Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 3 2015, 03:50 PM

http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=31554
We may all as well go live in a cave! This is pretty poor stuff, from a modern so called caring society.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2015, 04:36 PM

I notice the smelly stuff always runs downhill! The Government makes cuts to Local Authorities grants and states it will now be the responsibility of the Local Authority to make provision for cost if they still wish to supply certain services.
Local Authority follow suit and state it will be the responsibility of Parish Councils to provide funds if they wish to retain supply of certain services!

I see roads maintenance is to be cut, WBC must already have the worst maintained roads in the South of England regarding potholes and ice clearance, the cost of having a couple of contractors going around and shoveling in a bit of tarmac and patting it down with the back of a shovel, which seems the norm, and then repeating next week must be exorbitant?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2015, 07:17 PM

Totally agree, this cascade of responsibility is grossly irresponsible. If we can't afford to do something, we can't afford it, period.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2015, 07:54 PM

I disagree. Communities can afford this by raising the precept for their parish, if it's something they want to do in their area.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 3 2015, 08:22 PM

This is the bit where "Hooray!! They haven't put Council Tax up!" becomes "Hang on.... what do you mean we have no money to pay for these essential items"

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2015, 08:55 PM

West Berkshire is a unitary council, therefore West Berkshire IS the community.

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2015, 09:05 PM

There are 60 or so parishes that make up the community of West Berkshire.

But you must know that, so I don't know quite where you're going with this.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 3 2015, 10:10 PM

I think every driver in England thinks their own particular patch is the 'worst maintained in Britain'. You may think that WBC roads are the worst but statistics from DfT prove otherwise. You think you have it, bad try visiting <insert other Council area> and you'd be surprised how much worse it can get....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 3 2015, 10:15 PM

WBC are looking to the parish councils to increase their precept and provide the missing services but Newbury Town Council are hopeless bumbling amateurs who would struggle to organise a church jumble sale so the best NTC could do would be to increase their precept and just hand the money straight over to WBC who are generally speaking a professional outfit and much better able to deliver social services. In fact it really rather demonstrates how pointless the Town Council already is because for the £1,000,000 of tax that the Town Council currently collects it does little more than manages a grounds maintenance contract to cut the grass in a couple of the local parks and WBC already has a department that could do that with little extra effort. Of course if we lost Newbury Town Council we'd also lose the ceremonial mayor but I'm pretty sure any fool could dress up in a fox-fur robe and tricorn hat so we'd hardly be losing anything.

The question then is whether to lose WBC services or pay more tax, and that rather depends on which services exactly are to be dropped.

Posted by: spartacus Nov 3 2015, 10:29 PM

Looking at the list of areas to be cut you do wonder why, in the age of austerity, money was ever available for some of these services in the first place.

"Feel Good Fortnight" £10,000 spent over two weeks on "various activities that occur during the launch event, such as Chefs Challenge and performers including choirs and dancers."

"Smoking Cessation Service - 'Smoke Free Life' " The current contribution made by the council to this service is £311,000 annually. That's a lot to be spending on a dirty habit that is a personal choice and over which so many awareness campaigns are already in place regarding the health risks, that people who do smoke must know what they're doing so only have themselves to blame.

"Oral Health Promotion" £24,000 spent on something that should be the responsibility of parents

"Healthy Eating in Children" £15,000 spent on a 'Phunky Food' programme and a Healthy Eating co-ordinator. Again, a parent's responsibility

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2015, 10:35 PM

Quite simply the parish councils have a different role. They are not, and were never intended to be 'mini district councils'. Passing over services on such an ad hoc basis would create role conflict, cause confusion and increase costs, both first and ongoing. Arguably, if the Parish level council could take over the services due to be cut, then there is no reason why they shouldn't take over all the others as well. For instance, NTC covers the area of the previous Newbury Borough; which was thought sufficiently competent to run a wide range of services etc. In effect, you'd be re-creating one sixth of a Berkshire County Council by stealth. That's really going to cut costs!

Quite apart from that, the bigger parish councils have not exactly demonstrated competence or financial prudence. Some have even have a paid administrative establishment and an expensive property portfolio.

I for one would therefore argue that far from taking on more work, parish level councils should be looking to slim down too and be subject to similar severe financial constraints. After all, even the other preceptors such as the Police are making much noise about financial cuts, why should a parish council be any different?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2015, 10:38 PM

DaFt statistics are a bit biased don't you think?

Driving into West Berkshire from Hampshire or wiltshire is very noticeable by the state of the roads for instance. I also have been noticing that potholes tend to have to be frequently repaired on a rather more regular basis than other counties I travel through so perhaps a more professional repair would be more cost effective in the final analysis?

Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 3 2015, 11:11 PM

Err, didn't central dole out millions to West Berks specifically to fix the pot holes? They can't have spent ALL that on truffles and champagne for their meetings! Can they?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2015, 12:01 AM

According to this http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=28571 the government grant to WBC this year was £20.7M. For next year it is being cut by £11M. One more year of cuts like this and there won't be any grant left to cut.

Of course, Osborne promised that local councils would get to keel ALL the business rates collected in their area. All b*****ks to keep conference happy I suspect (or to put it another way, he lied) - but it would make WBC financially independent of central government, and far better off than today.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2015, 07:33 PM

Might go some way to explain why WBC are not concerned about infrastructure, cram as many houses, shops and houses in to a tight a space as possible, raises the revenue and enlarges the Empire that's number one priority it would seem?

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2015, 08:30 PM

I don't agree with that sort of siloed and "we've always done it like that" thinking.

Communities have an opportunity to re-shape the way services are delivered to them, or not if they don't require them, through their parish council.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2015, 08:47 PM

How right you are; outdated 'mustn't make any change' thought process is EXACTLY why we have the mess we are in today! Moving tasks between councils is just the same as re arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Why is that even being considered....well, actually I do know, its just the usual Adult / Child relationship our Council insists on having with its voters. 'No darling, Daddy can't afford it....why not ask Mummy?'.

As to reshaping our service delivery, oh yes, lets bring it on, and quickly, but nothing like the failed past models eh?

Lets face it, when the Unitary (by the way that means one) Authority was set up, there was no reason why the whole area couldn't have been 'parished'. That would have made so much more sense. i.e. the Town Wards are big enough and distinct enough to be standalone parishes on their own. We would then have had a properly common immediately local advisory body for every area; not just some. But no, we had to retain the defunct 'Town' as a pretend administrative area. I suppose that fits with the pretend County of Berkshire though.

Do you know of any other organisation that rationalises its organisation and still keeps the redundant units for 'ceremonial' purposes? No wonder local government has a name for 'we've always done it that way' and 'not invented here'.

There is, of course, another niggling issue, quite minor I'm sure, in transferring work to Parishes. That's the first cost in effecting the transfer. In local government that don't come cheap; it took a year of legal wrangling and effort simply for NTC to take a lease on Victoria Park.

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2015, 08:53 PM

Your political campaign against Newbury Town Council might be clouding your judgement on this.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2015, 09:50 PM

Or it could be the case that your strait jacketed and WBC blinkered outlook may be limiting your vision of the situation?

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2015, 10:28 PM

Perhaps you could describe to me why you think my suggestion to OTE about letting communities decide the services they need for themselves is "strait jacketed and blinkered"?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2015, 10:50 PM

Is there no way WBC could not organise itself to do exactly what you desire? That is, essentially let each Councillor's constituency decide if it wants to pay for a cut service. Quite simple to achieve and no costs of transferrance. I suspect that wouldn't even be considered because it's not how things are done at WBC. What is your idea of a community? Doesn't WBC serve 'the community'? Isn't it a shame WBC isn't innovative enough to be able to discriminate service levels on a street by street basis - dependent on charge income.

If you want to see what real political leadership, for local government during austerity looks like, nip into the Library and have a look at E R Davies, History of First Berkshire County Council, in the index - S for Scurray.

Be careful what you wish for!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 5 2015, 02:18 AM

Wouldn't delegating services down the chain ultimately cost the tax payer more through increase in admin costs?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 5 2015, 09:05 AM

They cram houses in so as to meet the ever increasing targets set for house building. New build business rates are good for the WBC budget but it's more about reducing the cuts than enlarging the Empire these days.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 5 2015, 12:52 PM

Yes, very much so. And your point is?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 5 2015, 04:55 PM

As you well know WBC will never allow communities to decide what services they need! Remember the so called consultation on recycling, not a mention of two weekly black bin collection, so questions were posed that ensured the outcome was what WBC wanted........a cut and lesser services with no reduction in council tax.
Whenever any poster makes suggestions for improving any service or alteration to how WBC functions you get personal and make snide remarks......hence the blinkered and strait jacketed comment!

Posted by: user23 Nov 5 2015, 11:20 PM

First of all please could you answer the question I put to you, how was my suggestion about parish councils "straight jacketed and blinkered"?

Secondly, can you give me a few examples of when I have "got personal and made snide remarks" please?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 6 2015, 02:10 PM

"Your political campaign against Newbury Town Council might be clouding your judgement on this."

Why should the communities decide the services they need when WBC have already been supplying them? If they cut them and request the Parish Council to supply them do we then see a cut in council tax to WBC?
The suggestion that we see a reduction in staff at the top end of WBC would surely be more beneficial than cuts to essential services if at all possible I would agree with.

