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. We could have saved more than £12m, but we just don't have the detail to see what some departments do and what we could actually cut.

It's all Greek to me.

Quoted from 78

It's all Greek to me.

Luckily I can read Greek -

AXE free parking for council employees: Estimated saving - £1.3m a year
· Sell Market Street car park, Newbury Bus station and Faraday road assets to pay off our share of Berkshire County Council debt: £4m a year in debt interest
· Library savings: £300k a year (Currently £2.1m a year)
· Tender bus network to operators rather than awarding contracts to Reading busses: Potential savings of £300k a year (Estimates suggest we give Reading busses £2.5m a year)
· Cost centre 45253 Accountancy: Save £300k per year (Currently £1.3m)
· PR Team: Save £50k a year (currently £150k)
· We don’t know what the corporate general office does, but do we really need to spend £330k a year? Possible saving: £100k a year
· Cost centre 41024 – Partnership team: Save £100k (Currently £340k a year)
· Democratic Services team: Save £100k (Currently £300k a year)
· Reduce number of elected members to one per ward: Save £132k a year
· Axe an executive portfolio position and a shadow exec position: Save £12k a year
· Legal services (43030): Save £100k a year
· 48610, 48620, 48626 – Graphic design & print: Save £300k a year (Currently over £600k)
· Customer service (48514) – Save £150k a year (currently £450k a year)
· ICT management: Save £50k a year (currently £150k a year)
· HR Operations team: Save £75k a year (currently £275k a year)
· HR information & recruitment team: Save £50k a year (currently £250k a year)
· Policy & Strategy team: Save £50k a year (currently £200k a year)
· Cost centres 40120 & 40121: HR admin - Save £100k a year (these positions duplicate HR operations)
· Cost centre 40030: Corporate management: What does it do? Is this a possible £260k saving per year? We do already have a corporate general office?
· Faraday Road offices will be sold: £140k a year saving in running costs
· Bus station: £50k a year saving (now closed)
· Environmental health: Possible £60k a year saving (currently £660k)
· Waste contract: Prevent £2.5m overspend
· Waste services operations: Should this not be included within the waste contract? Possible saving of £550k a year
· Trading standards: Possible saving of £60k (currently £560k a year)
· Cost centre 13800: Transportation planning: 250k a year plus cost centre 19960 (transport admin): £947,740 = £1.2m on transport planning and admin. Is this value for money? I suggest we could save around £500k a year.
· Planning policy: Save £80k a year (currently £480k a year)
· Shaw House: Save £60k per year (currently £460k a year)
· Corn exchange: Save £80k a year (currently £480k a year)
· Newbury cinema: Save £100k a year as subsidy not required
· Social care reform: Not sure if savings can be made, but we have spent almost £600k on the new Tory reforms. This is just one example of Tory extravagance that has put us in this mess.
· Cost centre 45560: Contact Centre: Save £210k a year (Currently £810k a year)
Yearly savings: Roughly £12m – possibly more if we could see more detailed financial accounts

Quoted from 78

We don’t know what the corporate general office does, but do we really need to spend £330k a year? Possible saving: £100k a year

I didn't read any of the guff on the website, other than to scan through the list of "possible savings". But how can you estimate saving £100K a year from a department, if you have no idea what the department does? I'm positive I must be missing something, because otherwise this is just a list of departments, their current budgets, and then a lower figure next to it that you appear to have just made up?

Quoted from massifheed

I didn't read any of the guff on the website, other than to scan through the list of "possible savings". But how can you estimate saving £100K a year from a department, if you have no idea what the department does? I'm positive I must be missing something, because otherwise this is just a list of departments, their current budgets, and then a lower figure next to it that you appear to have just made up?

In my browser the entire plan is in Greek characters. I had to cut & paste it into word & change the fonts to read it. I cut & pasted it above incase anyone else was also only seeing Greek.

I agree  -plucking 'savings' without saying how & where those savings will be made is a childish exercise.  

Not at all, we have a corporate office, corporate service team and corporate management costing around a million in total.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=852

You want the 2010/11 budget book. The fact is, West Berks are deliberately witholding information, the question is why? We have done what we can with the information available and have deliberately avoided raiding the elderly and youth services.

