Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Another way...
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 12:48 PM
Sorry to start another political thread, but I have just published our alternative to the spending cuts at Wesdt Berks here: http://www.newburylabourparty.org/a-better-way
Forget that it's a Labour Party plan for a second, what do you think of the content? Hopefully the Tories will think twice before attacking public services again and instead look at Council waste. We could have saved more than £12m, but we just don't have the detail to see what some departments do.
Posted by: Blake Nov 12 2010, 02:19 PM
You are not sorry.
End this party political guff.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 02:48 PM
Why is it guff? It is an alternative to what the Tories have approved, and in my view is better than hitting services used by the elderly and young people.
Posted by: gardeb Nov 12 2010, 02:56 PM
Not more political drivel.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 12 2010, 03:00 PM
Someone has done a fair bit of work. There are certainly some creditable savings.
Posted by: Blake Nov 12 2010, 03:05 PM
No. This catastrophic mess was caused by Labour and socialism, the main goal of which is big government and the destruction of capitalism and individual freedom. They have no interest in helping the proletariat to move up socially, then they would lose their support.
We NEED a small state. Big government has been a disaster. It is time everyone learned to look after themselves and stop looking to the state to solve their issues.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 12 2010, 03:08 PM
Posted by: Bloggo Nov 12 2010, 03:18 PM
In my opinion it is about time that NWN put a stop to Mr Garvie using this Forum as a vehicle to peddle socialist claptrap at every conceivable opportunity.
I for one am pretty sick of it and urge NWN to do something about it before the forum is ruined.
Thread after thread gets the "Labour is best" routine whenever he can slip it in. 
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 12 2010, 03:20 PM
maybe there should be the strapline
THERE NOW FOLLOWS A PARTY POLITICAL BROADCAST BY THE LABOUR PARTY
on every thread
Posted by: Blake Nov 12 2010, 03:25 PM
I agree with you Bloggo.
The NWN needs to have a stern word with Garvie to stop his crude propaganda campaign.
There are other forums on the internet to discuss politics. This forum has the odd political position but it is now being DOMINATED by Garvie's party politics.
It is getting me mad now.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 03:27 PM
I'm hardly saying it's best, just pointing out an alternative and I asked your views on the content. Yet all certain people can do is take pot shots at Labour. As for the mess in West Berkshire, why did we not upgrade roads, build new (as in capacity) schools, ensure there were affordable houses and jobs for the younger generation to prevent this area having an older population above the UK average? Labour have not been complicit in West \Berkshire, and now we have suggested an alternative plan, all you can do is slag off the Labour Government which has very little to do with the mess West Berks are in or say that I'm talking about politics too much. Nobody is making you read the political threads.
Posted by: Bloggo Nov 12 2010, 03:32 PM
Yawn
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 12 2010, 03:32 PM
The NWN needs to have a stern word with Garvie to stop his crude propaganda campaign.
There are other forums on the internet to discuss politics. This forum has the odd political position but it is now being DOMINATED by Garvie's party politics.
It is getting me mad now.
This'll cheer you up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EucJIl0uonE
something about these threads always reminds me of the above..
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 03:38 PM
Is that the best reply you can give? Isn't this forum a place to discuss local news? You might not like what I say, but surely I have a right to speak as much as you do. At least I've suggested an alternative rather than simply moan like others have done.
Posted by: Bloggo Nov 12 2010, 03:48 PM
Yes it is but you are treating this forum as a political soap box.
Yes you do but you don't have the right to swamp it with labour biased political propaganda at each and every opportunity.
Posted by: Blake Nov 12 2010, 03:53 PM
Absolutely.
I hope you are getting the message now Garvie.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 03:56 PM
Ok. Forget that I'm a Labour party member and that the info is on a Labour website, do the alternative proposals have merit?
Lets have some no political threads on here and I'm happy to take part in a "non-political" way. Most threads turn when somebody has a pop at me for being in the Labour party... such as the Tesco thread!!!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 03:57 PM
And yes, I am aware of the hig number of threads I comment in (hence the apology for ANOTHER political thread).
Posted by: noobree Nov 12 2010, 04:13 PM
Why even bother complaining about 'political' posts? Just don't read them. Certainly don't bother replying to them if they annoy you so much.
