Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 07:50 AM

Joe Mooney was on BBC Berkshire this morning telling everyone that he "doesn't know of the cuts" that I speak about, but the council are actually investing more on adult social care. For you Joe, let me explain the cuts that you are making to ASC:

5 Day Centres closing, four being "reshaped", cuts to support groups etc: £2.2m
180 staff cuts (140 care workers): £4.4m
Bus service and concessionary fare cuts: £200,000

Other cuts to vulnerable people:

Education budget cut by 8.4% (£872,000)... Didn't Barbara Alexander come out before Christmas saying there would be no cuts to education?
Youth Service cut by 18.5% (£496,000)

There will also be a further £2.9m cut to adult social care in next years budget.

I would suggest that our Adult Social Care portfolio holder needs to be better informed, or needs to stop misleading people.

Posted by: Councilman Feb 17 2011, 12:07 PM

Posted by: Councilman Feb 17 2011, 12:07 PM

Posted by: Councilman Feb 17 2011, 12:13 PM

Typical of Richard Garvie to confuse the debate for Political purposes.

THE FACTS ARE, THE COUNCIL'S ADULT SOCIAL CARE BUDGET WILL BE £3.2 MILLION MORE IN 2011/12 THAN IT WAS IN 2010/11

The service is being redesigned to be more efficient, hence some cuts, but these are also accompanied by extra investments, which Mr Garvie conveniently ignores.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 12:14 PM

> draws up ring side seat <

Posted by: Bofem Feb 17 2011, 12:44 PM

Care to share my popcorn DB?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 12:46 PM

Mmmmmm please.

Posted by: Bofem Feb 17 2011, 01:07 PM

mmmph....ooh....sorry bout vat. Just finishin vis....mm...popcorn. There. That's better.

Right, so dannyboy. Whaddyafink of this Garvie fella then? Wot I don't get is 'ow Labour's against cuts round 'ere, when they're closing swimming pools and every public loo in Manchester?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 01:10 PM

That's the answer - shut Northcroft & bung all the 'capital depleters' in there. Job done. Next!

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 17 2011, 06:36 PM

Old age Capital Depletion pension?

Posted by: user23 Feb 17 2011, 07:40 PM

Surely not the same Mr Garvie that who keeps insisting waste should be cut and services should be more efficient.

Look what happens when they are, he starts complaining about the cuts in spending.

You can't have it both ways Richard.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 17 2011, 07:46 PM

While you all indulge in you point scoring and chest beating, would someone explain what is happening? Will people be denied services or not?

Is this a case of the council not explaining itself properly? Instead of closing centres, it should say, transferring centres, if that is what it means. Otherwise, it allows misinformation to be propagated.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 10:27 PM

Out of everyone who has posted on this thread, it would appear that only I have been meeting the users of the day centres and local support groups to find out how this budget will affect them. I promise my life that some people will no longer be able to attend day centres. I promise my life that there were service users at the council meeting tonight telling me how specialist equipment is being ripped out of the Phoenix Centre and not being replaced. I genuinely get upset about this topic, and maybe that's why I get so heated when discussing it here.

The councillor responsible is Joe Mooney. He said on the radio today that he doesn't know of the cuts I was talking about and that of the £8m cuts, the elderly and disabled will not be affected. How he can blatantly lie on the radio, and then refuse to come outside and meet those protesting tonight is shamefull.

I am happy to lead a tour of day centres for any members on this forum or wherever, to come and meet service users who will be affected by these cuts. People who are being left with no choice but to never leave their homes. People who are having their only respite taken away from them. User23 / Dannyboy, put your money where your mouth is and come and see for yourself what these cuts will do to people in the district.

My mobile number is 07593 278690 and my email is info@richardgarvie.com. I have nothing to hide, and the ball is firmly in your court. If you want to snipe at me, fine. I don't care. What I do care about is when you are trying to discredit genuine arguments about peoples lifestyle because of a petty vendetta against me for daring to challenge the council.

Posted by: user23 Feb 17 2011, 10:42 PM

I asked you to post your business plan and on here so we could all help you out in creating new Day Centres, managed by the service users. I've not seen any response so far and I suspect you don't have one.

If you're concerned about the situation do something constructive. Calling people you disagree with on a number of subjects liars does your case no good.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 10:52 PM

So I take it you won't come and see for yourself what is going on? Surprise surprise. Look, I'm doing what I can to support these groups. I've offered to help with business plans. I've even offerred to volunteer a few hours per week. The council have made it clear that they are not interested. There are a number of meeting planned regarding the formation of community Companies and such like, how about you come along user, and meet the people concerned?

Posted by: user23 Feb 17 2011, 10:55 PM

Let's see your business plan please, you said you'd investigated keeping these centres open.

Prove to us all this isn't all political posturing and hot air.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 11:01 PM

I will happy sit down with all of you and show you what I've investigated personally and what others have investigated. You have my number and my email address, and if you don't want to do it nominate somebody else? There are plenty of people on here who I suspect may be up for coming to see what is being done to save these services.

No posturing or hot air here. I was at the council meeting tonight and I also stood outside people affected by these cuts for thirty minutes before the meeting. Where were you? That's right, you don't actually care about the cuts, you are just trying to discredit me.

PS: You complained about Simon Kirby badgering people who use their real names, yet you do exactly the same thing. I'm also waiting for the badgering police to come along any minute, where is TallDarkandHandsome?)

