UNWANTED LEGACY no 1
Attending Council meetings of various flavours as I do, it is evident that officers and senior Councillors are very much aware that they are just eight months away from the Final Reckoning – the full-on scrutiny from every angle they will face in the run-up to the tenth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire.
Numerous highly consequential Key Decisions are being pushed through, with the kind of upbeat tone that many of us distrust. So, when we heard that the ‘Council Plan’[i] is based on what is euphemistically called RBKC’s ‘Fairer Action Plan’[ii] we were on high alert:
‘This plan sets out a clear ambition for the next four years, showing what we will do to help break the cycle of inequality, increase opportunities for everyone who lives here and thereby build a fairer Kensington and Chelsea. We know the Council cannot tackle inequality alone and this plan will require the support of Government, staff, health and voluntary and community partners and residents to succeed.’
The Council Plan is cheerily insensitive to the real problems of the borough, with poverty levels similar to those of Brent, focusing instead on bin collections and spending the Parking Reserve on public realm vanity projects.
A blistering submission against the Plan from World’s End Residents’ Association was all but ignored; given the ongoing issues of poor housing management, this is unwise. World’s End residents are not to be ignored.
There was quite a furore from residents about the Council ‘Assets Strategy’[iii] and how it would affect our third sector organisations’ premises. We know money is tight in certain areas. We also remember, from David Cameron’s Austerity years, how the Council uses any reduction of government grant as an excuse to impose the worst possible cuts on our poorest communities.
Asset Strategy proposals on ‘disposals of surplus properties’ should ring alarm bells all round:
‘ …there may be instances where housing within the HRA, either street properties or void properties which are surplus to requirements, would be considered appropriate for disposal.’
Given our shameful list of homeless families, how can any home be ‘surplus to requirements’? Despite the relevant Team Lead assuring us that there would be full consultation before any sales, given the large number of residential street properties owned by the Council – particularly in the less fragrant upcoming parts of Chelsea – many simply do not believe them.
The newly forged residents’ group ‘Coalition Against Asset Stripping’ has challenged the Council on the fairness and the accuracy of their findings, particularly on Charity Sector properties, especially since the Equality Impact Assessment appeared to state that that it was none of our business nothing to worry our pretty heads about. We were informed that ‘not a single negative impact [will emerge] from Asset Strategy’. More on the EqIA later.
[i] Council Plan, https://rbkc.moderngov.co.uk/committees/documents/s39455/KD1014730RA1%20Council%20Plan.pdf
[ii] Fairer Action Plan, https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/AA1926_TEL%20-%20Fairer%20Action%20Plan_v08_DIGITAL%20%281%29.pdf
[iii] Asset Strategy, https://rbkc.moderngov.co.uk/committees/documents/s39460/KD1014170RA1%20Asset%20Strategy.pdf
RBKC’s Leader Elizabeth Campbell hates spending cuts so much that she resorted to protest. However, under the cover of government cutbacks, RBKC is attempting to decimate our local charity sector.
Desperate Parallel Reality
When you delve into the this desperate parallel world, as interpreted by the Council Plan, you would be forgiven for believing that priority Number 1 for the good people of Kensington & Chelsea is ‘cleaner streets and two bin collections a week’. Apparently, this priority has been ‘evidenced’ by a complex set of so-called Consultation results that are all but incomprehensible. Given that the borough-wide consultation on the 2026/27 Budget, which appeared to support low Council Tax along with a bottomless fund for ‘Amazing Spaces’ vanity projects, garnered just 8% of total comment from our deprived wards – far better to keep us in the dark eh?
A close reading of the Statement of Accounts 2025-2026[i] ‘Audit Findings’[ii] presented at the Audit and Transparency Committee on 26th September will make some of these matters very clear.
It focused on three specific areas of concern. Of the cyber-attack on 5th November 2025 it states (p6) ‘A key underlying cause of the [cyber] attack and the Council’s ability to recover at pace has been historic underinvestment in IT infrastructure’. Then (p15) states under Risk Assessments: ‘Ongoing issues for cyber security’ due to the excessive number of users with access - ’17 users .. assigned roles to their own accounts … without approval in Oracle Fusion.’ In addition there was (p47) ‘incorrect scanning via Oracle’ of payments, also some BACS payments to the value of £381,000 were not cleared due to a number of errors.’
This culminated (p64) in this statement: ‘The financial impact [of the cyber attack] at this stage is uncertain, but expected to be significant. This is a new significant weakness’.
The ‘Serious Failings’ C3 rating from the Social Housing Regulator was also noted in the Audit Findings. This affects 1000s of the Council’s voters, and given the oversight of TWO Labour MPs, they need to address this or be exposed to yet more public censure.
In September 2025, a report on Equality Impact Assessments and Equalities[iii] work was marked with a ‘Limited Assurance’ flag, and made 12 recommendations. An interim report on this showed that not all have been implemented: ‘… the key test is whether the Council can show the practice has changed, not simply that new processes have been introduced.’
Of particular interest to many of us would be Recommendation 12 on achieving Culture Change. There is, it seems, a ‘Cultural disconnect around the purpose and value of Equality Impact Assessment and Equalities’, whereas they were asked for ‘evidence of sustained cultural change’. Lucky for them this is not expected until 31 May 2027, by which time some of us hope that certain senior officers and Councillors may have been charged by the police and removed from the field until they go to Court.