Quoted from richard.garvie

We have done what we can with the information available

Then you have indeed just made some of the figures up? If WBC hasn't provided you with information on the department, and if you dont already know what it does and how it is run, then you are just guessing, right? How do you draw your conclusions on a department's budget, if you dont know what that department does? Surely it's better to leave the things out that you dont have information on, than just make the figures up? It doesn't give you much credibility, does it?

Quoted from massifheed

Then you have indeed just made some of the figures up? If WBC hasn't provided you with information on the department, and if you dont already know what it does and how it is run, then you are just guessing, right? How do you draw your conclusions on a department's budget, if you dont know what that department does? Surely it's better to leave the things out that you dont have information on, than just make the figures up? It doesn't give you much credibility, does it?

We did as much research as we could, so we know bits about everything we cut. There are one or two departments that seem to have no real purpose, and requests for information were ignored, which is scary.

Perhaps you should explain how you're going to save all this cash rather than publish a load of meaningless numbers, unless you're just going to cut staff in each department which means you're going further than the Tories and Lib Dems in terms of cutting public services.

I agree.

Garvie now looks hell bent on forum-domination on here also.

Let's face it, Labour ruined this country over 13 awful years of boom and now the bust. The party is an irrelevance, both nationwide and in West Berks.

And Garvie; how is that Trotsykite Tony Blair who started a war in the Middle East gets a position as a "peace envoy" to...you guessed it..the Middle East!

Have you seen his mansion in Buckinghamshire? The perfect pad for a Bollinger Bolshevik like him and his ilk. SHAME!

No, we would cut waste and excess spending, rather than axing services on which people rely. Yes, £12m is more than what the tories propose to do this year, but the overall cuts to spending over the next four financial years will be the same overall (28%). Personally, I'm all for making sure that the council lives within it's means. I will not stand by and watch as the vulnerable see there services slashed whilst we spend lots of money on budget simulators that don't even tell you what you are cutting. For too many years we have wasted money on the non essentials when we should have been saving and investing in infrastructure and the future.

Quoted from richard.garvie

No, we would cut waste and excess spending, rather than axing services on which people rely. Yes, £12m is more than what the tories propose to do this year, but the overall cuts to spending over the next four financial years will be the same overall (28%). Personally, I'm all for making sure that the council lives within it's means. I will not stand by and watch as the vulnerable see there services slashed whilst we spend lots of money on budget simulators that don't even tell you what you are cutting. For too many years we have wasted money on the non essentials when we should have been saving and investing in infrastructure and the future.

How do you know any of this is excess spending?

Let's take two examples,

Democratic Services team: Save £100k (Currently £300k a year)
Environmental health: Possible £60k a year saving (currently £660k)

Explain how you'd cut waste here.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

Quoted from fencer

I agree.

Garvie now looks hell bent on forum-domination on here also.

Let's face it, Labour ruined this country over 13 awful years of boom and now the bust. The party is an irrelevance, both nationwide and in West Berks.

And Garvie; how is that Trotsykite Tony Blair who started a war in the Middle East gets a position as a "peace envoy" to...you guessed it..the Middle East!

Have you seen his mansion in Buckinghamshire? The perfect pad for a Bollinger Bolshevik like him and his ilk. SHAME!

I'm glad to see the Lib Dems and the Tories piping up with their "Labour ruined the world" act. Let me ask you a question on the "debt" left by the Labour Government. Let's just say the collapse of the Lehmans Brothers and the situation that followed happened under the Tories. Would they have stood by and let the banks all go bust? For every pound brought in by taxation, Labour inherited a debt spend of 8.5p. Before the financial collapse, that figure was 7.5p. So it was actually less that the "golden generation" that the Tories apparently left us, we rebuilt the infrastructure of the UK, building new schools, hospitals and introduced things like the minimum wage, child trust fund, pregnancy grants, paternity, part time workers equal right, all of which the Tories opposed.

