Tony Vickers, the Vice Chair of Newbury Lib Dems seems desperate to paint Labour as the "Axis of Evil" in an effort to defend his party colleagues for selling their political souls for the privaledge of riding around in Government cars and sitting at the cabinet table.

He claims that the Lib Dems have already shown that they will protect the most vulnerable in society. If that is the case, why will Nick Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems allow the Tories to cut the winter fuel payment to pensioners, surely the most vulnerable group of society? Each year, over 40,000 pensioners die due to cold related deaths, which in this day and age is ridiculous. The fact that the Tories and their new Liberal chums will cut the payment by £50 for new claimants and £100 for existing claimants will quite possibly lead to blood on the hands of the Coalition of Cuts. What is even more despicable is that the Coalition are also looking at cutting free bus passes and taking away the free television licenses of thousands of pensioners. If you claim to be protecting the vulnerable Mr Vickers, why not start by speaking out against your Tory colleagues and protect our pensioners?

During the general election campaign, the Liberals fought vigorously against raising the VAT threshold to 20%. Tell me Mr Vickers, are the parliamentary privileges worth the extra 2.5% on our weekly budgets? Again, you claim to be in the Coalition of Cuts to protect the most vulnerable, but it will be the most vulnerable who are hit hardest by this rise in VAT. Certain sections of the community will now be forced to think long and hard about whether they eat properly or whether they heat their house.

In just a short time in Government, the Liberals have been complicit in the huge cuts that affect normal people the hardest. The Building Schools for Future scheme: GONE. Child Trust Funds: GONE. Regeneration Schemes: GONE. £233m of Medical Research funding: GONE. Funding for outdoor play area equipment: GONE. £20bn of NHS spending: GONE. UK Film Council: GOING. Add to this the fact that we are going to share aircraft carriers with the french and cut troop numbers, it's a huge slap in the face of all of those brave service personnel who have lost lives in recent conflicts.

With a record of such savage and unfair cuts within the first 100 days or so in power, how can Mr Vickers honestly attack the record of the Labour Government. Labour brought in the minimum wage, shortest NHS waiting times in history, 3m more operations a year, over 44,000 additional doctors, over 90,000 extra nurses, GP's open in evenings and at the weekend, over 100 new hospitals, FREE cancer prescriptions, 3,700 schools rebuilt or refurbished, the winter fuel allowance, Free TV licences and pus passes for pensioners, the Pension Credit, The New Deal for the unemployed, Full time rights for part time workers, record maternity pay, the right to paternity leave, the biggest programme of council house and affordable housing construction, Disability Discrimination Act, the Race and Religious Hatred act, the Equalities act, Equal Gay Rights (That Richard Benyon MP opposed), Devolution: Scottish Parliament & Welsh Assembly, the Handgun ban, Crime down by a third, domestic violence cut by two thirds and rape convictions up by half, more police on the street and the worlds first ever climate change bill. Labour also brought peace to Northern Ireland.

What really gets me though, is that both the Tories and the Liberals in West Berkshire spend the majority of their time squabbling over minor issues and trying to score points against each other. When will debate move on to the rather more serious issues affecting our local area. Local politics should be more than party political point scoring, and there is a genuine need for all parties to put aside their differences to discuss how to deal with issues such as affordable housing, salvaging something from the mess that is the redevelopment of the town centre in Newbury, working more closely with the various town councils and keeping key employers in the area. These issues are a lot more important than the storm in a teacup surrounding cyclists turning right into Cheap Street for instance. If the Liberals can come up with genuine policies to fight local issues, they would gain a lot more respect than simply trying to justify why their party have given up their policies in return for parliamentary perks. Maybe this is the reason that Lib Dem voters are in fact joining the Labour Party and why a fifth have revealed they would never vote for the Liberals again.

Richard Garvie,
Stockcross

Well, we could all pay higher taxes & have all the nice Govt schemes which have been axed re-instated.

It's not about making cuts, it's about doing it responsibly. Mr Vickers claims that the Lib Dems will protect the vulnerable, but in reality this budget will affect the vulnerable most. We could generate more tax at the higher end of the scale, but Cameron will not tax his mates, will he???

The point is, Mr Vickers is defending his colleagues in government in order to try and convince local people not to abandon his party. The fact is that the Lib Dems and Tories locally are only interested in having a ding dong on issues such as cycling, trying to score party political points. It's time we focus on the real issues here in West Berkshire. Affordable housing, protecting country pubs and post offices, stopping the closure of West Berks Magistrates Court and trying to salvage something out of the redevelopment of the town centre. What measures are being taken to protect the Kennet Centre?

The fact is, all of our district councillors have been complicit in years of poor decisions regarding developments in the whole area. It's time we elected people who are more interested in sorting out the poor decisions of the past, rather than adding to the growing list of mistakes.

Richard, how I agree with every word you have said.  In the debates David Cameron accused the Labour party of lying when they said a Conservative government would cut bus passes, the heating allowance and tv licence.  He is now wriggling and squirming and saying they are safe for some people.  He now expects the sick to take up their bed and walk; schools are/are not/might be/your guess is as good as mine getting urgent work done; on asking Richard Benyon for free parking for all cancer patients receiving chemo, I was told it was not affordable and they need the revenue parking raises from ill and dying people.  We now find banks, who largely caused this mess, are able to pay £1M bonuses and Barclays £11M for a new head.  Meanwhile we have 'special advisors' that are tax exiles and not paying anything into the country. So much for the 'we are all in this together' speech.

Still, none of this matters to Mr Vickers anyway. He was still able to ask his usual cycling related question the other night, so at least he gets the answers he needs on the issues that matter... TO HIM!!!

You can bang your Labour drum as much as you like. Apart from the fact that Mr Vickers is local and you manage to slip a couple of paragraphs in that vaguely cover local issues, your inappropriate, for this forum anyway, national party political posturing is for me, wasted.

If you read what I've written, party politics at a local level are irrelevent. It should be about addressing the issues. My first post was the response to Tony Vickers letter in the paper in which he tried to suggest the Lib Dems would protect the vulnerable and also that the Labour Government was a disaster. I agree Labour made mistakes, but some of the things they achieved for this country will never be forgotten. The whole point of my post is that no matter how good or bad  parties do at a national level, nobody will vote for you unless you have a decent plan to fix the local issues. Tony seems to think people take notice of what the Lib Dems are doing in London. What engages people in local politics is what you propose to fix the wrongs of the past. At the moment there is only a choice between blue and yellow, and to be honest with you, I'd rather not vote for either the way things are.

Quoted from richard.garvie

If you read what I've written, party politics at a local level are irrelevent.

I agree 100%

Quoted from richard.garvie

My first post was the response to Tony Vickers letter in the paper in which he tried to suggest the Lib Dems would protect the vulnerable and also that the Labour Government was a disaster.