Posted by: noobree Nov 12 2010, 04:25 PM
PS re. cutting budgets, the excellent P J O'Rorke's Parliament of Whores http://goo.gl/PyRzq is well worth a read whatever your political persuasion (for those who don't know him, O'Rorke is a libertarian/republican ex-hippie draft dodger).
In one chapter - I think it's the one titled 'OUR GOVERNMENT: WHAT THE F*** DO THEY DO ALL DAY AND WHY DOES IT COST SO MUCH GODDAMMED MONEY?' (see 'look inside') he demolishes the Federal govt budget. Hilarious stuff.
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 05:26 PM
According to all the economic indicators (including independents) their (Tories) way is right. According to Brown he would have hit everybody just as bad if he had won. As i said on another post, who got us into this mess?
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 05:29 PM
I for one am pretty sick of it and urge NWN to do something about it before the forum is ruined.
Thread after thread gets the "Labour is best" routine whenever he can slip it in.
As a free forum he has a right to voice his opinions and we have a right to correct him on those opinions. If the NWN stopped him then it would smack of BB. Then the real questions will start flying.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 12 2010, 05:30 PM
not really.
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 05:35 PM
What do you mean by 'not really'?
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 12 2010, 05:37 PM
there would be no questions.
it is a bit like the letters page - if one person writes endless letters on the same topic, the paper will stop publishing them.
no mystery.
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 05:41 PM
Of course there would be... as there is now.
no mystery.
That would be a fair point, if that was true. But who is writing endless letters? I don't... I used to write one every blue moon.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 05:50 PM
Women, families with children and pensioners have been hit hardest by the spending review, why are we not chasing the bankers or getting them to do something? I know what Darling did was not nearly enough, but at least he did something. We now hear today that the government is "powerless" to act against the banks otherwise they would all go abroad. Are we really powerless, or there is just no real will to go after them?
The CSR was horrific for people who don't pay the higher rate tax. Tax credits, gone. EMA, gone. Tuition fees, hiked. Housing benefit, slashed. Education funding, cut. NHS frontline spending, cut. Cancer target, removed. Winter fuel payments, cut. Child trust fund, gone. New school buildings (like the one at St Barts), scheme abolished.
As you can see, pensioners and families were already paying for the financial meltdown that was caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank (not Gordon Brown). Tories and Libs say we weren't tough on the banks... A couple of years ago, the Toties were screaming that there was too much regulation!!! As soon as we see storm clouds, and there is Cameron saying saying we need to be tougher. Labour made some mistakes, yes. I wasn't part of the party then, nor could I have changed any of them. Just like Graham Jones and Jeff Brooks can't be held to account for what is happening in London now.
Looking at local politics (which the Tories and the Libs are very much responsible), why did we keep blowing money on the non essentials? The fact is, locally at least, the Tories and the Libs are equally to blame for the mess we are in. They have failed to invest in infrastructure, failed to protect the vulnerable and instead hit those people hardest by axing day centre and slashing youth services.
Can we not talk about the topic of the thread, which is the alternative proposals we have suggested today?
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 05:52 PM
These are just meaningless numbers unless you explain how savings are going to be made. Let's take two at random.
How are you going to save £60k a year at Shaw House?
How are you going to save £150 a year from Customer service ?
If you can't explain how then you're just going to annoy people even more than you already have by posting your pointless political rhetoric.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 12 2010, 05:54 PM
That would be a fair point, if that was true. But who is writing endless letters? I don't... I used to write one every blue moon.
RG - If he was writing as many letters as he starts threads. Do keep up.
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 06:06 PM
The CSR was horrific for people who don't pay the higher rate tax. Tax credits, gone. EMA, gone. Tuition fees, hiked. Housing benefit, slashed. Education funding, cut. NHS frontline spending, cut. Cancer target, removed. Winter fuel payments, cut. Child trust fund, gone. New school buildings (like the one at St Barts), scheme abolished.
As you can see, pensioners and families were already paying for the financial meltdown that was caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers bank (not Gordon Brown). Tories and Libs say we weren't tough on the banks... A couple of years ago, the Toties were screaming that there was too much regulation!!! As soon as we see storm clouds, and there is Cameron saying saying we need to be tougher. Labour made some mistakes, yes. I wasn't part of the party then, nor could I have changed any of them. Just like Graham Jones and Jeff Brooks can't be held to account for what is happening in London now.
