrace" were made by more than one Labour member. Now a resolution has been tabled for the next Council meeting by Cllrs Clive Hart and Alan Poole with the recommendations of the AWP the proposed motion.

Scrutiny needs to be done properly on this issue and that includes due process as to scrutiny. The Chair had decided to consider the AWPs recommendations at the next meeting and that for some members of Overview and Scrutiny isnt good enough, so theyve gone round it straight to Full Council. I dont agree with that tactic and suspect that was the plan all along.

The Scrutiny process should be followed through to allow the Cabinet to make an informed decision on a Night Flight Policy and thus conduct a proper public consultation. Labour want to pre-empt this process by stonewalling night flights.

Tescos for Arlington?

This coming Wednesday evening sees the Planning Committee considering an application from Tescos to build a new store at the foot of Arlington House with a car park and works to the local roads to boot. The plans can be found at UK Planning here. The report prepared for the Planning Committee is here.

So how do you feel about the plans?

Scrutiny

Big News Margate reported earlier this week on the recent Kent Cabinet Scrutiny meeting and the debate over the Ofsted inspections last year. The webcast makes it clear that the pledged 'post mortem' report isnt going to be provided.

Its also clear that the Peter Connelly tragedy and the ripple effect of increased demands on social services was a major factor in the negative reports from Ofsted and no one holds that against the Council. Two years ago on this blog Cllr Chris Wells commented on the impact it would have. Kent hasnt suffered alone either with authorities across the country hit by increasing demand.

The key issue here is that while its valid to say that its best to just move on and get on with the job in hand, those who have a job to scrutinise need to do so as a matter of public interest. Its not about being party political or wanting to apportion blame. Its about accountability. By spending time considering the causes of the current problems will help to avoid them in the future.

A visit to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee brought up a similar issue over Manston. Yes, its easy to just say it'll be alright and to trust those making the decisions but public confidence can only be maintained if proper scrutiny is able to take place. Local residents still may not be happy simply because the flights will cause disruption to them, and I understand that, but at least no one will say that the proposals hadnt been looked at in detail prior to the decisions being made.

Gifts, promises and confessions

At the TDC AGM held earlier this month the Opposition were given the pick of Overview and Scrutiny Chair, under the pretense of working in a more friendly atmosphere. Whether it'll last is a matter for debate but given TDC elections on May 5th next year, Im not optimistic.

We see in election literature often enough "I/We will work with others to...", a pledge which in the cold light of practical politics goes out the window pretty quickly. I should know since 3 years ago I used that very language when talking about the proposed Westwood development. Of course I wasnt successful, perhaps thats an indication why. You will hear that a lot more in months to come though.

Labour, shunted into opposition by the coalition, is still shell shocked by whats happened. This is most clear when you look at the immediate actions of the former Cabinet members now standing for the leadership and their comments on how wrong the Iraq war was. Such an admission is not enough as their keeping quiet led to the invasion. Their journey is only just beginning and they shouldnt assume that admitting guilt over Iraq will absolve them of 13 years of abusing the trust of the public.

Results are in...

Thanet North held by Roger Gale with a modest increase to the Conservative vote but a severe drop in Labour support, just 828 votes ahead of the LIb Dems. As I commented elsewhere, the candidate was the wrong one for the area. It was obvious early on, a candidate no one had heard of making very little comment and what looked like a half-hearted campaign.

Thanet South was won by Laura Sandys with a strong 7617 majority. Labours vote dropped by around 2000 and an increased turnout worked in her favour.

In a slight non-Thanet deviation, it was good to see Charles Elphicke see off Gwyn Prosser in Dover last night. He will make a great MP.

Nationally its looking like a hung Palriament with the Conservatives as clearly the biggest single party. There is talk that Labour is looking for a coalition with the LIb Dems, the cost being electoral reform. That would be a bad thing for the country. A decision over electoral reform shouldnt be a bargaining chip to be offered in exchange for retaining the keys to Downing Street.

Thanet MPs split on Gurkhas

Last night the Government was defeated on a Lib Dem led motion on Gurkhas right to settle in this country. As I posted last time, its a disgrace that the Government wont grant the right to settlement, which is their dues after their own sacrifices for this country. The Governments argument is basically on costs, claiming it would cost upwards of £1bn. If those numbers exist, then publish them. A number of times the question was asked of how such a figure was arrived at but no answer was given to it.

Roger Gale voted in favour of the motion while Stephen Ladyman voted against.

Playing games with Gurkhas...again

How dare the Government mess the Gurkhas around. The Gurkhas lay their lives down on the line and for what? So the Government can screw them over with immigration rules?

The new criteria are (they need to meet one of the following):

-Three years continuous residence in the UK during or after service
-Close family in the UK
-A bravery award of level one to three
-Service of 20 years or more in the Gurkha brigade
-Chronic or long-term medical condition caused or aggravated by service

Each and every one of them simply by being there has shown more than enough bravery to meet that requirement. Quoting the Gurkha Justice Campaign, "The Government decision of 25th April 2009 on Gurkha settlement rights is yet another huge betrayal of the Gurkhas who have served our country".

Invitation to Tim Garbutt

As local bloggers may have noticed, Tim Garbutt and I have been debating his emerging policy platform for the next General Election as Independent Green candidate for South Thanet on his blog. Weve gone over policies such as the viability of him as MP sacking the "Gang of Four", the strength of a corporate manslaughter prosecution against Thanet District Council and the ability he would have to interfere in planning decisions made by TDC and reverse those decisions he personally disagreed with.