Perhaps replying to the letter in the paper would have been a better vehicle than on a local forum

Unfortunately I was told my reply was too long!!! So wanted to post the whole thing.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Unfortunately I was told my reply was too long!!! So wanted to post the whole thing.

Rather pointless considering the difference in size of the reader base.

I guess... still, if they post the slim down version, at least I can take comfort that somebody has seen the whole thing!

Post it on the NewburyToday forum; it has a larger reader base I would imagine.

http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?act=Reg&CODE=00

Quoted from richard.garvie

I agree Labour made mistakes, but some of the things they achieved for this country will never be forgotten.

You are so right - not forgetting the squandering of tens of billions of taxpayers money on those people willing to take a "free ride", people both from this country, and others far off, as well as the financial wastage in many other areas!

However, once again the easiest route is to hit those less able to defend their rights, the weak, the elderly, the poorest of our community - a poor show indeed, I agree.
If labour had not emptied the kitty and given it to the less deserving, and then borrowed more and squandered that also, there would be no reason to make the drastic cuts we all now face, in the first place!

Until ALL people are forced, or encouraged to take more responsibility for their own lives and their own actions, and that includes those at the top such as politicians, bankers, etc., as well as the "free ride" brigade of whatever nationality or gender, we will still see the "bleeding" of the pockets of the more deserving, to provide for the rest.

It is going to be a tough ride, I fear, for several years to come!

Quoted from LocalRes

...not forgetting the squandering of tens of billions of taxpayers money on those people willing to take a "free ride", people both from this country, and others far off, as well as the financial wastage in many other areas!

Just to help you

In the year 2009 the Government spent:      110.1   billion on pensions,
                                                                      110.2   billion on health care
                                                                        27      billion on education
                                                                        42      billion on defence
                                                                        21.6   billion on child tax credits / disability etc.
                                                                        12      billion on transport
                                                                         4.9   billion on unemployment and associated benefits

In 2010 the present estimates are:       117.2   billion on pensions
                                                               119     billion on healthcare
                                                                 29     billion on education
                                                                 43     billion on defence
                                                                 22.2  billion on child tax credits / disability etc.
                                                                 12.1  billion on transport
                                                                   7     billion on unemployment and associated benefits


source:     http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/classic#ukgs30240       and NOT the Daily Mail


Threep.
                                                        
                                                          
          
                        

So all we would need to do is not spend any money on pensions and defence and we would be back to square one!  Piece of piss this budget lark!  

I wonder what the spending chart will look like next year!

Let me reply to just the first few points in RG's very long rant.

Frstly, as a youngish pensioner myself, I'd be first in the queue to give up my winter fuel allowance, my free bus pass, my senior railcard, etc etc. I think it is ridiculous - scandalous even - that we 'oldies' (well under 75) cand get these 'benefits' without any test as to whether we need them. Now I'm not in favour of having all benefits means-tested, because (a) it is demeaning and leads to many deserving & needy folk not getting their dues because of pride and (b) it is expensive to administer. There are young people, esp. young families, who are being denied a job (by the mess which Labour got us all into by running a 'casino economy') by the very people who now claim the right to scrounge off every taxpayer by claiming these benefits. But I do take my Winter Fuel Allowance - and spend it on improving my home insulation and installing solar panels, so I won;t be a burden on the State when I really am poor and needy. And I do use my railcard, for many offpeak journeys, because using a car is often plain daft, I can work/read or sleep on a train journey - and it is better for the rail system to have a passenger at discounted rate than no passenger!

As for Lib Dems in Government breaking their promises, as a Party that has always campaigned for proportional representation, we can hardly refuse to join a Coalition when that is what will almost always be the outcome of a PR election. And Coalition means Compromise, which means giving up some of ones' most precious policies in exchange for one's Coalition partner giving up some of theirs. The plain fact is, which many people like RG conveniently choose to ignore, is that this country needs a stable government in a dire crisis. To achieve stable government, there had to be a coalition. Labour was not interested in being part of government: understandably they wanted to focus on choosing a new leader and then sniping from the sidelines for however long it takes for the Coalition to break up.
I'm not comfortable with my leaders being in Coalition with the Tories - the one and only Party round here which I've spent my entire political life opposing. But I'd never say that they are (people or policies) all bad! Maybe in a few years, it will prove intolerable to remain with them. Maybe we'll form a Coalition with Labour before or after another election soon. But meanwhile we Lib Dems work for some of the things we've always believed in, which will now actually happen.
And we are doing all we can to protect the vulnerable. It is not true that VAT will hit the poor hardest, necessarily. Most essentials are VAT-exempt and the Coalition has, for example, increased benefits to the very poor in some cases.

I think that's enough for now. I've already had supportive views from some non-Lib Dems since my letter in NWN but it is only to be expected that some, like RG, will slag us off. If RG and others would like to ask questions one at a time, it might be easier to handle!

Quoted from Threepwood

Just to help you
source:     http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/classic#ukgs30240       and NOT the Daily Mail

Threep.
                                                        
                                                          
          
                        

But the cuts have not started yet, not untill October.

Quoted from Tony Vickers

Frstly, as a youngish pensioner myself, I'd be first in the queue to give up my winter fuel allowance, my free bus pass, my senior railcard, etc etc.

Do it then.

Lead by example. Don't get all 'oh if only' on here.....DO IT...hand them back.

No more humbug.

Put up or shut up.


Threep.

I have no time for people who won't use their real names in these forums. What are they scared of? Or are they really called "Threep"?!
If you must know, my wife refuses to claim her winter fuel pass- but was then told that by not taking it now she might be denied it in later years when she did need it. And I have no problem with old folk who are unable to take healthy exercise getting the allowance. As I said, my justification for taking it is that I am using it to save us all having to burn precious carbon at all in future - investing in insulation. Now that's something that the Lib Dems in this Government are going to do more of - the Tories simply handed the whole Climate Change / energy portfolio to my good friend Chris Huhne and let him get on with doing all the good things we Lib Dems had promised, like Energy Mortgages.

I've also sacrificed several of the best years of my potentially salry/fee-earning life by being a local councillor. Not that I expect (or get) sympathy!! Indeed its because Public Service is 'in the blood' (several generations of army officers and colonial civil servants) that I find it quite reqrding in a non-cash way. So no guilt on account of taking an allowance that I'm entitled to.

What I am saying is that there is a lot of waste in the way we manage tax and benefits. We should tax accrued unearned wealth far more, at less admin cost, while also taxing earnings of the lower-paid much less - and that was announced in the Budget - Lib Dem policy again!

Quoted from Tony Vickers

I have no time for people who won't use their real names in these forums

...and then you spend some time replying to one.....oh the irony.

I take it that you won't be handing your rail card, fuel allowance, and bus pass back then...even though you said that you thought it '"ridiculous - scandalous even" that you were entitled to them....I do like to see a man with the courage of his convictions..

Come on....start the ball rolling....give'em back.


Threep.