Posted by: user23 Feb 17 2011, 11:08 PM

So no business plan or similar in fact nothing tangible, just a lot of waffle.

PS: I didn't complain about Simon Kirby badgering people who use their real names, I commented about him aggressively questioning someone about their personal tax return. You're really grasping at straws here.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 11:18 PM

Not at all. You try to land blows on me for anything and everything, regardless of the subject. The truth is, I can prove that the cuts are going to hurt people, and I can prove that I have investigated keeping the centres open in partnership with other groups. I've offered to meet you, but you haven't accepted. Can I pop in to see you at work?

Posted by: Turin Machine Feb 17 2011, 11:18 PM

The way I see it, I generally laugh at Red Ricks chest beating and general lambasting of anything 'Tory' But I Kinda know he's right on this one. Sorry and all that but at the end of the day after all the point scoring, humerous comments and general tomfoolery, He's right and in this case I take my hat off to him.

Posted by: massifheed Feb 18 2011, 09:16 AM

Indeed. Let's see the business plan. Don't try and divert things by offering a sit down and a cosy chat. Let's see the plan. Or is it going to be like your alternative budget, where you guessed on a number of areas (including the cuts that you'd make) even when, by your own admission, you didn't know what the departments did?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2011, 09:27 AM

A problem that Richard Garvie has it seems, is he is not party to all the data to make an informed alternative budget. Data that has been denied him.

Posted by: massifheed Feb 18 2011, 09:45 AM

Then what is the point of releasing an alternative budget? At least release an alternative budget for the departments that you do have information on. It's no good listing a department, stating that you don't know what the department does, and then giving a figure that you'd cut from the original figure. It's just a complete guess.

Anyway, I'm eager to see the business plan. If he has one, then there should be no reason for him not to publish it straight away. If indeed it is ready to go.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 10:14 AM

User23 continues to talk of this business plan, but I never said it was my business plan. Don't get sucked in by his distortion methods. I said I had investigated the possibility of running these facilities as community interest companies with interested parties. There are business plans, but I've never claimed they are mine. None of those plans that were made can proceed without suitable funding or buildings. The council are not interested in providing either.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 10:17 AM

When we made the alternative budget in November, we did state very clearly at the time that we were using headline figures and we did not have detailed information. To come up with an alternative budget for 2011 / 12, I'll need to wait for the budget book to be published. This I'm told will happen at the end of March, after the proposed Conservative Party budget has been adopted!!!

This isn't only a problem for me. Even the Lib Dems are being refused access to a detailed budget document, but that's the way Graham runs his ship. Information is power, and unfortunately, nobody is ever given information until it's far too late to do anything with it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2011, 10:26 AM

Perhaps, to play fair, the council should release detail analysis of their proposals?

Posted by: massifheed Feb 18 2011, 10:32 AM

So what use was the alternative budget then? If you had to guess at the figures for departments that you had now practical knowledge of, what use is that to anyone? How did you decide that you could cut X amount from a department, if you don't know what that department does?

If just wanted to make the point that you weren't being given access to requested information it would have been better to have just said that, rather than making up numbers.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 10:46 AM

What I've asked for is the budget book for the coming financial year, so we could then suggest alternative ways of doing things to the council. They don't have to accept the alternatives put forward, but at least we have contributed. The Lib Dems are in the same position, how can they propose a credable alternative to the Tories if they won't publish the budget book?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 10:51 AM

We clearly stated the departments which we were estimating savings. It was as a result of the piece of work we did that we were given access to the budget books and more detailed information. It wasn't fictional, even after we recieved the detail, we were able to make those savings in theory for most cases, some were able to be cut further and some were unable to be cut as much as we suggested. But from what I remember, once we got the detail from the council, we identified an extra two million in savings over the next four years.

Whoever is running the council will need to save 40m in four years. None of the other parties are being honest about that, and the Tories are certainly not saying that after this year, no money is being allocated to sure start (see the documents from last nights council meeting), A further £2m+ worth of cuts to adult social care (maybe that's the other four day centres?) and various other bits. Until we get the full budget books, we won't know the full details and where the horror stories really are. By witholding the budget books, nobody can scrutinise what the Tories are proposing. And that very rarely happens at other local authorities.

Posted by: massifheed Feb 18 2011, 11:14 AM

Haha! Headline...

LABOUR'S GARVIE ON ALTERNATIVE BUDGET: "It wasn't totally fictional"

Posted by: massifheed Feb 18 2011, 11:29 AM

Ah, you changed it!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 11:55 AM

Yeah, I was trying to argue that it wasn't fictional yet on reflection, that word "totally" made my argument look worse!!! As I say, some estimations were made and they were clearly stated at the time.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 18 2011, 01:07 PM

"service users" - from the same phrase book again!

I don't need to have you lead me on a tour of the centres that are closing. Thanks anyway.

The centres that are closing were closing anway. Problem is you can't just pin a notice up & have everyone who was making use of one place pop along to another. Buildings need to be made suitable & that costs, it costs money that no council has. Provision will be made & to the best ability given the reduced budgets.

