IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Budget cuts
On the edge
post Nov 4 2015, 10:50 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 4 2015, 08:53 PM) *
Your political campaign against Newbury Town Council might be clouding your judgement on this.


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!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 5 2015, 02:18 AM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Wouldn't delegating services down the chain ultimately cost the tax payer more through increase in admin costs?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 5 2015, 09:05 AM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (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? rolleyes.gif

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 5 2015, 12:52 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (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?

Yes, very much so. And your point is?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 5 2015, 04:55 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (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"?


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! rolleyes.gif



--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Nov 5 2015, 11:20 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (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! rolleyes.gif
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 6 2015, 02:10 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (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"?



"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? blink.gif
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? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Nov 6 2015, 05:14 PM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 6 2015, 02:10 PM) *
"Your political campaign against Newbury Town Council might be clouding your judgement on this."
If that's a personal, snide comment then surely this is too?
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 5 2015, 04:36 PM) *
Agree entirely but I am sure User will be along shortly tell us why this would not be at all possible?
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 6 2015, 06:14 PM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (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.


There there don't take on so!

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

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? tongue.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 6 2015, 07:49 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (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?
N
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.


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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Nov 6 2015, 09:39 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (spartacus @ Nov 3 2015, 11:29 PM) *
"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


You used the R word......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 6 2015, 10:02 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,878
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Nov 6 2015, 09:39 PM) *
You used the R word......

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sherlock
post Nov 7 2015, 05:12 AM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



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.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  finger.jpg ( 49.64K ) Number of downloads: 2
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 7 2015, 07:36 AM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (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.


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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Nov 7 2015, 10:36 AM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (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.
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 7 2015, 01:32 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (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.


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.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 7 2015, 06:45 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 7 2015, 01:32 PM) *
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.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 7 2015, 07:15 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (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.


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?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 7 2015, 08:29 PM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (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.

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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Brown
post Nov 8 2015, 09:13 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 21-September 13
Member No.: 10,072



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 6 2015, 11:02 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.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th November 2019 - 09:10 PM