After the first post I made on his blog questioning his policies, he put into effect a moderating rule, which is very typical in light of anonymous flaming attacks we see on local blogs. However recently my comments havent appeared at all. A glitch Im sure. To make up for this and to continue our debate on his policies, I invite him to comment on my own blog, safe in the knowledge that posts wont disappear.

Id like to know under which laws he will enact many of his policies. If such powers are available then surely he can quote them. I invite him to explain how he will create a "County Senate", its composition and how it will operate. How will the new organisation fit in with the rest of local government?

Does he think it fair that men who are democratically elected to TDC should be sacked to make it fairer for women candidates not elected? Does he feel that someones demographics should matter or is it more a case of their ability to perform that should matter? Bearing in mind that age goes both ways, is he indicating that he would sack older Councillors to make sure that younger candidates are allowed a free ticket to the Council Chamber? In short I am asking, does he believe in meritocracy?

He may not wish to respond to these questions, but Im sure that the residents of South Thanet would be interested in his answers. Looking at the local papers he isnt able to conduct surgeries and his email address is out of action. He refuses to go to Council meetings so the ability to talk to him directly about his policies is limited. So come on Tim Garbutt...what's the worst that can happen?

Children in care bashabout

With local elections on the way, you could bet on a political row to spice things up. This time its about children in care and the apparent lack of action in the years since the publication of the report into children in care in Thanet way back in 2005. The report was scathing about it and described a community at "tipping point". In response to Cllr Chris Well's comments on the situation and calling for more action not words in this weeks Kent on Sunday, fellow County Cllr Clive Hart has taken offence, accusing him of jumping on the issue for political purposes and claiming the credit for himself (something I havent really noticed despite living in Cliftonville for not far off 3 years).

My concern is that with this turning into a "who was there first" argument, the serious issue behind it will be lost. I remember just before the report was published being shown the preface to it and told that "finally we can do something about it". Since then its fair to say not an awful lot has been done. As I have said in previous posts here, these are very vulnerable people with futures dependent on the provision they receive.

Its all well and good highlighting the issue and complaining about the lack of action but what exactly can be done? Laura Sandys has spoken about appealing to London boroughs and the Mayor of Landon not to send more our way and yet I doubt little will change by asking nicely. Some have indicated that sending them back to their previous local authorities will deal with the problem. It may well be out of sight and thus perhaps out of mind but you would have washed your hands of it without actually dealing with the actual problem. If the children are in Thanet then surely we have a duty of care to ensure the best interests of the child are taken at all times.

I'd like to know who is ensuring that the children in care in Thanet are actually building a future. Is it not possible for a TDC Cabinet member to add to their responsibiliities an overwatch function for children in care? On this issue I would suggest the Cabinet member for Community Services, in this case Cllr Zita Wiltshire. As far as I know this is done solely at County level, which doesnt help much given KCC interest appears to stall when they get to Canterbury. Surely this is something where TDC can step in and work more effectively with KCC to improve things.

The numbers entering the care system are increasing substantially since Baby P and it is absolutely essential that a proper strategy be in place. Many in Thanet may not like the children in care being here, but here they are and we must do all we can to provide for them. The cost of failure is simply too high to just ignore our responsibilities.

Endcliffe Hotel Enforcement Notice?

The Planning Committee came across a tough decision at last month's meeting regarding the Endcliffe Hotel in Cliftonville. It was granted planning consent to be rebuilt for housing after it was burned down in 2005, but hasnt been rebuilt according to the plans approved by the Council in 2006 and as the owner, claiming financial problems, has refused to put in a fresh planning application (the Council would be minded to refuse the current building if proposed for a fresh application). Therefore Officers are recommending that an Enforcement Notice be served insisting upon demolition and rebuilding according to the approved plans as no changes would alleviate the problems in the eyes of the Officers.

The Committee chose to do a Site Visit to the property to see it for themselves and therefore to decide at the next meeting on 18th February on whether to issue an Enforcement Notice. Its a very tough call to make. It is very much out of keeping with the adjacent buildings, looking very bland sadly like so many other developments, without any character (we're not expecting masterpieces of architecture, but we surely expect buildings that fit in nicely and show quality) and certainly does not look like the approved plans. Its also obvious that there are people living in the property. It is apparent that conditions of the original planning consent have been breached.

There are questions for the Council to answer as to why the building was allowed to be built as far as it did before the Council noticed. Hopefully this will mean that the Council sharpens up its monitoring operations.

Reckless caution or moral hazard?

A new term has entered the political lexicon in recent days, describing the reluctance of banks to lend money at levels previously seen. Such "reckless caution" is said to be causing further economic problems by stunting consumer spending, one of the key drivers of the economy in the past decade, now replaced by the Government advancing its own spending programme in an effort to stimulate the economy. But is it reckless?

The banks get told on the one hand that theyve been stupid with their policy of lending to anyone and everyone at rates which were clearly unacceptable and yet when the banks take the action they believe to be right, that of removing the drip of credit to protect themselves for the future, they get criticised for it accused of endangering the economy. I disagree that such action is recklessly cautious. If the banks do not take the action they are doing will we ever learn the lessons that the banks have, that such lending is unsustainable and was based upon us borrowing against hopes of continuing growth?

Moral hazard is a key principle we must never forget in relation to this credit crunch. Banks do learn from their mistakes and are rightly arguing that the action they are taking will be of long term benefit to the country, even if such benefits arent noticed now, which is why I warn against heavy government interference as is to be promoted in the Queens Speech. Banks will never lend in that way again so such action by the Government is effectively pointless.

The principle of moral hazard applies to us as much as it applies to the banks. We are credit junkies and we need to learn that we helped cause this by taking the credit when it was offered and to now wean ourselves off, even if it takes longer to recover from the recession.