And talking of budgets, it would not matter if you had all the detail in the World - without knowing what that money was actually used for you couldn't show savings without making promises that could never be kept. That, IMHO is the real reason the local Labour Party has not released a budget for 2011/12

If you feel so passionate about things, instead of directing your energies at pointless point scoring why not do something positive?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 01:27 PM

Danny, ask your friend Graham to make the 2011 / 2012 budget books available. Then I will put a budget together. How can I put an alternative budget together without an accurate starting position? Even the budget books from last year that were published do not include the in year savings that were made a few months ago, so it is impossible to even start with that information.

So what you are saying is that we don't have the funds to alter the remaining buildings, so people will be left without day centres to attend. I thought nobody was going to be affected by the cuts Danny?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 18 2011, 01:31 PM

See, you can't help yourself. I have a lot of friends, but not a single one called Graham.
Instead of just accepting that there might be folk out there who disagree with you - all by themselves - you have to infer that there is some kind of tory smear campaign to which I am a party.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 01:33 PM

Ok, I'll take your word that you have nothing to do with him.

How can I prepare a budget without any accurate detail?

I thought you said people wouldn't be affected by cuts?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 18 2011, 01:36 PM

You can't. You can't prepare one even with the detail you have requested.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 18 2011, 01:37 PM

As best I know, even in central government the opposition parties do not have free access to 100% of the information the Ministers have. As Newbury Labour Party are not even represented in West Berkshire Council I can even more see why you cannot see such information.

What you have to do is decide the activities and services your 'Council' would provide (including the mandatory ones for central & regional Government). Standard costings are available - I think it is from NAO or a like body.
Then you set out where that money will come from - Government grants and business rates etc are a known amount, leaving the rest to come from Council Tax and generated income.

Those elements you intend to leave out and extra costs you intend to fund- have explanations ready.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 01:47 PM

We had access to very detailed info after we did our excercise last year. We could publish some bits now, but I think people would prefer to see that all of the numbers add up. Anyone can promise this or that,and in hindsight we should have issued an FOI to get the info we got after we published our alternative at the end of last year, so that way it would have been watertight. The fact is, the info we need isn't available to anyone until March, outside of the administration ofcourse. Not even the Lib Dems can access it.

Last year, we did it to show that there were other ways to save money. What we want to do now is come up with a fully costed plan for the next four years, and the key principles have already been decided and costed, we just need to make sure that from the starting position this year, the numbers add up. A lot of the finer details will mean that certain things need to be changed in our plans. What we don't want to do if we get control is to end up overspending in certain areas by millions of pounds like Adult Social Care or Waste for example.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 01:48 PM

Danny, you always expect answers from me. Can you answer these for me please?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 18 2011, 01:58 PM

I don't see why I should as you never give a straight answer.

But, I said the level of service would not be affected. I even qualified it by saying that there would be change & that some would find that change upsetting.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 18 2011, 02:07 PM

As best I can tell you have merely re-presented what I said.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 18 2011, 04:09 PM

But the level of service is being affected. Five centres are closing and some people will not have the option of using a day centre.

Posted by: user23 Feb 18 2011, 05:23 PM

Don't be so adversarial with your language and don't take it so personally if someone disagrees with you. No one trying to "land blows" on you.

No you can't pop in and see me at work. I doubt my employers would take kindly to me taking time out of my day to discuss my personal opinions with anyone. Some of us work for a living Richard and can't spend all day people chatting on the Internet or elsewhere about our personal interests.

Given your past behaviour here you'd only end up calling me a liar for disagreeing with you anyway so there would be little point.

Anyway, back on topic, where's your business plan then?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 25 2011, 05:10 PM

Looking around the country it seems that nearly all the Councils, regardless of majority party, is taking more or less the same action regarding cost reduction.

Does that mean, however tough, the decisions are right, or at least unavoidable?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 26 2011, 09:57 AM

Well, the councils that are cutting services are at least being honest about it, for example not saying on live BBC Radio that they "don't know of any cuts to those people". I'm with Pickles on this one, cut executive salaries, admin cost and everything else first, then look at what services need savings. Savings could have been made at the day centres without shutting them completely.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 26 2011, 12:39 PM

That statement bears little relationship to the question. I do not know what all the other councils in England are telling their citizens, I do not know what their Members are saying about their proposals, I do not know what other measures other councils are taking re back office (I do see WBC are making changes there as well as 'service' changes).

The few councils I have looked at have been changing or withdrawing adult services and youth services, regardless of majority party.


The question was, as so many councils seem to be taking the same sort of measures does that mean they are correct or at least unavoidable?

Posted by: user23 Feb 26 2011, 02:13 PM

Given an ageing population and with many taxpayers unwilling to contribute more, the answer is probably yes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2011, 02:25 PM

What do you mean by unavoidable? I ask, because few things are unavoidable.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 26 2011, 03:03 PM

No viable alternative, all things considered

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2011, 03:25 PM

I think that would be difficult without having full access to the books.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 26 2011, 03:36 PM

My point is, I suppose, that a great deal is being made of the local decisions when national indicators seem to show the solutions being applied are fairly universal.

Therefore, do we have to move on to next business as no-one else seems to have a better solution in terms of how the spends are re-aligned?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2011, 03:42 PM

I still have to say, we would need to see how things are on the balance sheet. We otherwise have to assume in good faith that the cuts are unavoidable, but I am sceptical that is truly the case.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 26 2011, 04:21 PM

You imply WBC may be setting their budget incorrectly when so many others are doing the same? Or is the reality the WBC methodology is not so evil as some believe/charge?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 26 2011, 04:35 PM

You asked an impossible to answer question for someone like me who has no access to the information I need.