Oh, and how do we know you really are called 'Tony Vickers'?

The only Tony Vickers we've heard of round here was that comical character who told people not to shovel snow outside their homes and then wrote to the N.W.N. extolling people to.....wait for it,.... shovel the snow outside their homes...and then wrote in his newsletter that he could not give advice....you surely don't want to be confused with him do you? The councillor who didn't know that planning appications (like Aldis') are time limited?  The one who opted into the local government pension scheme and cost us ratepayers an extra £900 per annum? (that'll be your 'service ethic' then)?....the man who proposed that the racecourse development be approved, even though half of it lay outside the settlement boundaries?....the guy who changed his mind (and vote) on Parkway and who then said "The scheme is the right scheme, we’ve got the right developer, we’re ready to go".....The man who, when confronted by his own cant and humbug, tried to drag his long suffering wife into it by saying effectively, -  "it's not just me, she gets it as well".......blimey....I'd change yer nom-de-plume mate..

Quoted from Tony Vickers

Let me reply to just the first few points in RG's very long rant.

Frstly, as a youngish pensioner myself, I'd be first in the queue to give up my winter fuel allowance, my free bus pass, my senior railcard, etc etc. I think it is ridiculous - scandalous even - that we 'oldies' (well under 75) cand get these 'benefits' without any test as to whether we need them. Now I'm not in favour of having all benefits means-tested, because (a) it is demeaning and leads to many deserving & needy folk not getting their dues because of pride and (b) it is expensive to administer. There are young people, esp. young families, who are being denied a job (by the mess which Labour got us all into by running a 'casino economy') by the very people who now claim the right to scrounge off every taxpayer by claiming these benefits. But I do take my Winter Fuel Allowance - and spend it on improving my home insulation and installing solar panels, so I won;t be a burden on the State when I really am poor and needy. And I do use my railcard, for many offpeak journeys, because using a car is often plain daft, I can work/read or sleep on a train journey - and it is better for the rail system to have a passenger at discounted rate than no passenger!

As for Lib Dems in Government breaking their promises, as a Party that has always campaigned for proportional representation, we can hardly refuse to join a Coalition when that is what will almost always be the outcome of a PR election. And Coalition means Compromise, which means giving up some of ones' most precious policies in exchange for one's Coalition partner giving up some of theirs. The plain fact is, which many people like RG conveniently choose to ignore, is that this country needs a stable government in a dire crisis. To achieve stable government, there had to be a coalition. Labour was not interested in being part of government: understandably they wanted to focus on choosing a new leader and then sniping from the sidelines for however long it takes for the Coalition to break up.
I'm not comfortable with my leaders being in Coalition with the Tories - the one and only Party round here which I've spent my entire political life opposing. But I'd never say that they are (people or policies) all bad! Maybe in a few years, it will prove intolerable to remain with them. Maybe we'll form a Coalition with Labour before or after another election soon. But meanwhile we Lib Dems work for some of the things we've always believed in, which will now actually happen.
And we are doing all we can to protect the vulnerable. It is not true that VAT will hit the poor hardest, necessarily. Most essentials are VAT-exempt and the Coalition has, for example, increased benefits to the very poor in some cases.

I think that's enough for now. I've already had supportive views from some non-Lib Dems since my letter in NWN but it is only to be expected that some, like RG, will slag us off. If RG and others would like to ask questions one at a time, it might be easier to handle!

Sorry Tony, you are missing the point of my reply to your original letter. The point I was making is that the Lib Dems will have to come up with some decent local policies if they want to retain support at the local elections, as defending your colleagues in Westminster will not be enough.

That being said, you mention in your response that the VAT rise will not hurt the vulnerable (what planet do you live on, exactly?)??? You say you have raised benefits to remedy this, but George Osborne says he is cutting a further £4billion from the welfare bill (Which is it?). Like Pamela Bale, you seem to live on a different planet from the people who you are supposed to represent. Labour did not enter a coalition because they wanted to govern on the manifesto that they campaigned on, not the manifesto of the party who came third. As a result, Nick Clegg and your Lib Dem colleagues sold out for whatever they could get, in turn alienating thousands of the people who voted for your party.

Enough of the national politics Tony. What are the Lib Dems doing locally to reign in the destruction that the local Tory party are doing to our local area??? That's right, you are doing nothing. But as long as you get to ask the obligatory cycling question at each council meeting, who cares, right???

Quoted from richard.garvie

Labour did not enter a coalition because they wanted to govern on the manifesto that they campaigned on, not the manifesto of the party who came third.

No Labour didn't enter a coalition as there weren't enogh people stupid enough to vote for rhem after they had ballsed up the economy by wasting money in the good times - as they always do!!

This is what we've been missing.  A clash of heavy weight local political luminaries!!!  

Quoted from Greenham Common

This is what we've been missing.  A clash of heavy weight local political luminaries!!!  

nah, it is just some posturing from a wannabe newbie.

Quoted from Greenham Common

A clash of heavy weight local political luminaries!!

Whilst I have no idea about Mr Garvie, I'm prepared to bet that's the first time those words have EVER been used to describe Mr Vickers.

Threep.

Not ging to comment on national issues again in this thread, apart from saying that Labour lost touch with pretty much everybody under Gordon Brown and it started to go wrong under Blair. End of story.

Let's have some answers about what the plan is locally please.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Not ging to comment on national issues again in this thread, apart from saying that Labour lost touch with pretty much everybody under Gordon Brown and it started to go wrong under Blair. End of story.

Let's have some answers about what the plan is locally please.

So have discussed politics here on a national level regarding the liberals you now change tack when you see that Labour were even more wanting!

Quoted from Tony Vickers

Let me reply to just the first few points in RG's very long rant.

As for Lib Dems in Government breaking their promises, as a Party that has always campaigned for proportional representation, we can hardly refuse to join a Coalition when that is what will almost always be the outcome of a PR election. And Coalition means Compromise, which means giving up some of ones' most precious policies in exchange for one's Coalition partner giving up some of theirs. The plain fact is, which many people like RG conveniently choose to ignore, is that this country needs a stable government in a dire crisis. To achieve stable government, there had to be a coalition. Labour was not interested in being part of government: understandably they wanted to focus on choosing a new leader and then sniping from the sidelines for however long it takes for the Coalition to break up.
I'm not comfortable with my leaders being in Coalition with the Tories - the one and only Party round here which I've spent my entire political life opposing. But I'd never say that they are (people or policies) all bad! Maybe in a few years, it will prove intolerable to remain with them. Maybe we'll form a Coalition with Labour before or after another election soon. But meanwhile we Lib Dems work for some of the things we've always believed in, which will now actually happen.
And we are doing all we can to protect the vulnerable. It is not true that VAT will hit the poor hardest, necessarily. Most essentials are VAT-exempt and the Coalition has, for example, increased benefits to the very poor in some cases.

