'Cowardly politicians' blamed for Jersey tenancy law delay
Deputy Inna Gardiner called for the proposed changes to be referred back to the panel and said politicians were unclear on what they could and couldn't discuss.She said: "It was really, really not clear what the members were deciding on when discussing the principles, and members said during their speeches that the scrutiny report with evidence would help them make informed discussions."In September we will have one debate, principles, second reading, third reading, with all possible amendments and input from the scrutiny panel, so the members can have a clear picture of what it means in practice."
Mezec said the delay was down to "cowardly politicians" playing "dirty tricks."He said: "Members were too cowardly to decide one way or another to decide which way they wanted to go, so they decided to delay making a decision until after the summer instead."I knew there would be dirty tricks pulled. This is what happens when you have politicians who don't have the courage of their convictions, I think the public will be in despair watching this kind of thing."He added: "What this means is there is a summer break where myself and my officers will be in union street working trying to make the best of this situation when its entirely possible in the summer that these people will vote the whole thing out anyway, in which case we would have wasted summer."It's another example of government working inefficiently because of bad decisions made by States members."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Most new homes in London have no car parking
The majority of new London housing projects approved this year will essentially provide no parking for residents, as Sir Sadiq Khan is accused waging a campaign against motorists. Some 62pc of housing developments involving 10 or more homes that have been approved so far this year have been 'car free', according to Glenigan, a construction data company. This means the number of parking spaces planned account for 5pc or less of the number of homes under development, suggesting most residents will not be able to park their cars there. Major new developments with only scarce parking include Asda's proposal for a 1,600-home development in west London, which will include only disabled parking; and a 1,500-property plan for Limmo Peninsula in Newham, east London, which Sir Sadiq's Transport for London last year boasted was 'effectively car-free'. So far, 2025 has seen the highest proportion of 'car-free' housing projects approved in London on record. It is also the first time in eight years that essentially parking-free housing projects have accounted for the majority of approvals. The milestone follows a series of policies introduced by the Mayor of London that have made it more expensive to own a car in the capital. This includes the ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez), which was expanded two years ago to cover the whole of the capital, and the congestion charge, which is rising by 20pc to £18 next year. Sir Sadiq's development strategy drawn up in 2021, known as the London Plan, also mandates car-free developments for swathes of the capital. The Mayor of London's policies are designed to improve London's air quality, with Sir Sadiq claiming that toxic air pollution kills an estimated 4,000 Londoners each year. However, critics say Sir Sadiq's policies are punishing residents who rely on cars, and argue that the parking plans are unrealistic. Andrew Boff, London Assembly member and the City Hall Conservatives' representative on planning matters, said: 'Parking is infrastructure, and by removing parking from developments you simply move the issue to other parts of the local area rather than remove the problem altogether.' Mr Boff said the Mayor had 'made it clear how little he thinks of those who need to rely on their motor, despite his dependence on vehicles to get around'. He said: 'The London Plan requiring developments to be car-free is only going to make this issue worse: as we've been saying, making something 'car-free' only realistically means it will be 'parking space free'.' Last month Sir Sadiq faced claims he was waging a fresh war on drivers in the capital, after an official accidentally leaked a document containing a series of anti-motorist proposals. Measures included cutting the number of car parking spaces available in the city, painting more double yellow lines and expanding controlled parking zones. Allan Wilén, the economics director at Glenigan, said: 'Congestion charge and Ulez have added to motoring costs and particularly for frequent short journeys around town. 'This may be reducing the attraction of car ownership for some households, especially in areas with good transport links and access to car clubs, prompting developers to downgrade parking provision as a selling point on new developments. 'In addition a 'car-free' design for a development will free up space, allowing more homes on the site or the inclusion of more green space and other amenities.' He added that the higher number was 'in part a response to residents' concerns that new developments will exacerbate traffic congestion locally'. The 62pc 'car-free' figure compares with 45pc of housing projects in the first half of 2024 and 40pc during the first six months of 2023. The last time car-free developments edged into the majority during a comparable period was in 2017, when they amounted to 51pc of all new-build residential projects in London. A spokesman for the Mayor of London said: 'The Mayor is committed to making the best use of land to ensure we can build the affordable homes Londoners need. 'Developments that are not dependent on cars can deliver significantly more homes on the same area and help create genuinely liveable, sustainable neighbourhoods.'