Looking at local politics (which the Tories and the Libs are very much responsible), why did we keep blowing money on the non essentials? The fact is, locally at least, the Tories and the Libs are equally to blame for the mess we are in. They have failed to invest in infrastructure, failed to protect the vulnerable and instead hit those people hardest by axing day centre and slashing youth services.
Can we not talk about the topic of the thread, which is the alternative proposals we have suggested today?
I agree that there are issues here, but should we really be condemning the Tories for the mess they inherited? There are many arguments to which way is best, a lot of independent economists have said that Cameron's way is best. We will only know when we reach the end of the tunnel.
And as i also said; don't forget what Brown would have done. In Blair's book he criticises Brown for overspending.
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 06:07 PM
Of course your honour!!!
Posted by: Strafin Nov 12 2010, 06:18 PM
Rukes of the forum,
5. You warrant agree and undertake that:
(a) you will not post any material which is obscene, defamatory, or which otherwise is in breach of the law or in breach of the rights of any third party;
(b)you will not post any material which is or is likely to be in any way offensive, insulting, threatening or upsetting to other users;
© you will not make any commercial or business use of the site or post any material which comprises advertising promotional or marketing material of any kind, nor will you set up any links from the Forums site to any other site;
I am looking at © mainly, as the Labour party is a legitimate business are these posts becoming a bit too much?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 06:19 PM
And as i also said; don't forget what Brown would have done. In Blair's book he criticises Brown for overspending.
Totally agree that if Labour were in Government, there would be some very tough choices to make. Labour did overspend to a degree, but on rebuilding our country after the Thatcher and Major years of no investment. At least Labour concentrated on the making it a better place to live. What is the purpose of the tory cuts? Where is the growth? We have chosen the same way as Ireland, and look what happened there this week. I really hope that you are right and that we are not about to get into some deep trouble, no matter what you think about me and the fact I'm a labour member, I don't want to see us back in recession.
Once again, this is about local issues and spending here in West Berks. The Tories have once again shown that they would rather slash frontline spending rather than their supposed "war on waste"... isn't that what we were promised? We were also promised decentralisation, which I am all for. So why are the Government now regulating council tax increases and the like? I just get miffed when people slate Labour because of the financial crisis and a couple of other god awful decisions. The Tories have made three times as many bad decisions in half a year!!!
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 06:21 PM
Once again, this is about local issues and spending here in West Berks. The Tories have once again shown that they would rather slash frontline spending rather than their supposed "war on waste"... isn't that what we were promised? We were also promised decentralisation, which I am all for. So why are the Government now regulating council tax increases and the like? I just get miffed when people slate Labour because of the financial crisis and a couple of other god awful decisions. The Tories have made three times as many bad decisions in half a year!!!
How are you going to save £60k a year at Shaw House?
How are you going to save £150 a year from Customer service ?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 06:29 PM
Without looking at the documentation, I believe the customer service savings would be through redundancies. Shaw House would involve one redundancy and an alteration of working practices, but once we get the detail we have requested is there a reason to prevent customer services absorbing the contact centre and for Shaw House to be run as a trust with the council renting the bits they require?
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 06:33 PM
Once again, this is about local issues and spending here in West Berks. The Tories have once again shown that they would rather slash frontline spending rather than their supposed "war on waste"... isn't that what we were promised? We were also promised decentralisation, which I am all for. So why are the Government now regulating council tax increases and the like? I just get miffed when people slate Labour because of the financial crisis and a couple of other god awful decisions. The Tories have made three times as many bad decisions in half a year!!!
you say 'what is the purpose of the Tory cuts' but I am not an economist, and I doubt you are either (and if you are then there would be many better ones arguing against you) who would disagree with your comments. You must remember that we were put in this difficulty by Labour and while under their watch. Now they are out and a coalition is in trying to undo what Labour created, or contributed to. The best you can do is support their decision, if they fail then criticise... but you've had your chance and the people kicked you out.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 12 2010, 06:36 PM
How are you going to save £60k a year at Shaw House?
How are you going to save £150 a year from Customer service ?
There were some specific costed ideas, but User makes a good point. Is it possible for the relevant managers to cut their coat accordingly if you just cuth their budget? I'd be more convinced that the cuts were right, or at least would work, if there was some more detail.