Tony, I appreciate you taking the time to reply on the forum I found it really interesting and illuminating.  It has certainly made up my mind how I will be voting on PR.  It seems that all parties can promise what they like at the hustings/debates and then say it is compromise.  I was in favour of PR, but if PR means more of what we have at the moment, then my vote will go to first past the post.

On compromise.  As David Cameron said he would not touch heating allowance, TV licence, bus passes for the old, we must assume that this is what the LD's want and the Conservatives are compromising?

Although essential items, such as food, are zero rated, fuel is not.  As everything has to be delivered to stores for people to buy, it is obvious essentials will rise.  For low income familes such as pensioners, the pecentage of their money spent on the increased VAT is in far greater proportion than that of the higher paid.

I hope that MP's do not feel to bad about cold pensioners and hungry children while enjoying their steak in their subsidised restaurant and sipping their House of Commons scotch in the subsidised bar.  After all, we are all in this together are we not?

Quoted from Threepwood

Whilst I have no idea about Mr Garvie, I'm prepared to bet that's the first time those words have EVER been used to describe Mr Vickers.  Threep.

It was meant to be tongue in  cheek!    But I do think it good to see our local politicians engage here and other places.


Frankly NOBODY I know votes on local issues, even at local election times.  We already know that the only difference between the Tories and Lib Dems locally, is that council tax goes up less with Tories (that isn't an endorsement for their financial acumen; it never goes down either).


They both bought into what I believe are the vilest things about modern Newbury.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It was meant to be tongue in  cheek!

I know that, you silly sausage. It just helped me make another amusing point, that was all.

Bottom line? Someone comes on here calling him / her self 'tony vickers' and within a short space of time, the shortcomings of the Lib Dems nationally are highlighted along with the bizzare behaviour and lack of moral fibre of the real Tony Vickers and the antics of the Lib Dems locally.

I suspect it was a member of the local Tories in disguise trying to get the real one a right kicking.

Threep.


(...of course, there's always the possibilty that it is the real one, in which case, since this forum has shown it is politically aware and has a long memory.....he really should have known better......and I doubt he'll be allowed to come out and play much more)

Yes, I think the avoidance of forums like these, by those we speak of, shows how nervous they are of the great unwashed, cynical, and sometimes knowledgeable.  

Talking of cuts, this is a rather surprising headline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11261739

Of course there's plenty of spin, hyperbole and positioning here by the Police Association but I'm generally in favour of policing and pretty much against crime so even a 10,000 cut in front line police would seem to me a bad thing.  When I say 'bad thing' I mean 'What the fecking hell is going on here?!'

I'd be interested to hear views from members of the constabulary.  No doubt there are savings that can be made but it seems to me that these potentially huge cuts could have a devastating impact on our ability to deal with crime and I can think of plenty of other things I'd scrap first (our now pointless and certainly unaffordable independent UK nuclear deterrent, the new carrier programme, Eurofighter Typhoon, some areas of NHS expenditure, junk degree courses and so on).

Quoted from noobree

Talking of cuts, this is a rather surprising headline:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11261739

Of course there's plenty of spin, hyperbole and positioning here by the Police Association but I'm generally in favour of policing and pretty much against crime so even a 10,000 cut in front line police would seem to me a bad thing.  When I say 'bad thing' I mean 'What the fecking hell is going on here?!'

The conservative party making redundant 25% of the police force? I seriously doubt it. Of course it could be one of those things the liberals forced through? They do believe in lawlessness after all. Tony Vickers was just saying that that is the nature of coalitions.

Quoted from 26

The conservative party making redundant 25% of the police force? I seriously doubt it. Of course it could be one of those things the liberals forced through? They do believe in lawlessness after all. Tony Vickers was just saying that that is the nature of coalitions.

Good point. Perhaps the libs were behind scrapping central government funding for speed cameras as well. Regardless of the arguments for and against the yellow perils it sends a nice clear signal to everyone that they can drive as fast as they damn well like.  

Clegg was in a difficult position after the last election, there's no doubt of that, but he has sold the souls of his party to the devil (the devil in this case not being Cameron, who is only doing what he said he's do, but POWER).  Power corrupts etc.

Incidentally, re whether or not any of this will happen, seems that our next door neigbours are well on the way:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11257250

Maybe they're just upping anti before the expenditure review results are finalised and trying to scare people like me.  If so, they're succeeding.  What does Clegg think about all this, I wonder, as if that mattered.  Only in February he was promising us more police on the beat: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8497216.stm

Can I withdraw the vote I cast for them in May, please?  (Yes, I'm very sorry, it seemed like a good idea at the time.)

Quoted from jay

Tony, I appreciate you taking the time to reply on the forum I found it really interesting and illuminating.  It has certainly made up my mind how I will be voting on PR.  It seems that all parties can promise what they like at the hustings/debates and then say it is compromise.  I was in favour of PR, but if PR means more of what we have at the moment, then my vote will go to first past the post.

On compromise.  As David Cameron said he would not touch heating allowance, TV licence, bus passes for the old, we must assume that this is what the LD's want and the Conservatives are compromising?

It is not "what the LD's want". There's a third factor in what the Coalition is having to do: events since the election. The main one being the revelation that the financial mess was far worse than when manifestos were drawn up and election promises made. So all promises had to be renewed. It would be daft to ignore the realityjust to be able to say "We promised"! But I agree that Government has more explaining to do.[

Quoted from noobree

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11257250

Collaboration is good though. We don't have a local force anyway. TVP includes Milton Keynes for goodness sake. Merge all the southern ones and get rid of the duplication. Get rid of WBC and have a Reading based Berkshire council. So much money is wasted to create the illusion of local democracy.

I am worried about the RM privatisation though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11258649

... but that's another story.

Quoted from Tony Vickers

financial mess was far worse than when manifestos were drawn up and election promises made.

I'm afraid it was very clear how bad things were - e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jan/26/uk-economy-debt-bob-gross - but none of the three parties made any real efforts to spell out exactly what the consequences might be.

Seems that a lot of people have become disillusioned with the Libs since the election: about to be over taken by 'others' according to this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8280050.stm

Perhaps in the future politicians should refrain from making promises altogether. Oh well, who'd want to be a politician.

Quoted from 26

Collaboration is good though. We don't have a local force anyway. TVP includes Milton Keynes for goodness sake. Merge all the southern ones and get rid of the duplication. Get rid of WBC and have a Reading based Berkshire council. So much money is wasted to create the illusion of local democracy.

Agreed. We could also merge more local schools, as per my earlier post.  And have a combined defence force, much like Ireland's although perhaps slightly larger. That alone would save a few hundred million in top brass costs and a bit less by not having three different types of uniform.  Seriously - why not? In 2008 we had more admirals than ships: http://www.heraldscotland.com/.....und-120-000-1.845566

I wonder if Liam Fox has the balls to do it?