You are suggesting that because 'everyone' are making similar type of cuts, that it has legitimized the cuts WBC are making. That does make logical sense, but that doesn't necessarily confirm that the ones we have are unavoidable.

Posted by: user23 Feb 26 2011, 04:50 PM

Don't we already have the figures?

A Central Government grant cut by 28% whilst the number of elderly in proportion to the taxpaying public grows every year and an unwillingness for local people to pay any more.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 10:39 AM

We will have to agree to disagree. Obviously the doubling of debt interest payments in just twelve months was avoidable, and that money could have prevented some of the cuts. Have the senior executive officers agreed to pay cuts? Have elected members taken a pay cut?

The fact is, Joe Mooney said vulnerable people would be affected by the £8.2m cuts and that he didn't know of any cuts aimed at the elderly or disabled. The dishonesty is the worst part of all this.

NWN, as I said before, I agree with Pickles, not other local councils. We need to make sure that the administration is in order and that cuts to services are land on the list. I'm all for efficiency savings, but the fact we have to cut so far and so fast means a lot of people making knee jerk reactions.

Posted by: user23 Feb 27 2011, 11:43 AM

If you're calling for pay cuts then surely this should be across the board?

I know figures aren't your strong point but ten or so council staff and fifty or so members taking a pay cut of a few hundred a year isn't really going to solve the problem of the Central Government grant cut by 28% whilst the number of elderly in proportion to the taxpaying public grows every year and there is an unwillingness for local people to pay any more, is it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 01:48 PM

No, what I'm saying is that all options should be explored before cutting key services. It was a Conservative Party manifesto promise (another they haven't kept) that they would not axe frontline services and that they were only going to implement efficiency savings. That hasn't happened, what we are seeing is key services slashed.

Oh, and I heard today that another 14 home carers have lost their jobs. All notified by letter, it would appear nobody even had the decency to speak to them in person!!! So much for no more job cuts.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 01:50 PM

Sometimes a measure need not make a significant impact, but indicates one-ness. Nationally there are many examples of MPs and now councillors screwing then expenses system for all they can, and of (usually) senior Officers working the pension/re-employment system also. Those examples, the minority as they may be, leave a bad taste.

There needs to be a proper understanding of the 'elderly' issue as described by User. With a static retirement age (until recently) and a growing pension-age population something has to give. Either we pay more or get less.

I agree elected members at all levels, and Civil Servants/Local Government Officers should be less crafty with simple truth, but the calls for change come from those in opposition, and are rarely undertaken when in the majority group. No-one is ever always right/never wrong.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 03:16 PM

There should be penalties for lying when in government, public service or local authorities, the same as in courts? No different than committing perjury in court really is it?

We have trading standards to protect the public from unscrupulous traders. It just appears that politicians, national and local, are able to say what they want without any fear of being brought to account for at bes,t being misleading and at worse lying through their teeth, whilst milking the gravy train.

Posted by: user23 Feb 27 2011, 03:24 PM

The options are simple if the services are to be kept in the public sector, raise more money through taxes or provide less services. As both central government and it would seem local people do not support the former as is their right of course, then the latter is the only choice.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 03:32 PM

And just like cowardly bullies WBC pick on those least able to defend themselves? The elderly and vulnerable!

Posted by: user23 Feb 27 2011, 03:44 PM

That's in very poor taste. You're going on my Ignore list.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 03:54 PM

Knock! Knock! Is User coming out to play?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 05:16 PM

Looking at the whole programme, that is not the full picture at all, and again, WBC are not the only ones seeing reduced services as a necessary step.

You have an alternative?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 27 2011, 10:14 PM

Yes I do but I have upset User enough to day so better not say?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 27 2011, 10:42 PM

If you have a valid alternative, that stands scrutiny, I doubt anyone could deny you a chance to put it forward.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 27 2011, 11:47 PM

So £4.4m of the cuts are youth workers and care workers being sacked. Another £2.2m is cuts to adult social care services such as the day centres and support groups. £800k of the education budget has also gone.

That's £7.4m of the £8.2m cuts, all hurting the elderly, disabled and families. Facts from the WBC "Key savings" document.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 12:27 AM

In organisations with a huge number of staff and not much in the way of disposable assets or marketable product there is little alternative to reducing staff numbers. Other measures have little real effect in reducing cost. The departments with the largest numbers of staff will lose the largest number of places as otherwise the cost reduction cannot be achieved.

This is a situation where the groups not having accountability for the decisions can say all manner of things about how much better they would do it. Means nothing. When councils across the country, of all persuasions, are coming up with similar programmes it is hard to see how WBC is doing anything especially bad.

As yet there has been no clarification of which adult care services will cease to exist and which will be delivered through an alternative operator.

Posted by: Bofem Feb 28 2011, 10:24 AM

Hmmm. The Riverside Centre in Turnpike was built to give the local hoodies something positive to do. If you haven't been there, it's a community centre, with a large basketball/5 a side court outside. WBC decided 2 years ago to save money by not turning on the outside lights. The result was the kids started hanging around the shops again.

WBC is now in talks to hand this over to the local resident association. My point is that these services were not particularly well-run in recent years, so are of questionable value. So I'm not sure how much it's 'hurting' families.