Obviously, if WBC isn't cooperating in giving you the detail then you're stymied, and I think it's clear why they would want to do that.
Labour's made some specific proposals - what have the ConDems to say for themselves?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 06:37 PM
But this is it. Labour have said they will support what is needed provided it is thought out and fair. The bits Labour object to nationally are not fair, whilst there is so much going through without comment because we are not opposing it.
Again, locally they had the chance to review what is waste or cut frontline services. They chose frontline services. It's an easy option, and as I said earlier, I can't make decisions about national policy but I can and I am willing to take them locally if Graham Jones and others don't want to do it.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 12 2010, 06:38 PM
I don't see the problem. Most of his posts and threads are refuted anyway.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 06:42 PM
Obviously, if WBC isn't cooperating in giving you the detail then you're stymied, and I think it's clear why they would want to do that.
Labour's made some specific proposals - what have the ConDems to say for themselves?
We have based these decisions on the vague data and research that we have done over TWO MONTHS. It was going to be part of our manifesto, but I believe it is important for people to realise that what we are doing is trying to establish a way forward to get West Berks on an even keel and also how we can meet the groth of the district with limited funds. It's not off the cuff, which is why we are in a position to publish what we would do differently now. What I don't get is that the Libs and the Tories get paid to represent us, yet have no interest it would seem in planning or reasearch within their party otherwise they would have spoken out. I really hope we get a number of independents and a few greens and maybe a couple of others, in addition to a fairly even number of Tories, Libs and Labour members. That way we will see who really has the best interests of the district at heart.
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 07:20 PM
What would happen in customer service after you sacked a few of the telephone operators? Would you make people wait longer on the phone or make the more specialist back office staff answer more direct calls from the public?
Posted by: GMR Nov 12 2010, 08:04 PM
Again, locally they had the chance to review what is waste or cut frontline services. They chose frontline services. It's an easy option, and as I said earlier, I can't make decisions about national policy but I can and I am willing to take them locally if Graham Jones and others don't want to do it.
Isn't fair a matter of opinion? I believe your objective is not to be 'fair' but to make political gain out of criticising the coalition government. As i said many times, even Brown had admitted that if he had won he would have been even more severe than Thatcher. Labour had their chance, now it is the turn of the coalition; they might fail, then again they might not. Let us support them.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 09:09 PM
What would happen in customer service after you sacked a few of the telephone operators? Would you make people wait longer on the phone or make the more specialist back office staff answer more direct calls from the public?
I would protect frontline services. there needs to be serious saving all over the council, but surely the purpose of the council is to give a better end product and good value? Axing frontline services and failing to address waste is not the way forward, despite what the Tories might think. I know, let's not have any change at Market street but axe bus services (that's right, there almost cut to the bone already) axe a few more day centres (that's right, now we only have four left) or maybe we should scrap youth services altogether? The fact is, no matter how many frontline services the Tories cut, there will be a time they need to make savings at Market street, lets not bury our heads and pretend otherwise. This is a clear example of tackling the tough decisions, and Labour would do just that. I'm sorry, but I will not sit here and defend the axe being taken to frontline services when the Tories refuse to look within the council cost base for waste.
But as long as you are ok User23, who cares about what happens to the carers and the youth workers.
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 09:20 PM
What would happen in customer service after you sacked a few of the telephone operators? Would you make people wait longer on the phone or make the more specialist staff (like youth workers and carers) answer more direct calls from the public?
What's all this waste you're on about too, give us all some more details please?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 09:36 PM
I already said I would reduce staff numbers. You know as well as I do that regardless of what I put in an alternative budget, staff numbers will have to be reduced. The key thing here is whether we prioritise actual frontline services, or whether we just make huge cuts to the care staff. Then again, isn't the reduction of care staff more ideology that was decided some time ago?
The customer services team and contact centre could effectively work under the same banner, with savings made through management cost reductions and and the naturage wastage of some positions. Where is the Tory plan? The real one? You know, the one they have already set and keeping hidden away? As for the Lib Dems, they slate Labour for objecting to some cuts because they are genuinely not fair, yet when it comes to the West Berks Lib Dems they kick up merry h ell without having a genuine, reasearched, thought out plan themselves and it's ok for them!!! Very much a case of double standards on both the Tories and Lib Dems part. Our elected members should be hanging their heads in shame, so much for protecting the vulnerable.