Tony, could we have inout on what WBC are planning to do to safeguard its residents during these financial cuts?  I understand there are jobs cuts, but anything else?  For instance could we have have some assurance that, wherever possible, british workers (or people resident in Britain) and British companies will be employed first.  I am thinking in particular of the Portugese company that is flying in workers to repair the pavement in the town centre and market place.  If this contract and future contacts had been given to a British company it would help the economy - keep a business afloat and ensure the money earned here was taxed and spent here to help other British businesses.  

Quoted from noobree

Agreed. We could also merge more local schools, as per my earlier post.  And have a combined defence force, much like Ireland's although perhaps slightly larger. That alone would save a few hundred million in top brass costs and a bit less by not having three different types of uniform.  Seriously - why not? In 2008 we had more admirals than ships: http://www.heraldscotland.com/.....und-120-000-1.845566

I wonder if Liam Fox has the balls to do it?

Now you are deliberately being silly. OK, an EU force seems a good idea if we didn't have such a wacko government which can rarely agree with the more sensible French/German/Dutch essentially non intervention/aggression. Actually, the French can be pretty daft when it suits (Rainbow Warrior & nuclear testing) but I still see it as an essentially ok idea.

Bigger schools though? WBC can't manage the ones we have and seemingly the same head for two doesn't improve results. Maybe he's not being paid enough?

Quoted from Tony Vickers

The main one being the revelation that the financial mess was far worse than when manifestos were drawn up and election promises made. .[

No we were aware but the politicians were either:

a) To fecking stupid to see it

or

b)To full of spin and lying to publish the truth in their manifestos (well truthful manifestos have probably never existed

or

c) both of the above.


Now which was it Tony???

The truth is, unless all agree to give it like it is, all were 'forced' to conceal the truth.  Labour didn't do a financial review before the election.

Blimey...Have you read all this twaddle?
I didn't realise these sort of people still existed!
Does anybody believe any of it?
Carry on regardless....

Dodgy, just cos you don't want to set the world to rights, you must allow others the space

Quoted from brian

Dodgy, just cos you don't want to set the world to rights, you must allow others the space

Yes, and we have nearly finished it!  

Quoted from dodgy

Blimey...Have you read all this twaddle?
I didn't realise these sort of people still existed!
Does anybody believe any of it?
Carry on regardless....

Please let us have your intellectual view then and raise the tone.

You didn't realise which sort people still existed?  Councillors?

Quoted from dodgy

Does anybody believe any of it?

Does anybody believe any of it?  My goodness, you raise an fascinating epistemological point as I'm sure you're very well aware! Honest yeoman you might be but there's an incisive mind lurking beneath the gor-blimey-guvnor-what-a-carry-on-wife's-up-the-duff-again-lawd-luv-a-duck cheeky chappie facade, I'll be bound.  Well, the game's up I'm afraid old boy!  Now, I'm sure you have some fascinating insights regarding the political morass in which we appear to find ourselves. Elaborate forthwith good fellow! You never know, there might be a shilling in it for your trouble should you entertain us sufficiently!

I guess Tony has gone, never to be seen again. I don't mind discussing national level politics at all, I just wanted to reply to Tony and his letter in the paper, and ask him to tell us what the Lib Dems plan to do to fix the mess that they helped create in West Berkshire. Can we have one thread where we can discuss local politics and one where we can discuss national politics?

Any Labour party supporter needs to come to the terms with the fact that the party made some huge errors, namely failing to prevent the economic crisis and also the war. I was in favour of the war at the time, and to a point Iraq will be a better place now Saddam has gone. As for the economy, the whole world is in meltdown, so to blame just the Labour party is a little harsh, but Gordon made out he was a genius and that he could prevent anything like this from happening. He ignored the most obvious signs and failed to reign in spending when he really should have and we now have a deficit bigger than what we really should have. What is important for the Labour party is that the focus is not on Old Labour or New Labour, but NEXT Labour. What should the party do to become a political force again? How can the party rebuild the grassroots? What happens next is what is important, as most people on here will know it's impossible to go back and change something that happened in the past.

But for Tony Vicker to paint the Labour Government as a failure is rediculous. Does anyone remember working for £2 an hour? The huge waiting lists at the hospital? The overcrowded classrooms? It's time to stop shying away from the achievements that the Labour Government made for this country, but it is also more important for the Labour party to admit the mistakes of those 13 years and and try to make sure that the same mistakes are not made in the future.

Locally, all parties have to get their act together and figure out how to address the problems of the past here in West Berks. Local politics are in a bad way with unelected officers deciding policy when they are unaccountable to the electorate and whilst Tony Vickers is asking his cycling questions at every meeting and Pamela Bale is being allowed to dig herself deeper and deeper into a political hole, West Berks officers are making changes to the new LDF to remove affordable housing quota's and all of this is going by without query as everybody is involved in the party polictical games between members. Tony has probably been told not to post again, but if you are reading this Tony, it's nothing personal. But as somebody prepared to use the former Labour Government and it's faults to hide his own shortcomings and that of his party locally, it sums up the state of members at WBDC.

Another problem is that people know that local politicians have little empowerment to make significant change.

Labour and Lib Dems rely on tax revenue.  Even if the Tories were in power through the 00s, I doubt we wouldn't have had same budgetary problem's.

Locally, Lib Dems and Tories have pursued similar projects.  Trying to shoehorn an expensive pedestrian area into a place that was once the crossroads for the south of England; with mixed success.  Both endorsed large warehousing on Greenham Common.  Both endorsed the vulgar Parkway project (meanwhile, Internet sales continue to grow year on year) and have been happy to see a massive increase in housing on the Racecourse without ensuring the local road network is appropriate, nor ensuring developers adhere to the best mix of housing type that Newbury would benefit from.

I realise many will not agree, but many would agree with me.

But this is the point I'm making Greenham. All parties need to set out what they will do to address the big issues they make locally. It is time for people to stand up and be counted, if you usually vote tory or liberal, tell your local members that you want the "C word"!!! I hate the word change, I think it is massively overused since Obama won the America election, but CHANGE is needed in a big way at West Berks.

I think in the current economic climate, it shouldn't just be about raising tax locally. I don't think people would mind paying a few pence extra on council tax if there was significant improvements in the way the local authority operates. But I agree, with the amount of increase over the past few years, why hasn't there been any improvement since the tories came to power? There needs to be a bigger representation on the council of different levels of experience and backgrounds. At the moment, it seems like a pensioners tea party. All parties need to ensure that the candidates at the next election have a good mix of life experience to make the council more relevant to the people who vote.

Most importantly, we need a leader who has vision and drive to implement a manifesto. With the council moving to the strong leader method of governance, when we vote for a party, we will be voting for that party leader to implement the manifesto over the next four years. Problem is, none of the parties have a vision for moving forward. It's lets take decisions as they come, and let the officers get on with the nitty gritty... or the big stitch up as I will refer to it from now on.

And for the record Greenham, I agree with pretty much all of that post.