Nobody in West Berks could have changed any of that, just like they couldn't change the fact we went to war or the financial services industry collapse. What we can have a say on in West Berkshire is local infrastructure, local spending and the end product recieved by local tax payers, and the fact that West Berks are also picking on the old and the poor show that yet again they have bottled the big decisions. We pay the elected members of the district over £600k and they still can't take the big decisions. SHAME ON THEM.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I'm glad to see the Lib Dems and the Tories piping up with their "Labour ruined the world" act. Let me ask you a question on the "debt" left by the Labour Government. Let's just say the collapse of the Lehmans Brothers and the situation that followed happened under the Tories. Would they have stood by and let the banks all go bust? For every pound brought in by taxation, Labour inherited a debt spend of 8.5p. Before the financial collapse, that figure was 7.5p. So it was actually less that the "golden generation" that the Tories apparently left us, we rebuilt the infrastructure of the UK, building new schools, hospitals and introduced things like the minimum wage, child trust fund, pregnancy grants, paternity, part time workers equal right, all of which the Tories opposed.

Nobody in West Berks could have changed any of that, just like they couldn't change the fact we went to war or the financial services industry collapse. What we can have a say on in West Berkshire is local infrastructure, local spending and the end product recieved by local tax payers, and the fact that West Berks are also picking on the old and the poor show that yet again they have bottled the big decisions. We pay the elected members of the district over £600k and they still can't take the big decisions. SHAME ON THEM.

Stop posting Labour-By-Numbers rhetoric and answer the question. How do you know any of this is excess spending?

Let's take two examples,

Democratic Services team: Save £100k (Currently £300k a year)
Environmental health: Possible £60k a year saving (currently £660k)

Explain how you'd cut waste here.

We will be presenting our findings with supporting documentation to Nick Carter, I'm more than happy to meet with you after that meeting and go through it with you.

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

Quoted from fencer

I propose to cut funding for Tony Blair's bodyguards.

Is he worth guarding...er, no.

Garvie would probably rather see us return to the days of strikes, Tony Benn, Derek Hatton and tax and spend big state socialism.

Some never learn.

Productive argument.

Quoted from richard.garvie

We will be presenting our findings with supporting documentation to Nick Carter, I'm more than happy to meet with you after that meeting and go through it with you.

Answer the question Richard and don't patronise us by telling us all here we're not important enough to know the detail yet.

I'm calling your bluff and am betting you don't know and have just plucked these figures out of the air.

Meet me tomorrow for a coffee and I will go through the spreadsheets and accompanying documentation if you really want to see it. I've always turned up when I said I would, you've always ducked out!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Meet me tomorrow for a coffee and I will go through the spreadsheets and accompanying documentation if you really want to see it. I've always turned up when I said I would, you've always ducked out!!!

I'm not going on a date with you so you can get me between your speadsheets, Dickie.

Post the figures to the items I asked about on here or everyone's going to think you've just made the whole lot up.

Democratic services is part staff reduction, part working practices and environmental health is by reducing staff numbers by two.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Democratic services is part staff reduction, part working practices and environmental health is by reducing staff numbers by two.

Leave Environmental health alone !

I think with a change of working practices, they could absorb the workload. We need to make some tough choices over the next four years, and it would be easy to try and say everything is safe and we won't cut this or that. The fact is, every single department faces big cuts over the next four years to come in on budget, and I think Environmental Health would be quite happy to only lose two people.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Democratic services is part staff reduction, part working practices and environmental health is by reducing staff numbers by two.

So basically it's all sacking people to save some money from all departments with a few numbers in there to make it look like you've costed it, pretty much.

If you cut the number of staff in polling stations wouldn't that have an impact on the voting process?

Quoted from richard.garvie

We will be presenting our findings with supporting documentation to Nick Carter, I'm more than happy to meet with you after that meeting and go through it with you.

Oh! so we ordinary folk are not important enough for you to enlighten us, you are indeed a would-be councillor, you use this forum for your pontifiacation but will not condescend to actually publish your findings herein.  

Just off the cuff (no doubt faults would be found)...... do we need libraries ...... many of our local schools have libraries and indeed librarians. The books could be distributed permanently to the schools, and the school libraries be open to the public at certain times.  This would make the books more accessible to the public (eg the elderly who can't get to Newbury)/and in turn give the schools more books .......?  Might encourage a bit of community spirit too  

Quoted from PaulaM

Just off the cuff (no doubt faults would be found)...... do we need libraries ...... many of our local schools have libraries and indeed librarians. The books could be distributed permanently to the schools, and the school libraries be open to the public at certain times.  This would make the books more accessible to the public (eg the elderly who can't get to Newbury)/and in turn give the schools more books .......?  Might encourage a bit of community spirit too  

I suspect some fuss might be kicked up by parents if schools were made much more accessible to the public.