Perhaps a better example is the Waterside. Used to be great, bands on every week, thousands of local teenagers going through it's doors. But due to poor decisions higher up, it's a shadow of it's former self.

The state has no business running youth clubs.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 02:19 PM

Good points, and your last one is spot on.

The old established Turnpike Youth and Community Centre - on the school site - was not perfect but met many needs. It was closed when the school went, and transferred to Trinity - against much advice. Madness as the demographics were all wrong. The Officers were not wrong though, so the Council trumpeted the opening of the new site, 200 yds from the old Centre. The links had been broken, though.

Supported local initiatives are a better course than grand council schemes.

Posted by: user23 Feb 28 2011, 07:52 PM

Who should run youth clubs?

Posted by: Bofem Feb 28 2011, 09:53 PM

Anyone. It's not rocket science is it?

WBC could have leased out the youth clubs to local volunteer groups (like they did in other parts of the country 20/30/40 years ago) instead of shutting them. There's hundreds of people around here who do various bits n pieces with young people. (scouts, cadets, young musicians etc).

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 09:55 PM

Not Councils. The need for 'product', 'quality' and the other 'didn't we do well' indicators gets in the way of young people having a good time socialising, experimenting and learning in an informal environment.

Councils should facilitate, not operate.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2011, 10:18 PM

Historically the church has done much here, with varying degrees of proselytizing and middle-class exclusivity. With the decline of organised religion and the moral panic about both paedophiles and ASB I can see why the state would feel obliged to get involved. I'm glad I don't have children, because I don't think society is at all child-friendly, but I think the role of the state is to empower communities to organise themselves, and not to do it for us.

Posted by: user23 Feb 28 2011, 10:21 PM

So what should happen in areas where no one wants to run them, other then the local council?

Nothing? Let the kids roam the streets with nothing to do?

Posted by: Bofem Feb 28 2011, 10:30 PM

Yeah, you win.

Here's some more examples to assist your incisive argument.

What should happen in areas where there's no supermarket? Nothing - let the people starve?
What should happen in areas when no one wants to run a school. Nothing - let the kids remain ignorant?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 28 2011, 10:37 PM

And there it is, the ASB-boogerman.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 28 2011, 10:39 PM

Truth is, many people will not step up because they do not want the aggro of formal oversight and monitoring. I know of many examples where local people come forward - and not just in 'nice' areas - keen to do something. There is a role for the council, but I do not think central or local government cover themselves in glory when they run things long term. British Rail? British Steel? National Coal Board? CCTV schemes?

Posted by: user23 Feb 28 2011, 10:44 PM

Where there's no supermarket and there's a gap in the market someone usually sets one up because there's money to be made from it. Whoever made money from a youth club?

Where there's no school people travel out the area because by law, children have to be educated and most parents don't have the resources to home-school their children. Unless going to a youth club is made compulsory then again this won't happen.

Posted by: Bofem Mar 1 2011, 10:01 AM

Exactly.

When there's a gap in the 'market' it gets filled, not just in cases of an economic argument, but socially too.

If there's demand for a youth club it will happen. WBC could provide a bit of advice on health and safety or CRB checks, and then go away and do the same somewhere else.

The volunteers running it could then get a grant from Greenham Trust or the Benyons...and suddenly there's no need for £30k a year/final salary pension Youth Development Officers. Job done.

Posted by: user23 Mar 1 2011, 07:02 PM

Unfortunately this isn't true.

Say for example there's thirty inner city kids looking for something to do, a youth club or activity centre doesn't materialise from nowhere just because there's a demand for it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 1 2011, 09:33 PM

Actually, user, you'd be amazed how often exactly that happens.

Posted by: user23 Mar 1 2011, 09:45 PM

But not all the time, so the statement "If there's demand for a youth club it will happen" is untrue.

When it doesn't happen that's when a council should take the lead.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 1 2011, 09:52 PM

Council taking a lead does not mean council running the activity.

Posted by: user23 Mar 1 2011, 09:53 PM

When no one else wants to run it, it should.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 1 2011, 10:06 PM

That implies the parents etc can't get off their backsides, which is a deeper seated problem than just 'kids with nothing to do'. Pump priming is ok, but asap they should get out of direct management.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 1 2011, 10:59 PM

I hear often enough demands for the police to be doing more to arrest antisocial youths, so I confess it would be encouraging instead to hear demands for the state to give the youths a legitimate outlet for their youth, but I agree with NWNREADER that the role of the state should be to facilitate.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 12:36 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-12745429

Interesting that nobody would meet those who attended, and that because I was there they used the Labour Party as an opportunity to deflect criticism!!!

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 15 2011, 12:47 PM

Since it was not an event that the council was aware was going to happen it is not surprising that the appropriate member of the council was not available.
Why not make a formal appointment and approach the council in a more structured manner to get the people that you need to talk too.

That goes with the position that you put yourself in. Still more visibility for you eh!!

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 12:56 PM

You organise an unannounced event and then are surprised no one knows about it?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 01:19 PM

Indeed it is interesting, as it demonstrates admirable time management and prioritisation. How many Officers/Councillors should be on stand-by, and over what hours, to meet any people who happen to drop in, announced only to the local media?

The quoted words of Mr J seem accurate.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 01:27 PM

Joe Mooney was contacted on Friday, and refused to return my calls!!!

Saying that, I think Joe Mooney is getting the boot anyway, hence Graham Jones issuing the statement.