I think before a local authority can begin, Parliament needs to be more equitable with they way it calculates local settlements and how the political demography is divided up.  It seems like certain authorities are looked on more favourably depending on the party of the day.

Which is totally wrong, however maybe West Berks may get some more cash from their Tory pals in Downing Street (highly unlikely though as all the Tories do is cut!). Corby in Northamptonshire is a great example, big Labour town now being hit hard to major cuts in it's settlement.

That being said, the major thing that people want from West Berks is for the authority to be more transparent in it's dealings. That doesn't cost a thing!!!

It will be interesting to see how many Independents stand for election next Spring.

For all the "I could do it much better" talk we see on forums like these I'd wager not many will be big enough put their money where their mouth is like BrianB and David Yates did at the General.

Quoted from user23.3

It will be interesting to see how many Independents stand for election next Spring.

For all the "I could do it much better" talk we see on forums like these I'd wager not many will be big enough put their money where their mouth is like BrianB and David Yates were at the General.

If we had the power to Sack the incompetent we might! However you all remain whatever.

User 23.3, it very much is a case of put up or shut up. You are completely right there. But the Tories and the Libs should be carefull for what they wish for.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Can we have one thread where we can discuss local politics and one where we can discuss national politics?

Local here, national in Odds and Sods I would guess. But Admin doesn't want controversial subjects in that section so just press on.

I agree about transparency.  I'm sure things are not as 'bad' as they used to be, but I see this and other councils really make publicity howlers that need not happen.  Just better or more professional public relations would be a start.

As for independents.  That is user23.3's rather mischievous idea that the council can't be that bad, because all the also-rans never get anywhere.  The fact is, the electorate share equally the blame.  I am sure the vast majority vote for the party not the person, and would do so even if they were unsure of the qualities of the candidate.

It would be good if at voting time, you would have to demonstrate you know who and what you were voting for.  For example, you are not given any name, you simply have a few yes or no questions, and according to how you answer, decides the vote.  Totally unrealistic I know, but the trouble is, we have people voting for people or parties who simply don't understand.

Quoted from Greenham Common

As for independents.  That is user23.3's rather mischievous idea that the council can't be that bad, because all the also-rans never get anywhere.  The fact is, the electorate share equally the blame.  I am sure the vast majority vote for the party not the person, and would do so even if they were unsure of the qualities of the candidate.

The electorate share all the "blame" for who is chosen to run West Berkshire.

Quoted from user23.3

The electorate share all the "blame" for who is chosen to run West Berkshire.

But they cannot be blamed for if they do a good job or not.

The electorate vote on what options are given to them. How can the person voting for Pamela Bale know years in advance that she is going to be a complete failure? You are right though Greenham, people vote on the party. Here in West Berks, both parties fail to offer anything different to what we have now, no real vision or proposal to change things.

user23.3 sums up the opinion of the elected members, they believe that they are not to blame for the mistakes that they have made. The electorate are to blame for electing them onto the council.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The fact is, the electorate share equally the blame.  I am sure the vast majority vote for the party not the person, and would do so even if they were unsure of the qualities of the candidate.

It would be good if at voting time, you would have to demonstrate you know who and what you were voting for.  For example, you are not given any name, you simply have a few yes for know questions, and according to how you answer, decides the vote.  Totally unrealistic I know, but the trouble is, we have people voting for people or parties who simply don't understand.

Indeed we are responsible for electing the councillors - but not the Nick Carters and other incompetents who do the day to day work - and similarly at national level.

I agree that it would be nice to have voters making proper decisions about who to elect - truthful manifestos would be a start, and that would require an electorate that could also vote on painful decisions!

Quoted from Nobby

Indeed we are responsible for electing the councillors - but not the Nick Carters and other incompetents who do the day to day work - and similarly at national level.

I agree that it would be nice to have voters making proper decisions about who to elect - truthful manifestos would be a start, and that would require an electorate that could also vote on painful decisions!

We may not have voted for Nick Carter, but we voted for the people who appointed him.

The leadership of the council can surely see the state that we are in??? If I was leader of the council, I would of conducted a huge review of the way the authority is run a long time ago. The fact is, the elected members just don't seem to care. I think that for a lot of members it's more about getting together for a brandy in the bar after the meeting rather than sorting out the mess we are in.

Anyone know how much we actually pay the Chief Exec?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Anyone know how much we actually pay the Chief Exec?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=9728

According to the Taxpayer's Alliance, Mr Carter's total remuneration last year [2008] was £132,431, including a £5,000 car allowance, totalling a pay rise of 4.6 per cent on the previous year.

Nice package then!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Nice package then!!!

Er...

I was going to type something else... but decided to change it after I posted it. So was Nick Carter an elected member in West Berks at one time?

Quoted from richard.garvie

user23.3 sums up the opinion of the elected members, they believe that they are not to blame for the mistakes that they have made. The electorate are to blame for electing them onto the council.

Who is to "blame" for electing them onto the council then if not the voters?

Obviously the electorate vote them onto the council, but the point is do you think somebody who voted for Pamela Bale knew she would be a complete disaster at the time of the election?

There may well be a good few who don't think Pamela Bale is a complete disaster.  This forum has responses from a tiny minority of the local electorate.  Take the Discovery Centre as an example.  Why should the Thatcham residents get away with free parking when those in Newbury don't?  She at least had the guts to try something that could well have worked.  The seriously 'local' opinions of Thatcham Parish Council were significantly flawed.  Rather than following precident and doing absolutely nothing about the disgraceful state of the Museum - she did at least sponsor a rather more elegant solution; certainly far better than the 'B&Q' design approach favoured in the past.  I know I'm not alone in saying I'd vote for Pamela Bale again.

Quoted from Old Goat

There may well be a good few who don't think Pamela Bale is a complete disaster.  This forum has responses from a tiny minority of the local electorate.  Take the Discovery Centre as an example.  Why should the Thatcham residents get away with free parking when those in Newbury don't?  She at least had the guts to try something that could well have worked.  The seriously 'local' opinions of Thatcham Parish Council were significantly flawed.  Rather than following precident and doing absolutely nothing about the disgraceful state of the Museum - she did at least sponsor a rather more elegant solution; certainly far better than the 'B&Q' design approach favoured in the past.  I know I'm not alone in saying I'd vote for Pamela Bale again.

Thankyou Mr Bale  

Quoted from Old Goat

There may well be a good few who don't think Pamela Bale is a complete disaster.  This forum has responses from a tiny minority of the local electorate.  Take the Discovery Centre as an example.  Why should the Thatcham residents get away with free parking when those in Newbury don't?  She at least had the guts to try something that could well have worked.  The seriously 'local' opinions of Thatcham Parish Council were significantly flawed.  Rather than following precident and doing absolutely nothing about the disgraceful state of the Museum - she did at least sponsor a rather more elegant solution; certainly far better than the 'B&Q' design approach favoured in the past.  I know I'm not alone in saying I'd vote for Pamela Bale again.