Just so I answer your question, we won't have any care workers left should we win control of the council next year, which is a crying shame. Maybe we can get some of the office staff to go out and shower disabled patients, help them go to the loo and all of the other tasks our brilliant care workers provide. You may remember talking about care workers a few weeks ago, if these decisions were not prejudged, how did we know they were going to be hard hit by the cuts?
On Monday, we will be launching our "show West Berks the red card" campaign. I will be asking local residents to sign red cards which will then be handed to Graham Jones (the leader of the council) to show him exactly our the majority of people in West Berkshire feel about his cuts. If you want to take part and sign one of our red cards, call me on 07593 278690 or email richard.garvie@googlemail.com.
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 09:45 PM
Richard, you're awful at this, do stop it now and go and do something else. You obviously haven't learnt the lessons from Kinnock in '92 as you're saying things like "by the time we win control of the council" and you've ruining whatever little chance that Labour in West Berkshire had, judging by the responses in this thread.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 10:16 PM
For the small number of people like you User23 who spin my comments to look like something completely different, why would anyone believe what you say? The fact is, you seem to be fighting against the cuts being directed at waste and spending within the back office yet seem perfectly happy for Graham Jones to slash frontline services.
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 10:24 PM
As for the "small number of people". I can't find one person in this thread that agrees with you.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 10:34 PM
In terms of financial cost centres, are they the same team?
Posted by: user23 Nov 12 2010, 10:40 PM
Please, for Labour's sake, stop now.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 10:55 PM
I do know the answer. And the answer is very clear, we spend:
Cost Centre 45560: Contact Centre - £812,780 per year
Cost centre 48514: Customer Services - £454,120 per year
Almost £1.3m on the same department then?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 11:00 PM
One area we didn't make savings because I can't find any detail of what each cost centre does:
48610: Imagery, graphic design - £40,840
48620: Imagery, reprographic services - £317,720
48626: Print rationalisation - £259,570
Is this an efficient use of public money?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 12 2010, 11:04 PM
Another cost we didn't understand so didn't include in our figures:
41450: Other general expenses - £616,100
Posted by: user23 Nov 13 2010, 08:33 AM
Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2010, 09:40 AM
Standards of service are an interesting point. In resource terms, it does cost a lot to resource up so that call answering targets are met. With the telephony kit most organisations have - that's an easy measure. So, efficiency equals time it takes to answer.... All that really demonstrates is bad target setting. When what the customers want isn't 'sub second call answer' - just reasonable pick up AND the right answer when they get through. So with effective management, numbers can be trimmed and costs reduced. Less staff, but more effective. I have to say, every time I've called WBC - the phone has been answered very quickly indeed, but try getting an answer without being passed from pillar to post, only to find 'Mr Pringle is at lunch!!' On their stats. they've handled my call well by meeting the target.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 13 2010, 09:52 AM
Exactly. Numbers can be reduced, and with a bit of training staff can take calls on various different issues. The Tesco call centre in Dundee handles calls for flowers by phone, tesco wine, clubcard and who knows what else. Operators are trained up one department at a time, and when calls come in it says what department the call is on the phone and brings up the contact centre notes for that department. We could have a similar system which promotes more efficient working and also saves a bit of money. But as the poster above says, it's ok being answered quickly but do you actually get a result from you initial call (or calls)? By having a bit of a shake up, we can probably end up with a better service. But this is why we need to employ non traditional methods when setting the budget, take away the heart and make decisions with the head. It doesn't matter what party I represent, my colleagues and I have been working our socks off to come up with a genuine alternative. What have the Tories and the Lib Dems done? That's right, they continue to bury their heads and leave everything to the officers. They will then fob us off with tall tales about the previous Government!!!
Posted by: user23 Nov 13 2010, 10:11 AM
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 13 2010, 10:21 AM
Again it's all about opinions!!! I believe savings can be made, and once we see the call volume stats and everything else, I will publish them here and you can tell me if savings can't be made. I would rather we didn't have to make savings in any department, but the reality is we need to save £33,320,000 over four years. Every department is likely to see cost reductions at some point, it's unavoidable. The officers have put together the Tory plan, and regardless what anyone says this is the plan they will use. Instead of standing up and saying "these are the difficult choices we have taken", they continue to PAY for advertising asking people to take part in what is an online only consultation. We have been open and honest about some of the difficult choices we need to take, the Tories continue to keep theirs under wraps (not that anyone other than Graham Jones will have any idea of what it involves) and the Lib Dems will just moan about the Tory plan without proposing their own. There is always a danger about being open with what you would do instead, and that is that there will always be something that each person would like to save. I think it's time that our friends who get paid to represent us stood up and had their say on what they would do.