Posted by: Bofem Mar 15 2011, 01:35 PM

Standing down this time I thought?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 01:47 PM

Having just seen the report on BBC South Today, the Tories are making this into a political issue. It wasn't a Labour event, I certainly didn't talk about Labour during the sit in and the only political references were made by Graham Jones via his statement. The users of the centres wanted to speak with council officers responsible for the centres, yet Graham Jones has tried to make this a political football.

Ask Keith Ullyat who was asked to come and speak to those in attendance. Aren't the political parties supposed to operate seperately to the council?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 02:25 PM

Ha Ha ! sorry ? A labour spokesperson accuses the Tories of turning it into a political issue ! perhaps some people should reflect on the salient point that if labour hadn't squandered the housekeeping in the first place then cuts wouldn't be nessecery and the meeting wouln't have even taken place. The fact that Labour were or were not discussed doesn't stop them being like the elephant in the room !

If you led a party into my office unnanounced I doubt very much if I would see you either. Still, once a grandstander, etc, etc.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 02:52 PM

Refused, or just (perhaps) didn't get them?
Who contacted him and why? What was the message?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 03:08 PM

I personally spoke to his wife and left a message and my number, basically asking him to meet with us today to discuss the centres and provision post October.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 15 2011, 03:13 PM

I’m no expert, but I think I read on here or somewhere, that the budget deficit prior to the banking crash was lower than when labour came into office. If this is true, that might suggest that Labour weren’t as bad as the Tories might like to suggest. Now whether the fiscal stimulus was a prudent to thing to do is another issue. At the time, the Tories thought not.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 03:21 PM

Correct. Labour need to get that message out, and also the fact that the Tories were until just before the financial collapse calling for LESS REGULATION!!! One of the reasons I could never trust Cameron is his ability to change his view without hesitation or shame. Working on the radio every day let me listen to more news bulletins than I ever cared to listen too. Gordon Brown wasn't right for prime minister, but he was still better than Cameron and Clegg.

There is a good video on youtube from the commons select committee featuring George Osborne in which the Tory argument is ripped to pieces. The best bit of that viedo is the fact George Osborne is on Camera squirming through the whole thing and apparently doesn't know the answers to many questions regarding the claims made by the Conservative Party relating to Labour and the economy.

What is important is that the parties locally engage in what matters to people in West Berkshire. Who doubled council debt in the last ten months? Who is closing day centres and youth clubs? Who is proposing we cut £2.9m from adult social care again next year? Who is cutting children centre and education funding? Who is reducing the amount of affordable housing? Who is bodging up our local road network? Who wants to build on Victoria Park? Who let Grundon quarry for two years longer than they should have, sending only a single letter in the process???

The council is in chaos. That's the issue here, not Gordon Brown or Tony Blair.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 03:30 PM

So where do you discover his refusal?
Where do you get your right to audience at a place, date and time of your choosing?

Did you organise the visit?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 03:45 PM

He's happy to collect his £14,000 a year though. They take the money so they should do the job.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 03:57 PM

Not what I asked

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 08:05 PM

no, it wasn't, and like many of his ilk he finds it difficult to come up with a straight answer to a straight question

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 08:09 PM

Why is the only active and vocal member of the Labour Party in Newbury trying to disassociate himself with Labour?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 08:13 PM

If it was me I think shame would have a large part to play.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 08:29 PM

Where and how? This was a non political protest, yet the only way Graham Jones (your mate) could defend what he is doing was by blaming the last Labour Government.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 15 2011, 08:31 PM

Then the spokesperson of the local Labour party should have kept a low profile & avoided being quoted in the NWN. You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 08:34 PM

Richard..... Sorry to be a pain, but I know how much you like to ensure people answer your question.....

So where do you discover his refusal?
Where do you get your right to audience at a place, date and time of your choosing?

Did you organise the visit?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 08:34 PM

You mean avoid the issue like our elected members? One of whom attended Market Street purely to get on TV, and didn't even come inside???

I actually care about what happens with these facilities, the council are making a mistake and it's not too late to change their minds. Just because you are affiliated to a political party, why shouldn't you fight for what you believe in?

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 08:35 PM

Of course it was a political protest.

Are you no longer Community Organiser for Newbury Labour Party?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 15 2011, 08:38 PM

because you run the risk of derailing the protest & turning it into a political bunfight. You can't be everything to everyone.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 08:38 PM

I assisted the group following contact by one of the families affected by these cuts. Cllr Mooney is an elected member responsible for these services. He gets paid £14k a year for the privaledge. He chose not to return my calls or answer the message I left with his wife. If he doesn't want to speak to those with concerns that's his choice, but he shouldn't be in that position.

If he is responsible for the department, he should make himself available and if he can't make it, at least suggest an alternative. But when this very same person lied on the radio about not knowing of any cuts in his department, that shows how much he cares about the issue itself.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 08:41 PM

Yes I am. But that shouldn't stop me or the party from offering assistance to others. You may look at life differently, but if I feel I can help then I will offer my services, regardless of cause.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 08:42 PM

I'm not trying to be. Just trying to campaign for something I believe in, regardless of political affiliation.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 08:46 PM

What 'assistance' did you give? Broadly speaking I see your answer as a circumnavigating the periphery of 'yes'.
Is his wife his secretary, accountable?
You are not the only person with concerns, so maybe, just maybe he has other priorities than you?