The most telling phrase (p7), for many of us reading endless verbiage and seeing no real change, is a demand for ‘…examples where EqIA findings changed a proposal…a forthcoming independent review of Culture, which is a Grenfell commitment’.
More ‘Unwanted Legacy’ in future comments.
[i] Statement of Accounts 2025-26, https://rbkc.moderngov.co.uk/committees/documents/s36776/Appendix%203%20-%20Statement%20of%20Accounts%202025-26%20Audited.pdf
[ii] Audit Findings, https://rbkc.moderngov.co.uk/committees/documents/s36774/Appendix%201%20-%20RBKC%20Audit%20Findings%20Report%202025-26%20RBKC.pdf
[iii] Equality Impact Assessments and Equalities report, https://rbkc.moderngov.co.uk/committees/documents/s36783/Equalities%20and%20EqIA%20Audit%20Update%20-%20Audit%20Committee%2028%20September%202026.pdf
Paris knows
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Who does your MP work for?
Members of Parliament are elected to represent their constituents - not only those who actually voted for them, or those who may not have used their vote, or aren’t registered to vote - but all of us.
In an ideal world, this means that an elected member, having local connections or at the very least who has thoroughly studied those they are representing, will take into account their concerns and get a balance of what matters, but will then use their own judgment to act or vote as they think best. This ‘trustee’ model, of course, doesn’t always work, as it also depends upon the individual’s personal morals and values that inform their judgment.
Strictly speaking, an MP’s first duty is to work in the national interest, second, is their duty to their constituents, and third, to party policies, depending on how the whipping system is applied. It sometimes happens that MPs vote against the whip due to their judgment that a particular vote will disadvantage their constituents. That may or may not have consequences, the most extreme consequence being that they lose the party whip, or are ‘suspended’, where they no longer sit on the party benches but have to maintain all constituency work and other duties.
So that’s national interest, constituents, then party, in that order. This second duty to constituents is why thousands of us take the time to write to our MPs regularly.
This system becomes complicated when it is decided by a residents’ campaign group that their representative is out of line and write in their thousands to ask them to support their view.
Sometimes it happens that wealthy lobbyists for a particular interest group donate tens of thousands of pounds to support the work of a specific MP. Are they then bound to take the demands of that group into account, whether or not it’s in accordance with a majority of constituents?
Interestingly, a recent investigation of the ‘top recipients of Israeli lobby funding’ by www.trackisraellobby.uk found, by researching publicly available records, that the Prime Minister Andy Burnham is the first in the list of ‘top recipients’. Second on this list is our very own Joe Powell, with Conservative David Davis in third place and various current or former ministers lower on the list.
That’s Joe Powell who promoted his ‘Kensington against Dirty Money’ campaign during the selection period in 2022, which has now gone very quiet, after getting just 1,891 signatures on a petition. As has his commitment to refurbish St Mary’s Hospital.
We can be reassured, of course, that the 7,500 Middle Eastern background residents of Kensington and Bayswater, and I would guess a similar number of allies of British and other backgrounds, will have a fair and balanced representative for them in parliament whose values and opinions on Palestine, Lebanon and other ‘conflict zones’ would not be swayed by large sums of money coming from this particular lobby group to support his office.
After all, having worked in Washington for some years with Barack Obama and the Open Government Partnership, overseeing elections in Third World countries among other duties, our MP will be able to spot dodgy dealings and dirty money a mile off.
Of course, there’s ‘dirt’ and there’s ‘dirt’. Dirt on boots is fine – leave them at the door. Dirt on hands not fine – off you go to scrub, and quick about it.
If you catch my point.
Publicly-Funded RBKC Propaganda
The delusions and contradictions of the Grenfell Council are intensifying. The absurdity of unprecedented wealth benefiting only a tiny parasitic elite is being challenged across mainland Europe and governments are responding with public relations spin. It’s like 2017 in West London, when power briefly seemed threatened. Nine years on, RBKC faces a probable Corporate Manslaughter charge - their propaganda is being deployed again.
At last week’s Full Council meeting, cry bully Council Leader Elizabeth Campbell solemnly reiterated RBKC’s acceptance of all the Grenfell Inquiry findings and fielded public questions about Corporate Manslaughter. Within minutes, Campbell had switched up; now fiercely defiant in the face of Labour’s funding cuts and inspiring a nauseating round of applause from Tory colleagues when she reminded them RBKC was awarded “the most efficient council in the country” in 2025.
A Councillor in the build up to the Grenfell Tower atrocity, Campbell has been the figurehead for nine painful years of RBKC returning to business as usual. Rushing through policies that are an existential threat to many local charities, at Full Council the cry bully vowed to fight for her residents and their priorities in the face of Labour’s austerity measures. And what are her residents’ top priorities? Not to sustain the local charity sector, which does so much for the victims of Grenfell, but twice weekly bin collections, and more focus on cleaning streets. According to Campbell, these are “the services that matter most to you” - you are paying her to tell you that lie.
Rotten? is edited by Emma Dent Coad & Tom Charles. The Rotten? images are by Junior Tomlin.
If you have any stories you’d like to see included in Rotten? you can email them to us at [email protected]. We are committed to not revealing the name or any other personal information of any source unless they explicitly express consent for us to do so. Whistleblowers are especially welcome to get in touch.