User23, can you please respond to the points I raised above?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 13 2010, 10:22 AM
48610: Imagery, graphic design - £40,840
48620: Imagery, reprographic services - £317,720
48626: Print rationalisation - £259,570
Is this an efficient use of public money?
41450: Other general expenses - £616,100
Posted by: blackdog Nov 13 2010, 10:56 AM
I tend to agree that the cuts suggested by Newbury Labour are little more than a list of figures of savings made from budgets that they know little about. To be fair to them it is a plan - which is more than the Lib-Dems have come up with.
Now its your chance User - how would you propose that WBC cut 9.2% from their budget?
Posted by: user23 Nov 13 2010, 11:45 AM
Now its your chance User - how would you propose that WBC cut 9.2% from their budget?
It's a clear choice to me between paying more for quality public services which are going to cost more given the ageing population and doing on the cheap. The latter is fine for those who's families are fit, young and healthy. Even if they are can they guarantee they'll stay that way?
Posted by: Biker1 Nov 13 2010, 12:09 PM
if, User, you find that you cannot meet your living expenses you can try to go to your employer and ask them for more money.
When they tell you to sod off you then go back to your finances and look for how you can cut your expenditure.
That's how the real world works.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 13 2010, 03:37 PM
How about more taxes and cuts at the same time, thus mitigating either? This is where the solution lies without harming the most vulnerable.
Posted by: gardeb Nov 13 2010, 03:42 PM
Can the Forum not have a "Richard Garvie" category.
That way only those who wish to engage in political debate need look at it, everyone else can ignore him.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 13 2010, 03:51 PM
That way only those who wish to engage in political debate need look at it, everyone else can ignore him.
You can do that already of you wish, or would you prefer that we only posted things that certain members like?
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2010, 03:56 PM
I was going to say exactly that.
If he sees a thread by a certain poster he doesn't like then ignore; simples! You can't dictate who should be or shouldn't be on here.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 13 2010, 04:05 PM
(about) 50% of what RG says is in reply, so why do people engage? In my view this is about his politics more than anything. Then you have people like user23 and others, who seem to me to be on a mission to belittle and discredit, rather than politely engage in debate with him.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2010, 04:22 PM
I don't have a problem with him (or anybody on here). I have a saying; if they didn't exist we'd have to invent them.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 13 2010, 04:29 PM
Which is what you did; I didn't exist until you turned up.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2010, 04:40 PM
Exactly.... I didn't want to actually say, in case you went all red and embarrassed. I was thinking of you my friend... that is true love!!!
Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2010, 04:48 PM
Just a couple of observations.
First, Richard Garvey is a local politician - so this must be a political debate!! Fortunately its not like those 'open political meetings' so beloved of the Lib Dems, open to anyone with a ticket and a yellow rosette.
Second, if anyone thinks the solution lies in puttong up taxes - they might not have noticed that right now there are very few jobs and very few pay rises (certainly in the private sector). So sorry - no can do! Its a bit like dad coming home and saying he's been made redundant - now down to hard facts iof life and little Tommy really can't have a new play station.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 13 2010, 04:51 PM
It is already happening. The Student loan is essentially a new tax and don't forget what happens on 1st January 2011.
Posted by: Exhausted Nov 13 2010, 05:53 PM
They may not be talking about it but as Iommi pointed out, have you lost sight of the fact that vat goes up to 20% on Jan 1st. This might not sound a lot but just think on the fact that every service you purchase and virtually everything you buy, including fuel, the government adds nearly a quarter to the price you pay.
This will impact right the way through our lifestyle, including food and milk which will be affected by the increased fuel and operating costs.
Puts the savings that the councils will have to make well into the shade.
Posted by: Exhausted Nov 13 2010, 06:04 PM
Can you help me out here. How could Shaw House be operated or become a trust. Who would pay for its survival and where would the money come from. What is the criteria for some department or government section taking on this responsibility and if it's that easy, make the library and museum a trust, that's saves a gread wad of money with no effort. You could even make your proposed indoor skate park a trust.
