Full Council 4 - going through the motions

Should money from the sale of Council houses be spent on affordable homes?
The first memory of politics came as child in the early 80's when my parents were invited to buy their Council House.  It was a Conservative government and the then Labour party were opposed to such things.  A Labour canvasser knocked on the door and told my parents that they were doing a terrible thing as they would be taking an affordable home away from the next family who needed it.  My parents were quite offended by this.  

They took the view that if they carried on renting the property they would be living in it, so no one else could.  If they purchased it, they would be living in it so no one else could.  It would make no difference to anyone else whether they bought it or not except if they purchased it, the money could be used to build new council homes for the next generation.
Whether they were right or wrong,  council houses were sold on a massive scale and the rest were eventually transferred to Housing Associations.  As for all that money from sales, where did it go?  In simple terms, it ended up being invested, some in land to provide future housing, such as Manydown (you can't have a council meeting in Basingstoke without saying Manydown) and the rest in, mostly Government bonds, the interest from which part funds Council Services.
So in principle the motion was very sensible, it would seem right and just that the money from council house sales should be used for its intended purpose.  However in practical terms, doing so would mean the Council having to raise Council tax to make up for the lost interest, which has a hint of reckless about it.
Remembering that right now financial investments pay out less than inflation, it may be that building new Council houses would give a better and more stable, as well as socially useful, return
I supported the motion as it was worth a committee looking in detail at the implications. However the motion was blocked by the Tories.
Bus stops - for good.
Some motions result in action, they ask the Council to something within its power.  Others are more like public displays of frustration.  This fell into the latter category.  A motion from a borough Council demanding something of a bus operator and a County Council could simply result in them turning around and saying 'no'.  

It may not change anything, but it is important the local Council publicly put on record its anger at the way bus services are, over many years, annually culled without proper scrutiny.
At the moment you pay for buses.  You may never catch one, you may have a bus pass, but you still pay.  The bus company say that lots of the routes they run lose money and they only continue with subsidy from the local council tax payer, the more loss making routes we want to keep, the more the operator wants you to put in.
I wouldn't want to pay extra Council tax just so stagecoach can run an empty bus.  And If we were being honest how many times have you seen a petition signed by 200 people to save a bus and thought if just half those people actually used the bus on a regular basis, it would not be under threat?  Equally Stagecoach must make a lot of money from those peak time services that connect residents with there place of work which balance out the less used service that is critical to the small number that use it.
The problem I have is every year Councillors from all parties ask 'how many people use the service you are cutting?'  The response is normally 'that is commercially sensitive information'. How can it be - Stagecoach have no competition!  

As a matter of principle you have a right to know how your money is being spent, regardless of who is spending it.  The public, or at least their elected representatives, should have access to the records of any organisation that receives public subsidy.  
As mentioned at the start, it may not lead to any meaningful change in the relationship between the bus operator and those elected to represent their customers and financial backers.  I would have preferred a more constructive motion, but couldn't disagree with the principle of the motion and supported it.  
Manydown Again
I supported the motion that tried, once again, to get the large piece of land that was purchased for housing to be considered for housing.  No surprise that the Tories blocked it, including the Tories representing Chineham and Bramley, the area that will house a major development area as a consequence.  Apart from one Basing councillor (who was suspended for not doing it), the Conservatives have made it quite clear that they'll put party before people every time.  It is becoming clear that the only way  the people of the Loddon Valley can get any kind of justice is through the ballot box or the Courts.