Other snide remarks can be found by searching for posts made by User23 and you can then carefully read through the posts, if you feel you need any IT instructions I am sure someone will explain this procedure for you. Ensure you take off your WBC blinkers of course, or you could get someone who, shall we say is less biased, to read them for you and explain why they may be considered snide and patroninsing?

Posted by: user23 Nov 6 2015, 05:14 PM

If that's a personal, snide comment then surely this is too?I wouldn't class either as a personal or "snide comment", he doesn't seem upset and neither am I, so I'm not sure why you are.

Mine was just a statement of fact. He's a politician who's campaigned against the town council in the past. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever of course, but as manifested in this thread he does seem to have an obsessive and negative fixation with that council. Remind you of anyone else you might know?

Anyway, I had hoped the standard of conversation might have improved but it seems there's just trolls and wind up merchants posting here these days. Oh for some positive, constructive debate about how communities might do things for themselves.

I guess this isn't the place for that and I'll have to find somewhere else.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 6 2015, 06:14 PM

There there don't take on so!

Oh no you have said the dreaded TROLL word now you are for it!

As for constructive debate....... there is nothing wrong with communities doing something for themselves providing that there is a reduction in council tax of course.........but as you well know that never happens does it. We have to keep paying Council tax regardless of service provided as there is no alternative is there......... therefore no competition.

As for finding somewhere else........will you get paid redundancy then? Who will now become the unofficial WBC spokesperson on here I wonder?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 6 2015, 07:49 PM

Some constructive debate about how communities can do things for themselves. OK then, what about promoting a seminar for our Councillors which would show them other sources for funding things, how to set up a public meeting to set things in motion and how to set up self managing trusts? That would then really engage the Community. For instance, if that model was adopted, the Greenham Tower project would be proceeding without any Council involvement at all.

For WBC budget cuts, let's see our Councillors go to the public in an open meeting and call for such ideas and proposals - BUT in a positive way and explaining how it can be achieved. Arguably, with such a push, Mencap itself would then raise the funds to cover any gaps caused by the cuts.

The other proposal I'd suggest is that our Councillors put their oversight if the Council into what in the States is called Chapter 11 mode. That is, they cannot make or authorise any new spending whatsoever. Tough times mean tough measures. This by the way is positive, because it's designed to save the business. The other thing the Councillors have to do is a radical,root and branch review of the 'business' itself. That's where NTC come in, can we really and honestly justify two administrations, particularly with today's modern technology and the joint nature of the base electorate?

So, in summary, 'doing it themselves' means just that, not getting another Council to do it and even to the casual observer, there are low hanging administration savings.

Just imagine, properly constituted stand alone public trusts running most of our services and a very lean and efficient local council! That would be something to be proud of; big society delivered.

Why don't I like NTC? Biggest reason is that it's stopping my locality having a real parish council. I strongly believe that if the NTC was divided into Parishes, there would be a significant saving and a far greater impetus for the localities to deliver things themselves.

So then, there are some positive ideas, what are yours? Let debate commence.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 6 2015, 09:39 PM

You used the R word......

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 6 2015, 10:02 PM

What if the parents are too darn dumb to know? Or care? Should 'the village' abandon the child too?



“It takes a village to raise a child” - Anon.

Posted by: Sherlock Nov 7 2015, 05:12 AM

I wonder where Osborne imagines that cash spent on public services actually ends up. Most of the taxpayers' money that goes to pay public servants' wages is either spent in local businesses or repaid to the government in tax. His swingeing cuts will decrease demand in an already wobbly economy

Of course, much of it goes back to the government. The less well off (which includes many council paid workers, whose pay has been frozen or severely limited since Cameron got into No 10) already pay far more, as a proportion of their income, in tax than the rich http://goo.gl/U6BJSH/ So slashing council spending will further impoverish Osborne's Treasury.

But he seems incredibly keen to hand our cash over to government owned organisations in the People's Republics of China and France and to tax dodging, often foreign owned, corporations here.

One way or another he's falling over himself to ensure that our money ends up in socialist countries, foreign owned corporations or tax havens.

Hey ho. Anyone who voted for him and his local authority pals can take the digit below, insert it deep into their rectums and swivel.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 7 2015, 07:36 AM

The economic truth about the circulation of money applies to the economy as a whole. There are other reasons why much smaller government is arguably better; true liberalism. Though I don't think economic logic is driving George Osborne or the Tories! For me, the key is our tacit handover of British commerce and development to foreign hands. Sure, in the short term, by selling the farm so to speak we gain BUT what happens tomorrow? Anyone who thinks this is a clever ruse and we have the brains, so foreign investment means they'll just pay for our expertise has a nasty shock coming. Just one example, has anyone else wondered why a French nationalised industry would want to buy into a competitive market? Get used to the cuts folks, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by: user23 Nov 7 2015, 10:36 AM