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 13 2010, 06:33 PM
Cost Centre 45560: Contact Centre - £812,780 per year
Cost centre 48514: Customer Services - £454,120 per year
Almost £1.3m on the same department then?
Richard these are only cost center numbers you also need a subject and analysis code to go with them. Even if you have all the details this does not tell you if you can safely cut the services or staff without this affecting the standard of service supplied. Any one can say, well they are spending this amount on contact services and it is too much, but how do you prove you can cut the cost of this service and still provide a minimum of the service required. I could state here and now the Contact Center is costing £812,780 to run. I can run that service for £250,500 and it would be complete guesswork. But until I know exactly what the service does and how many staff are employed at what cost for each member of staff and what other costs are required, office cost stationery cost etc. then that figure is pure guesswork. Which is what I assume yours are unless you give me access to your detailed spreadsheet for analysis.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2010, 09:36 PM
Interesting one that. Shaw House and Ufton Nervet both got unloaded onto West Berkshire when the County Council was wound up. Unloved old buildings - and for years nothing much has happened to them. OK, Shaw House was done up with a Lottery Grant and is now the Register Office. However, that's hardly good use. Both could be attractions but are simply out of sight out of mind. Couldn't we unload them onto the National Trust? Equally, there would be nothing wrong with trying to sell them; a private firm might make more use. As they are, they are just a drain and encumberance - we don't 'do' history in West Berks remember!
I'd also have no trouble making the Library a trust and yes I am a very regular user. More than happy to pay; just as my kids pay to use Northcroft. The Skate Park? Why shouldn't it be sponsored? Again a large sum of money but what real value? Perhaps save that one for when the sun shine again, after all the cuts should hit everyone.
Posted by: gardeb Nov 13 2010, 10:39 PM
"You can't dictate who should be or shouldn't be on here."
I did not say that did I.
I just suggested giving him his own political category.
Posted by: GMR Nov 13 2010, 10:42 PM
I did not say that did I.
I just suggested giving him his own political category.
If you did that then I am sure others would want their own political category and before you know it we'll have war of the political parties; which might not be a bad idea... at least it will liven things up
Posted by: Bofem Nov 14 2010, 06:11 AM
Take a look at this (a mate from Uni runs this). TBH, it might not be as beneficial to do this at Shaw House now that WBC have 'restored' it...sold off some of the grounds for housing etc.
http://www.centreforstewardship.org.uk/
On libraries....there's the Carnegie Trust still funding libraries.
Posted by: blackdog Nov 14 2010, 10:48 AM
It's a clear choice to me between paying more for quality public services which are going to cost more given the ageing population and doing on the cheap. The latter is fine for those who's families are fit, young and healthy. Even if they are can they guarantee they'll stay that way?
You could raise taxes (lets face it the government is doing so), but WBC are not allowed to - they have to cut 9.2% from their budget. This is reality - the cuts will happen.
Given this situation, where would you make the cuts User?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 14 2010, 04:02 PM
Great to see some more suggestions on here. No matter what party you support usually, it's great to see so many "better ways" that cutting frontline services.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 14 2010, 04:04 PM
PS. User23, what would you cut? Cameron wants a two year tax freeze, so we are going to have to cut £33,320,000. It's not going to cut itself either. The Tories want to axe frontline services, I have set out a vision that cuts council costs whilst protecting the vulnerable (elderly and the youn). What is the User23 way?
Posted by: user23 Nov 14 2010, 05:21 PM
Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2010, 06:11 PM
Rasing local taxation is of course a way forward. Has been tried before in similar circumstances - notably in Liverpool (Derek Hatton?) and the Greater London Council. It seems pretty clear then what would happen if we tried that again!
Posted by: blackdog Nov 14 2010, 08:51 PM
To get one part of the question out of the way - under the current laws the library service cannot be made into a trust. The supply of a library service is one of the statutory duties of local government. Change the law and the situation could change, but WBC cannot go it alone down that route.
Many museums have been made into trusts in order for local government to offload them - there is no statutory duty to provide museums. Usually the offload consists of setting up a trust (finding trustees etc), giving them the museum buildings and collections and committing to a level of grant funding for a certain period. The hope is that the trustees will gradually find sponsors, donors, customers etc and become independent of the need for local government grant funding (full independence is rarely achieved). The Corn Exchange was made into a trust some years back, but still needs plenty of WBC funding - hopefully less than it cost to run as part of WBC!
