How?

Hmmmm
You post on here as yourself, your own opinions, not as party spokesman. You have also stated you do not agree with some Labour Party actions and decisions.
Now you refuse to state your opinion in case it pre-empts Labour policy.
That doesn't wash with me. It means you now only have opinions the Labour Party has.

I still don't know what you will see in the books that mean you cannot even set out priorities. The population, its shape and structure, area needs, etc are all known and published. The cost of providing service is known, the levels of Grant are known. From that you should be able to come up with something for us to look at. Something that, in your opinion, the Local Labour Party could run with. Otherwise you might find the Lib Dems and Conservatives steal your ideas.

They could do that even if he did publish them.

Perhaps Reader was inferring that Richard / Labour were planning to do the same?

It's usually the shadow party that has second go, isn't it?

That'll be the Lib Dems then.

The point is, the incumbent party go first, which I'm sure you know is what I meant.

But, when one is expressing a personal opinion, why wait to see what everyone else says? Does that change your opinion?

I disagree with some of what Labour did nationally when in Government, but there is nothing to disagree with here in West Berkshire as we are all pretty much on the same hymn sheet with regards to priorites of what should be done in the district and future direction.

As for the Party, we have got a budget in place ready to go, but it was put together using last years budget books. As you will know, there were various in year "savings" that had to be made, and some of them were very vague. When the budget books are published, we just need to check that we have altered the figures correctly and that the two match up. One thing the party will not do is publish a budget that doesn't add up.

The Lib Dems are in the same boat as everyone else, they will get the budget books at the end of this month, after the budget has been passed at council!!! True democracy.

But what is your opinion, as you post on here as yourself?

Does the Party lead the membership, or do the Members inform the Party?

The party is influenced by the membership, and that's how it should be. Otherwise we would not be relevant to the views of people who live here. We've had members join from the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, and we have people who have never been interested in politics. All of them have joined to help shape a party that reflects what people want in West Berkshire.

My own personal view is that we should sell Faraday Road estate, sell the Bus Station and sell the waste depot on Pound Lane Thatcham (all for more than £1!!!) to pay off the debt which woud save us upto £10m in debt interest payments each year. I'd give the Nature Discovery Centre to the RSPB or similar organisation saving us £200k a year, and I'd give the corn exchange, Arts Centre, Museum and Shaw House to be run on long term leases to reduce the contribution from the local authority and increase the amount of external funding to those facilities. I'd like to see the number of councillors reduced to around 30, and three exec positions and a shadow exec position removed. Those are a few things I hope will be included by all parties, but whether they do or not we will have to wait and see.

Interesting reply.

Thank you, for a segment of opinion on how the Council should be funded. No doubt you have an opinion on the provision and funding of adult care services, youth and community, support funding to community groups, etc.....?

Which Exec positions? Do you mean Officers or Member titles?

If the ideas you have are included by all three parties, what will be the difference between them?

What I like most about being a member of the Labour Party is that we want what's best for the people on the street, so if the other parties proposed what we will then that would be great.

Exec positions: Portfolio holders. But in relation to senior officers, would it be so bad for a senior management pay cut? All local authorities were supposed to implement that before cutting key services according to Pickles.

I would take a million pounds from the proceeds of the sale of assets set out above to create a community devolution fund / big society fund if you like. Basically the money would be used to facilitate the adoption of services by community groups. I've already said I'd like to see day care facilities for the elderley in the East, West and Central areas with a community transport operation bringing people to the centres. I'd also like to see Hillcroft House and the Ormonde Centre replaced by a new facility at the community hospital site with the Phoenix Centre retaining it's existing facilities and services. If we get control of the council, we have already said that we will try everything we can to keep the Ormonde Centre and Hillcroft House open in some way, until a replacement facility can be provided. To keep the Ormonde Centre and Hillcroft House open for an additional twelve months would cost aroun £300k all in.

Youth centres should not be sold off, but given on lease to community groups in all cases. The Waterside Centre will have to go eventually, so we need to start planning now at where an alternative facility could be provided. My own personal opinion is that the Waterside should not be sold until a replacement facility has been identified by the authority.

As for the support funding to support groups, I belive we should continue to fund at present levels. I've said already that I'd like to axe free parking for council employees whilst another layer is added to the Market Street car park. That will add a net benefit to the council of around £1.3m a year apparently. The council would not recieve much in the way of payment for the improvements at the Market Street Car Park, but it would be funded by the other party who would see a benefit in revenue if the project went ahead. A rolling bus station would be required in return for allowing the project to go ahead.

Some will say that my ideas are a bit radical, but we need to think outside the box and look at what we will be in a position to provide as an authority in years to come. Regardless of who controls the council, our funding grant will be cut by around forty million over four years. If the other parties claim there are no big cuts planned, that can't possibly be true. I'm trying to prove the old saying wrong about telling the truth, if we didn't get elected it would be no big loss for the party nationally as we're not expected to do very well. But the signs on the doorstep are positive, and if we do as well as the indicators suggest, there will be some very surprised faces in West Berkshire and nationally and it will show that you can be honest and still make big wins.

Not bad Richard - though not radical enough to get this council off our backs and doing what we want.



It's worth remembering though that Unison blocked a pay cut for WBC staff last summer. I don't know if that perversely affected the fat salaries of the top brass.
It's difficult to understand how the fella in charge of WBC's policy department is worth more than Newbury's MP.

All I would do if I was a councillor (regardless of whether it was controlling party) is submit a motion asking all senior management to take a ten percent pay cut. I believe that is reasonable, but the other councillors would then have the option of voting on it and would be perfectly able to vote with the motion or against it. As Pickles says, administration costs should be saved first, services last.

A blanket pay cut throughout the council is not really feasible as the people who would be hardest hit would be those on low salaries.

PS. Just out of interest, what would you all do if you had the chance?

Asking people to take a pay cut isn't the same as achieving a 10% cut in wages.

If the full council supported the motion, I'm sure there is a way to make it happen. Maybe the work "ask" would need to be replaced by "require", but you know what I'm getting at. Whether other elected members would support the motion is another issue entirely.

You can't 'require' a pay cut. Not without the consent of the employee, or a compromise agreement.

What would I do -

Raise taxes. If I truely believed that people expected services to remain uncut I'd also expect them to realise they have to pay for them.


Selling off parcels of council land for development is a short term fix.