So people from Newbury have to pay to use parking facilities at the Discovery Centre do they? I think you will find that anyone visiting car parks in Newbury have to pay (shoppers from Newbury, Thatcham, Hungerford and everywhere else). I believe there is parking charges in Thatcham town centre too. So where is the comparison with the Discovery Centre???

She had the "guts to try something different" did she??? You see, it looks like she tried to introduce parking charges by lying to the electorate. Why not just come out and say they wanted to trial parking charges??? Or maybe say that extra funding was needed, and invite suggestions from the community as to how these funds would be raised. She chose the WBC way, and that is misleading the public. Makes me want to vote for her already!!!

Why were the views of Thatcham Town Council "flawed". Pamela Bale had suggested that Thatcham Town Council were unwilling to up their contribution to the centre, when NOBODY had approached Thatcham Town Council for additional contribution. Maybe if Pamela had contacted Thatcham Town Council and asked for some additional contributions, maybe they would have agreed??? But Pamela Bale decides to mislead the public AGAIN by lying to the local media. Again, I can see the attraction of voting for her!!!

Finally, is this the museum that is to close for four or five years??? With cuts to the budget looming, are we ever going to see this building reopen????

Joking aside, I would NEVER vote for this woman based on her track record. And unless she really needs the annual allowance, I think the best thing for her to do would be to resign before the election or at least rule out standing at the next election.

Quoted from Old Goat

I know I'm not alone in saying I'd vote for Pamela Bale again.

Since she represents Pangbourne, and since you say you'd vote for her again....we must take it that....

A/  You've voted for her before....(unless you've been telling porkies..)

and

B/ Your interest in this Newbury forum is that of one who lives in Pangbourne?

Always good to know it has a wide appeal right across West Berkshire...


Threep.

Quoted from richard.garvie

So people from Newbury have to pay to use parking facilities at the Discovery Centre do they? I think you will find that anyone visiting car parks in Newbury have to pay (shoppers from Newbury, Thatcham, Hungerford and everywhere else). I believe there is parking charges in Thatcham town centre too. So where is the comparison with the Discovery Centre???

She had the "guts to try something different" did she??? You see, it looks like she tried to introduce parking charges by lying to the electorate. Why not just come out and say they wanted to trial parking charges??? Or maybe say that extra funding was needed, and invite suggestions from the community as to how these funds would be raised. She chose the WBC way, and that is misleading the public. Makes me want to vote for her already!!!

Why were the views of Thatcham Town Council "flawed". Pamela Bale had suggested that Thatcham Town Council were unwilling to up their contribution to the centre, when NOBODY had approached Thatcham Town Council for additional contribution. Maybe if Pamela had contacted Thatcham Town Council and asked for some additional contributions, maybe they would have agreed??? But Pamela Bale decides to mislead the public AGAIN by lying to the local media. Again, I can see the attraction of voting for her!!!

Finally, is this the museum that is to close for four or five years??? With cuts to the budget looming, are we ever going to see this building reopen????

Joking aside, I would NEVER vote for this woman based on her track record. And unless she really needs the annual allowance, I think the best thing for her to do would be to resign before the election or at least rule out standing at the next election.

That's your choice of course.  I was simply pointing out many others may have a very different view and in particular those who voted for her. Why then should she resign?

It strikes me that any politician is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.  I haven't seen anyone put up a credibile alternative yet - mainstream party or otherwise.  

Quoted from Threepwood

Since she represents Pangbourne, and since you say you'd vote for her again....we must take it that....

A/  You've voted for her before....(unless you've been telling porkies..)

and

B/ Your interest in this Newbury forum is that of one who lives in Pangbourne?

Always good to know it has a wide appeal right across West Berkshire...


Threep.

I should have explained better.  All I meant was if I had voted for her I'd vote for her again.  Pangbourne me?  Glad you think I could afford to live there!!  As to the appeal of thos site - I do appreciate it is a local site for local people.

What has Cllr Bale done that outweighs the clangers she has made over the past few months??? And do you not see a problem with telling porkies to the electorate???

Quoted from richard.garvie

What has Cllr Bale done that outweighs the clangers she has made over the past few months??? And do you not see a problem with telling porkies to the electorate???

Depends if you see them as clangers or not - agree presentation could be better.  As for politcians telling porkies..... ......come on now!

Quoted from Old Goat

It strikes me that any politician is dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.  I haven't seen anyone put up a credibile alternative yet - mainstream party or otherwise.  

Seems to me, particularly in the case of the parking charges they listened to the public and changed what they were going to do based on it.

Posturing from the media and political hopefuls like Richard here along the lines of "Another U-turn? They don't seem to know what they're doing" is only likely to make them listen to the people less.

ok... lot's of politicians tell porkies (maybe why they often lose trust of the electorate) but Pamela Bale told some pretty whopping lies about why she was introducing parking charges. Why create an elaborate lie??? That's the sort of thing a 5 year old would do.

I have to say that I don't think Pamela Bale was responsible for the proposals for the car parking at Thatcham Discovery.
The responsible Councillor at the time was Hilary Cole Ward member, Chieveley
Executive member, Environment, Public Protection and Cleaner & Greener West Berkshire Council.

At the time I wrote to Mrs Bale and she referred me to this councillor who at first tried to direct my questions to Paul Hendry but I wanted a response from the elected councillor and advised her of this and I did get a full reply.

The Individual Executive Member for Countryside and Public Protection has made a decision to implement a Parking Order for The Nature Discovery Centre, Thatcham on 11 March 2010 which will allow the Council to implement parking charges for The Nature Discovery Centre, Thatcham and to set out the relevant parking controls.

Pamela Bale however was the councillor whose name was against the parking charges at Northcroft Leisure area.

So Pamela Bale only lied repeatedly in the paper then about the Nature Discovery Centre parking charges. Still not acceptable, the reason I've called for Pamela to resign is because of the way she has conducted herself and what she has said to the media. You can't blame the council for trying to introduce parking charges if it gets them revenue, but the fact that there was no consultation and Cllr Bale made up stories as to why the trial would go ahead (controlling parking volumes) before trying to pass the buck to Thatcham Town Council speaks volumes about her charachter. As for the comments in response to the Newbury Town Council question at the recent council meeting, how could she not know about the NTC study??? If she is guilty of anything, it's being out of touch. As she is a portfolio holder, it's her duty to know about these things and at the very least keep up to events through the paper like everyone else who has an interest.