Shaw House is part museum, part historic house, part offices and part conference centre. I would guess that it could be set up as a trust - but I doubt that it would survive with its current mish-mash of activities. Turn it into a wedding centre perhaps, with rooms for guests, receptions on the premises etc. Might work.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2010, 09:25 PM
Can accept that - but doesn't mean it's not possible. I'm not convinced that the enabling Act demands that the authority itself actually provides the service. It can contract that out and have it run 'on its behalf' by a third party. So arguably, if the third party failed to deliver a stautory requirement - then the Council would take the rap. Similar situation exists with refuse and some other services I think. However, if clarity was needed (and again, I can accept it might be, if only to ease contractural relationships) then a few like minded Councils could doubtless share the burden of promoting the appropriate change. Well worth the investment!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 14 2010, 09:50 PM
Allotments are self-managed in just this way. Parish Councils are under a duty (actually it's their only duty) to provide allotments but they appear to be able to satisfy that duty by devolving the service to allotment associations. I thought this kind of enabling legislations was also something the current government were going to bring forward so that 3rd sector organisations had a right to bid to run services.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 15 2010, 12:26 AM
I wouldn't back a trust to run the library unless it could be proven it wouldn't affect the service provided. But Shaw House, The Museum and the Nature DiscoveryCentre could all find better funding if they were run by trustees. The Corn Exchange can't generate massive amounts of funding because of it's terms of lease I gather. Give them a thirty year lease and the pot available becomes much larger.
Couldn't the Nature Discovery Centre be given to the RSPB with the council simply looking after the play equipment? It can never be built on or sold off, and an organisation like that would be able to run it better than the council? These are all just ideas, but some bits on here (like Shaw House becoming a wedding centre) seem viable and realistic, the council would do well to look into some of them.
Posted by: blackdog Nov 15 2010, 12:34 AM
They are very unlikely to raise council tax when the government is 'encouraging' a council tax freeze.
The other point is that council tax only raises £79 million of WBC's income - to raise another £10.23 million to counterbalance the cuts in funding from Whitehall would require a huge increase - electoral suicide for a Tory administration.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 15 2010, 12:39 AM
I think it is a ban on tax increases, a number of councils have been complaining about it.
Half a percent equals £750,000 here in West Berks I believe I read in the paper. A 2% rise would be met with uproard here, and that's only £3m. Remember, £33,320,000 is the magic number of savings required.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 15 2010, 09:08 AM
Richard - Are you in fact an agent of the Tory party sent out to post endless drivel about how wonderful the Labour party is? Thus making us so heartily sick of you that even Karl Marx would vote Conservative in an effort to be rid of you?
Posted by: Blake Nov 15 2010, 10:34 AM
I think you have hit the nail on the head!
Posted by: blackdog Nov 15 2010, 02:07 PM
Half a percent equals £750,000 here in West Berks I believe I read in the paper. A 2% rise would be met with uproard here, and that's only £3m. Remember, £33,320,000 is the magic number of savings required.
Isn't it £33 million over 3 years - ie £11 million a year. A 14% hike in council tax would do the job - and cost the Tories the council in May.
A 2% rise would be met by grumbles, but we are not used to such low tax rises so it would pass through - especially if they sold it on the basis of the services it would save from the cuts.
However, if WBC did elect to solve the budget problem this way they could expect serious consequences from Whitehall - when Cameron/Osborne say they are 'encouraging' a council tax freeze they mean it - next year's government grants would probably fall drastically to force WBC to make cuts. Cuts are what they want and cuts they will get.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 15 2010, 04:23 PM
As far as I know, the first year is frozen by Whitehall (2011 / 12) and the second year is now only encouraged, rather than required. Hope that clears that issue up. The problem of course is that a freeze means a real terms reduction for the council due to inflation.
The cuts also need to be made over the next four financial years. Reading would seem to be front loading the savings there, so they will actually make money out of it by cutting faster and sticking some cash by for a rainy day. I think I would prefer to do it over four if I'm honest.
I don't think the Tories will make too many cuts before the election, but I guarentee they will have a plan to slash after the elections. We just need a bit of honesty around where people will cut.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)