I am not overly protecting him, but the idea that any one person or minority group is entitled to a specific level of 'service' does not hold water with me.
As (effectively) trespassers and disrupters, I can see a perspective that says not to jump to it when so bidden.

Is the lie you talk about proven?

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 08:46 PM

I suspect the cause was votes for Labour, but because it didn't go too well the party are trying to distance themselves from the whole fiasco.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 08:53 PM

I think it went fantastically well. 30 people on a Tuesday morning (just before 9am), covered by BBC and ITV news, on Heart, BBC Radio Berkshire and Newbury Sound and a write up on the papers website. Shabby day then.

We asked to speak to a council officer as it wasn't political. All we got was a party political statement fro Graham Jones attacking Labour. Maybe you can answer my question from earlier: Aren't the council and political parties supposed to be seperate???

As for Joe Mooney lying through his teeth, he said that vulnerable people wouldn't be affected by these cuts and there were no cuts being made to adult social care. Listen to the clip!!!

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 08:59 PM

Went fantastically well for you, got your name splashed around some more, back in the news, raising your profile, no one really believes that you are not doing this for purely altruistic reasons richard so give it a rest heh ?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 15 2011, 09:02 PM

I'm not sure that one must work for altruistic reasons.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 09:05 PM

BBC says 20, and the pic hardly looks like energised Middle West Berkshire.

As with Simon and his 'good idea' re allotments, lack of support leaves you banging a muffled drum.

Overall, I rather suspect no-one wants the changes, but no-one has a viable alternative. If you pull one end of a length of string with no slack, the other end moves too

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 09:14 PM

Whatever. It's about time the council engaged in the issues instead of resorting to attacks on me.

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 09:16 PM

I thought the councillor's comments (not the council's) were about Labour, not you?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 15 2011, 09:17 PM

There are times when you rather ask for it.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 09:18 PM

I'm making references to the comments on here.

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 09:20 PM

No you weren't. You were referring to the councillor's comments.

How does the council attack you on here?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 09:21 PM

Then perhaps a few less brickbats from your corner, arrainge a scheduled meet rather than an ambush and a little less grandstanding and we might get somewhere, heaven knows no one really wants to hurt the vulnerable and no one wants to be the recipient of some of the bile spewed around. Lets just stop point scoring and do something positive.

Thats my two pence worth anyway.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 09:23 PM

The Conservative Party won't even discuss it with the Lib Dems, nor will they provide budget information for the coming financial year even though it's already been voted through. How can the council honestly vote on a budget without seeing it in full?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 09:23 PM

Who do you work for?

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 09:25 PM

Don't dodge the question with another question.

How does the council attack you on here?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 09:27 PM

Through employees like you.

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 09:30 PM

So, to clarify, you're alleging that the council are paying their employees to "attack" the Community Organiser of a political party on the forum of local media organisation?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 15 2011, 09:39 PM

No, I didn't say they were paying you.

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 09:41 PM

OK, you're saying that the council are asking their employees to "attack" the Community Organiser of a political party on the forum of local media organisation then. Is this correct?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 09:47 PM

For free??

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 15 2011, 09:47 PM

I would like to see some evidence of this scurrilous allegation.

Posted by: user23 Mar 15 2011, 10:28 PM

So would I.

Posted by: Bofem Mar 16 2011, 11:42 AM

You're right, they're not. They're paying you to maintain the WBC website.

Here's a useful way you could contribute to these discussions.

I was looking for the 2010-11 budget to find out what my taxes are paying for....and it was hard work to find such an important document.

Posted by: user23 Mar 16 2011, 01:26 PM

Looks like Richard's gone quiet on this one when we've asked for evidence to support his outrageous claim.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 16 2011, 01:53 PM

Funny that.

Posted by: user23 Mar 16 2011, 05:46 PM

Yes. It's almost like he completely fabricated it.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 17 2011, 08:32 PM

I doubt it. He is a very busy man. He'll get to answer soon, otherwise he would be ignoring me and I know he would never follow anothers' bad example

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 09:04 PM

Sorry, I had a look back and couldn't find what you wanted me to answer?

Posted by: user23 Mar 17 2011, 09:06 PM

Here, Richard. Your claim that the council are asking their employees to "attack" the Community Organiser of a political party on the forum of local media organisation then.

Have you got any evidence to support it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2011, 09:12 PM

Where did he claim that the council were asking people to attack him (or his office)?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 09:19 PM

Nothing I say will hold any weight with you, so no.

Posted by: user23 Mar 17 2011, 09:25 PM

Right, so you lied about it, basically.

Let's move on though, what about NWNREADER's question, are you going to answer that?

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 17 2011, 09:35 PM

Like others of his cut, while critical of others for not answering a straight question he is unable to do likewise when caught.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 09:37 PM

No. You come on here to efend your paymasters, and there are about four / five others who are all a bit dubious. But I really can't be bothered to argue with someone who tries to twist everything and anything.