Quoted from richard.garvie

So Pamela Bale only lied repeatedly in the paper then about the Nature Discovery Centre parking charges. Still not acceptable, the reason I've called for Pamela to resign is because of the way she has conducted herself and what she has said to the media. You can't blame the council for trying to introduce parking charges if it gets them revenue, but the fact that there was no consultation and Cllr Bale made up stories as to why the trial would go ahead (controlling parking volumes) before trying to pass the buck to Thatcham Town Council speaks volumes about her charachter. As for the comments in response to the Newbury Town Council question at the recent council meeting, how could she not know about the NTC study??? If she is guilty of anything, it's being out of touch. As she is a portfolio holder, it's her duty to know about these things and at the very least keep up to events through the paper like everyone else who has an interest.

There was a consultation, the result being parking charges weren't introduced and has been pointed out you seem to have confused Pamela Bale with Hillary Cole.

I'm starting to suspect you're on the wind up, no one can get things this wrong so often.

Quoted from richard.garvie

....how could she not know about the NTC study??? If she is guilty of anything, it's being out of touch......

I have to say even I found that a bit odd - it had been well publicised.  Aaah well, we all have off days!

Quoted from user23.3

There was a consultation, the result being parking charges weren't introduced and has been pointed out you seem to have confused Pamela Bale with Hillary Cole.

I'm starting to suspect you're on the wind up, no one can get things this wrong so often.

You and your chums at WBC do!

I think you will find that Hilary Cole told Newbury Sound that the facebook group would not be considered at first, it was only at the meeting that Cllr Cole did the U-Turn. Talking about off days, I apologise because it turns out Hilary Cole actually took the first swipe at Thatcham Town Council. It still does not vindicate Cllr Bale in anyway though. I think if Cllr Bale is guilty of anything, it is acting under the (misguided) advice of her party chums, and it is them who have put her in this position. Cllr Cole is in the same boat, as is Emma Webster. I feel sorry for all three of them, their colleagues should show them a bit more respect rather than making them "sacrificial lambs" as somebody else once put it on here.

Quoted from Old Goat

There may well be a good few who don't think Pamela Bale is a complete disaster.  This forum has responses from a tiny minority of the local electorate.  Take the Discovery Centre as an example.  Why should the Thatcham residents get away with free parking when those in Newbury don't?  She at least had the guts to try something that could well have worked.  The seriously 'local' opinions of Thatcham Parish Council were significantly flawed.  

Looking at an equivalent facility in Newbury - Northcroft Leisure Centre - parking is free for 3 hours.  Why should Thatcham residents, and residents of Newbury and elsewhere wishing to spend an hour at the Discovery Centre pay when Leisure Centre users don't?

Quoted from Old Goat

Rather than following precident and doing absolutely nothing about the disgraceful state of the Museum - she did at least sponsor a rather more elegant solution; certainly far better than the 'B&Q' design approach favoured in the past.  I know I'm not alone in saying I'd vote for Pamela Bale again.

B&Q Design approach?  The current approach to the Museum is the same as it has been for the last ten years - put off repairs in order to save some cash in the budget to provide the local seed funding to support a lottery bid.  The trouble is that the funds put aside for repairs in 2000 are now inadequate and WBC need to find another £500k or £600k to make up the £2 million cost of the (in my opinion, unnecessarily grandiose) sheme they are currently planning.  This is no longer just seed funding but half the cost - because they have worked out that the best they can hope for from the lottery is a regional grant (max £999,999).  Pamela Bales predecessors have supported this approach - she just happens to be the one in charge when the council staff finally got round to doing something about the museum development.

Quoted from blackdog

Looking at an equivalent facility in Newbury - Northcroft Leisure Centre - parking is free for 3 hours.  Why should Thatcham residents, and residents of Newbury and elsewhere wishing to spend an hour at the Discovery Centre pay when Leisure Centre users don't?

Exactly, and the Northcroft three hour parking was when Pam was in charge. Her reasoning, if one can believe that it was her idea, was to allow the recreational users to park for free but the all day parkers would have to find another spot or pay the rate. The deal for Thatcham was when Hilary Cole was in charge, no three hour concessions there.

I will be looking to stand in the Thatcham West ward next year, what I don't get is why the Discovery Centre can even be compared to other parking facilities. It's not like people park at the centre before going to do shopping or anything else. I go to the centre at least every weekend, sometimes one evening in the week if I can. Yesterday, the car park was pretty full, and there were a lot of families enjoying the good weather and using the park / centre. Surely the best way to raise funds is to do what they are doing now: Identifying new revenue streams. My argument is that this should of been done first, then an open consultation with the community should have been set up allowing the public to submit their thoughts on the ideas suggested by the council, and then submit ideas of their own. It just comes back to the fact that lies were told and then the buck was passed.

I'm unsure of the 'fuss' here.  A proposal was made to charge for parking that was subsequently withdrawn after public protest.  Sounds fair to me?

Quoted from brian

Exactly, and the Northcroft three hour parking was when Pam was in charge. Her reasoning, if one can believe that it was her idea, was to allow the recreational users to park for free but the all day parkers would have to find another spot or pay the rate. The deal for Thatcham was when Hilary Cole was in charge, no three hour concessions there.

Of course parking at Northcroft was free with no limits before this change.

Hilary Cole is a name that I have not come across before - but surely Pamela Bale was the portofolio member who was overseeing the Discovery Centre at the time of the proposed parking charges.

Quoted from blackdog

Of course parking at Northcroft was free with no limits before this change.

Hilary Cole is a name that I have not come across before - but surely Pamela Bale was the portofolio member who was overseeing the Discovery Centre at the time of the proposed parking charges.

Not according to Mrs Bale. When the agenda for the discovery centre was running she was quite clear that she no longer held that portfolio and my subsequent mails to Ms Cole confirmed that it was her responsibility.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10156
and nice photo for your album
Oh by the way, follow the link to her website. Delusions of grandeur or what. I bet Benyon has never heard of her.

Quoted from brian

Not according to Mrs Bale. When the agenda for the discovery centre was running she was quite clear that she no longer held that portfolio and my subsequent mails to Ms Cole confirmed that it was her responsibility.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=10156

Interesting - thanks.

Quoted from brian

and nice photo for your album

As I hadn't noticed the change in portfolios so I found the membership of the current executive - and see that Pamela Bale has also moved on from the Museum (assuming it still comes under Culture & Leisure).  It seems Gordon Lundie is now in charge.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I'm unsure of the 'fuss' here.  A proposal was made to charge for parking that was subsequently withdrawn after public protest.  Sounds fair to me?

I think some are making cheap political capital intended for their own personal gain, out of a "u-turn" that was actually the council listening to the public. The danger is that some will cry wolf one too many times to further their own cause and they'll be no more "u-turns".

Quoted from user23.3

I think some are making cheap political capital intended for their own personal gain, out of a "u-turn" that was actually the council listening to the public. The danger is that some will cry wolf one too many times to further their own cause and they'll be no more "u-turns".

Wrong again User - I imagine the majority are happy with the U-turn - it is the lies damn lies and more bloody lies. Why can't you understand???

Posting removed by Administrator.

Please avoid derogatory remarks about individuals. The administrator reserves the right to delete offensive or inappropriate postings.