Something like this might already be in the pipeline, though self managing trusts sounds a bit formal and this is really just about enabling people to do things for themselves, by providing the tools for them to do so.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 7 2015, 01:32 PM

That's interesting. I'd wholly agree and actually believe that enabling and facilitating should be a prime purpose certainly of parish level councils. Yes, even to the extent of supplying tools. However, therein lies the crunch; my experience and that of others I know, is that those supplying the tools want to carry on using them. Which inevitably takes us back to square one. I've been intimately involved with a couple of very serious initiatives, which at the moment of take off, were hi-jacked by the politicos...crash landings are never fun. Sorry, but community involvement should not be a matter of delivering leaflets or putting the chairs out.

As for self governing trusts, yes a degree of formality is needed, particularly for bigger initiatives. For instance, a self managed trust would probably make a pretty good fist at running our museum particularly if coupled with Shaw House. That would necessarily mean our Councils walking right away and leaving them to it. Giving up control is hard to do.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 7 2015, 06:45 PM

In that instance I'm not sure it's about losing control. I also suspect that WBC would love to be shot of Shaw House and the Museum. The problem as I see it is convincing them that they wouldn't have to step in and save the trust in a few years time.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 7 2015, 07:15 PM

Why would they have to? Surely they have no statutory duty to own or operate either. Arguably, if a trust failed, then the usual arrangements ought to apply - the building gets sold. In terms of the democratic process, the electorate, in voting for the Conservatives have agreed (albeit at high level) that the public purse can't afford unnecessary expenditure. Creating a trust gives the electorate a separate and direct opportunity to keep it in public ownership if they so choose. So, if both indicators are negative, what's the issue in letting a trust liquidate and sell the premises to the highest bidder? That's democracy is it not?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 7 2015, 08:29 PM

WBC might be more inclined to hand over their services, I don't know, but NTC sure as hull won't give up diddly. They care nothing for the quality of the service, the public cost, or the public involvement, their only concerns are their control, power and prestige.

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 8 2015, 09:13 AM

Wise words. Parental neglect or irresponsibility is actually a crime against society itself, not just their children. The correction should be for society to strongly encourage better parenting, not simply take over.

Posted by: Petra Nov 8 2015, 09:42 AM

Dear Mr Machine,

A modern caring society must think of the greater good and not the individual. Hard decisions must be made in hard times, and hard times we have.

Yours

Petra

Posted by: user23 Nov 8 2015, 10:21 AM

NTC is just one town/parish council of 60 which (I think, you probably know better than I) has an annual budget of less than 10% of the savings WBC need to find.

I wouldn't get too fixated on one particular area in West Berkshire, this needs a solution to help all.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2015, 12:00 PM

I do take your point, and I don't see parish council savings as the whole solution. I don't know much about the other councils and substantial savings are anly likely to come from the handfull of town councils which may not have anything like the excesses of our own town council. At a guess there may be £2M to be saved?

As you know, the money isn't my chief concern, it's the fact that our town council is so disfunctional and is wholly failing to engage and empower the communities of Newbury, and one of the things that gets inthe way of them resolving their problems is their ridiculous obsession with power and prestige, so slashing the NTC budget is very much a win-win and the obscenity of them spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on essentially busy-work is more that usually poinant at the moment.

Posted by: je suis Charlie Nov 8 2015, 12:06 PM

One problem is they all appear to be totally disengaged from the population they are being payed to serve, they don't listen or even pretend to do so. Too busy swilling down their pink gin after a hard session polishing the regalia!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 8 2015, 12:12 PM

Ok so long as you are not the individual I suppose?

Posted by: Oneilly Nov 8 2015, 01:34 PM

Rough translation sod you jack I'm alright!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 8 2015, 02:40 PM

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Posted by: GMR Nov 8 2015, 04:30 PM

If we all cared and stood up we could get change, but we don't; so you are right. It is a case - for all - "I'm alright Jack".

Posted by: GMR Nov 8 2015, 04:30 PM

And that is what the masses have done.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2015, 07:12 PM

Actually, you've enunciated the problem. West Berkshire needs a solution to help all. As you say, even taken together the Parish budgets, even the big ones, won't cover the deficit. Similarly, suggesting Communities (i.e. parishes) can choose to support or otherwise, means it won't be a solution for all. In fact, arguably such solutions would be divisive and discriminatory. All of this demonstrates that the Parish level proposal as presently designed isn't a viable option; for any parish. It's simply a political placebo. Nonetheless, there is a glimmer of positive thinking emerging as even daring to suggest other parties might be better placed to deliver services is a start. So then, the question is really how do we energise the West Berkshire community into action? As you rightly suggest, Parish Councils aren't the answer. They can't help even if they wanted to.