Answer my question: Will you defend the Labour party if they win control as much as you defend the Tories?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2011, 09:37 PM

I agree; I think Richard needs to be more careful with his language and accusations. Although I don't agree with his accusation, I am sure there are people on here that are council apologists and argue with Richard simply for his negative council stance.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 09:39 PM

Here we go again. I try my best to answer all my questions, but why do I bother? I mean if I said the grass was green, certain users on here would say it was pink. Why are you all so defensive of Graham Jones and his merry men? Even the conservative supporters say they would rather not vote than vote for this current bunch!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 17 2011, 09:40 PM

LOL,

anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so at the behest of WBC / NTC. Is your real name David Brent?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 17 2011, 09:41 PM

Richard

here you are, old chap. Looks like you need a PA to keep up with the corres.....

Posted by: user23 Mar 17 2011, 09:41 PM

You've been caught red handed, lying.

Moving the debate on, can you answer NWNREADER's question please?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 09:42 PM

You are right. It's hard sometimes, especially when you have got trolls on here to try and discredit anyone who dares challenge what our local authority is doing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2011, 09:44 PM

Don't forget if you get into any sort of office, you will have plenty of people like you, against you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2011, 09:46 PM

I don't really think he was lying; he made an accusation he couldn't prove. I certainly agree with his sentiments on the issue, but not necessarily with the facts.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 09:48 PM

I appreciate that, and if we got control of the council there will be lots of unhappy former councillors. But we will open the council up in a way that we can only imagine right now. Have a look at our manifesto, and let me know what you think. It's all aimed at involving everyone, even opposition parties. All I would say additionally is that if others think they can improve on our ideas, like the person who suggested the pavillion be built behind the museum, we will listen. Allotment self management, I've researched it and it does work and it does save money. We listen, and we work hard. That will continue, whether I personally get elected or not.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 17 2011, 09:49 PM

WBC Metal Gear sock puppets!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 17 2011, 09:51 PM

You come accross as to evangelical - You may listen, but you ignore what you don't want to hear.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 10:00 PM

Labour can't do any worse than anything that has gone on in the past ten / fifteen years, let's be honest. We have put a manifesto together, and if we control the council that is what we will deliver.

Posted by: user23 Mar 17 2011, 10:02 PM

Not a great campaign slogan:

"Labour can't do any worse"

Best not use the phrase "let's be honest" in this thread either, given your past conduct.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 17 2011, 10:03 PM

Richard

I know the rough boys are being horrid, but...............


And as for User calling you a liar: while it may be you have merely had to withdraw a statement you have in the past called someone a liar for making a statement that you feel cannot be substantiated or is 'misleading'. However hard you try to do things, when you try to act like Mandy you must expect the backlash. Not even the majority of the Labour Party seem to like that style, let alone the majority of the nation.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 17 2011, 10:03 PM

Can't do anything worse? Some mantra that.

I don't doubt Labour would have done no better.

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 17 2011, 10:14 PM

And tonights party political broadcast is on behalf of....................

Posted by: Turin Machine Mar 17 2011, 10:16 PM

About the spending cuts, "some big boys did it and ran away"

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 10:16 PM

It's hard to draw a line between you and the Tories when you use phrases that have previously been bandied around by Mr Jones. Anyway, I thought I'd answered you.

His refusal was when he didn't call me back, answer my messages or even the personal message I left with his wife.

I don't have a right, but if he couldn't make Tuesday, he could have easily requested an alternative date. He has told Mr benyons office he is happy to meet anyone. Speaking to the protesters, it would appear that isn't true.

Did I organise the visit? I played a part, yes. I was contacted via the Labour website regarding what was happening, and I suggested if there was going to be something happening, I would be happy to support them with sending emails, organising media attendance and so on. I didn't realise that my involvement with the Labour Party meant that I couldn't get involved in other campaigns, as that is what is being suggested. I think I'm just an excuse for the council not to engage, let's face it, I'm banned from speaking to everyone at the council bar one officer (plus another one on solely election procedure matters). The Tories refuse to speak to me. All because I've highlighted inconsistancies within their stories. Are the Lib Dems treated in the same way? Tories? If not, does that suggest an unlevel playing field?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 17 2011, 10:20 PM

It suggests you need to know how to play the game.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 17 2011, 10:22 PM

But I don't want to play games. I'm just trying to make a difference. I thought that was what it was about, before I started getting involved anyway. Watching a council meeting is painful, they should all be ashamed.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 17 2011, 11:23 PM

Don't you dare insult me by seeking to align me with any party. If someone is right I agree, if someone is wrong (in my view) I say so. By having no affiliation I am free to speak as I see fit.

Your use of the word 'refusal' does not bear inspection. 'Failure', maybe, but you cannot sustain 'refusal'. That allows your broader point to be diluted.

If the event was planned for 0900 Tuesday, what would be the point of suggesting another day/time? Your point is not (yet) sustainable, in my view.

I've tried looking for the contact made on the Labour website, but cannot see anything. (I looked at the manifesto too - as it has a lot about education might I suggest a proof reader?) I'm always suspicious of politicos and their 'person on the street' who energises them to take action on some point or another. Never mind. Your answer says to me that yes, you did organise the event. Nothing wrong in that, but painting something as spontaneous when it is organised is a poor tactic (whoever tries it).

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2011, 11:31 PM

NWNREADER, are you a former councillor?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 17 2011, 11:33 PM

No. I am honest.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 18 2011, 07:28 PM

That's you disqualified from national or local politics then?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 18 2011, 07:51 PM

Thank goodness!!

Far too many have clearly gone into 'politics' to get rich. make their name, or some other false idolatry.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 18 2011, 08:22 PM

Unless you are Richard Garvie of course?