The Sun
4 hours ago
- The Sun
I was thrilled to get a council house after 6 months of waiting – but trolls hated me for calling it my ‘forever home'
GETTING the keys to a new home is a moment of pure joy, especially for a single mother looking to build a stable future for her kids. But for Mari, a recent move-in quickly turned sour when her happiness was attacked by online trolls. After waiting just six months on the council house list, Marika, who goes by @ marikikix on TikTok, was over the moon to get a house with a huge garden. In a viral video posted on May 18, she called it a "dream come true" and her "forever home." The video quickly gained over 150,000 views, but not all the comments were positive. The backlash focused on her use of the term "forever home," with many believing a council property shouldn't be considered one. One user wrote: "When people call council houses their 'forever home', what aspiration." Another added: "A council house should never be a 'forever home'," suggesting that the term should be reserved for owned properties. The criticism highlights a common misconception about council housing. homes are "free," which is far from the truth. As one TikTok user pointed out: "I live in a council house that I pay £600 a month for. "I've never claimed benefits in my life. I work two jobs! They are not free, believe me." Trolls say council houses can't look nice but my stunning hallway will prove them wrong Amidst the negativity, other users rushed to Marika's defense. "Why's everyone being so awful in the comments?? They're happy, and that's all that counts!" one person commented. Others, however, focused on the practical side of council housing, with one user asking for advice on how Marika got a place so quickly. A helpful reply noted that "everyone's circumstances are different" and advised speaking directly with a council caseworker. Major council home rule A significant policy shift is on the horizon for council house residents, as the Labour party plans to introduce stringent new restrictions on the Right to Buy scheme. The new rules would exempt newly built council houses from the Right to Buy for a period of 35 years. 2 This marks a major change to the long-standing government initiative. However, the proposed changes have already drawn criticism. Kevin Hollinrake, the shadow housing secretary, has labelled Deputy Labour Leader Angela Rayner a "hypocrite" for advocating the new restrictions. This is because Rayner herself previously benefited from the Right to Buy scheme. According to The Telegraph, Rayner purchased her former council house in Stockport for £79,000 in 2017, securing a 25% discount. She later sold the property for £48,500 more than her purchase price.
ITV News
6 hours ago
- ITV News
‘Nail in the coffin': Jeremy Corbyn criticises Angela Rayner over allotment sales
Jeremy Corbyn has criticised Angela Rayner for approving the sale of eight allotment sites in England since Labour took power, in order to raise money for councils budgets. The former Labour leader - who launched a new party with Zarah Sultana in July - said the government is putting a "nail in the coffin" for allotment holders. Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has approved the sale of sites in Somerset, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, West Sussex, Derbyshire and Kent. Under the Allotments Act 1925, land that is designated "statutory allotment" cannot be sold or repurposed without ministerial consent. Corbyn is a keen horticulturist and has been using an allotment near Islington, North London, for 22 years. Writing in The Telegraph, he said the move will "fill many with dismay". "Allotments have always been under threat from developers. Now, that threat seems to have government backing, which makes the future of these precious spaces even more perilous," he wrote. He added: "Once lost, they never return. Their loss makes us all poorer, as we become more and more detached from how food is grown and how nature interacts with us. "Allotments provide a vital space for community cohesion, biodiversity and social solidarity. These parcels of land, that cannot be individually fenced, provide growing space for many people." However, Corbyn has argued that "instead of contemplating sales of these wonderful spaces, the Government should be encouraging the growth of allotments, or where there is insufficient land, the growth of community and school gardens." While he acknowledged that social housing is "desperately needed", he disagreed that we should "sacrifice" allotments to build it. "Is this Government going to put the nail in the coffin of the joy of digging ground for potatoes on a cold, wet February Sunday afternoon? The battle for the grass roots is on!" Green Party peer Jenny Jones also criticised the decision, saying "it seems there are no green spaces that are safe under this Labour government." "Allotments are valuable spaces to promote physical and mental health, help with local food security, encourage a gift culture amongst allotment holders and their neighbours, and offer a sanctuary for nature," she said in a statement. "Labour should know that they are especially important for people who don't have the privilege of their own garden, i.e. many of those who vote - or used to vote - Labour." She added that councils need to be offered "proper funding by central government, not pushed into selling off these vital community assets." In a statement, the National Allotment Society (NAS) said they wanted to "reassure plot holders and the wider public that no changes have been made to the statutory protections afforded to allotments in England and Wales." They added that statutory allotments cannot be sold or disposed of without following strict legal procedures, and without consultation with NAS. "We are aware of the allotment sites mentioned in the press," they said. "In each of those cases, due process has been followed, and in some instances alternative or replacement allotment provision has been secured as part of the disposal process." A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) spokesperson said: "We know how important allotments are for communities, and that is why strict criteria is in place to protect them. 'The rules on the sale of assets have been in place since 2016 and have not changed. 'Ministerial approvals for the sale of allotments in 2024 were lower than the average for recent years.'