Don't forget that libraries are also used for much more than loaning out books these days including everything from free internet access to public talks.

Quoted from user23.3

I suspect some fuss might be kicked up by parents if schools were made much more accessible to the public.

Me too, that's why I said "at certain times", obviously there are child protection issues, but on the whole I think it would be good for the community. Sadly, I think if a "nutter" wants to access a school he/she would acomplish that regardless.

Quoted from PaulaM

Me too, that's why I said "at certain times", obviously there are child protection issues, but on the whole I think it would be good for the community. Sadly, I think if a "nutter" wants to access a school he/she would acomplish that regardless.

Wouldn't this mean that libraries would only be open to the public in the evenings?

Old Codger, I didn't say that. If you want, I will send the details to you, you can pdf it (because I don't know how) then upload it for others to view?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Old Codger, I didn't say that. If you want, I will send the details to you, you can pdf it (because I don't know how) then upload it for others to view?

Yes you did. You said we can't see it until Nick Carter's seen it.

You're rubbish at this Richard, really, really bad and you're making Labour look daft.

I think what I actually said was:

Quoted from richard.garvie

We will be presenting our findings with supporting documentation to Nick Carter, I'm more than happy to meet with you after that meeting and go through it with you.

When you said why can't I go through it now, I said:

Quoted from richard.garvie

Meet me tomorrow for a coffee and I will go through the spreadsheets and accompanying documentation if you really want to see it. I've always turned up when I said I would, you've always ducked out!!!

I then offered to send it to somebody else if they could pdf it and host it online because I don't know how. Spin all you like User23.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think what I actually said was:



When you said why can't I go through it now, I said:



I then offered to send it to somebody else if they could pdf it and host it online because I don't know how. Spin all you like User23.

Well you do seem full of the bullshite that Labour have given us for years. Unlike User23 I would like to see cuts in expenditure. But I would like to see your figures - to pdf it download CutePDF from the net - this will act like another printer driver and create a PDF, Then we can all see it.


You do seem rather like a politician - able to talk al ot - pass the blame onto others - and apart from that do f*** all!

Quoted from richard.garvie

We will be presenting our findings with supporting documentation to Nick Carter, I'm more than happy to meet with you after that meeting and go through it with you.

Your words, un-edited.

Do keep this up Richard, I'm sure you're giving others as well as I a great deal of amusement.

I refer you to my last post. You asked why I couldn't do it now, so I said I would meet you tomorrow. What more can I do?

Quoted from Nobby

Well you do seem full of the bullshite that Labour have given us for years. Unlike User23 I would like to see cuts in expenditure. But I would like to see your figures - to pdf it download CutePDF from the net - this will act like another printer driver and create a PDF, Then we can all see it.


You do seem rather like a politician - able to talk al ot - pass the blame onto others - and apart from that do f*** all!

Hardly fair nobby. What do you want me to say about Labour? I've said so many times that the party has made mistakes, the leader went and now the party is rebuilding. We didn't win the election, now we must find out why and try to reconnect with what people want. I believe the party is doing that, which is why I joined after the election. After the Libs hopped into bed with the Tories, Labour were the only party I could possibly vote for. I was going to stand as an independent, but now I'm standing for Labour that means I'm full of it. As I keep saying, Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are not on the ballot here. Let's see what the Tories and the Libs are proposing in terms of fixing the mess that they have created here in West Berks.

EDIT: For the bad decisions that Labour made, what about the huge number of things they did to improve the country?

If the best argument the Tories and the Libs can muster is "look at what Labour did in Government", I say bring it on. Now by doing nothing, that would suggest we are not actively fighting the court closure, that we are not on doorsteps fighting tuition fees increases. In terms of local issues, we have been researching and preparing as best we can with the lack of trasparency and information from West Berkshire District Council, and today we propose a different plan to save money that doesn't involve slashing day centres, care workers or youth workers. The Libs have open access to all of the info we have requested, as do the Tories. Where is their plan? Their budget? The fact is, they couldn't care less. The reason we could publish our vision today was that we are working on our budgeting and manifesto every day, so that we can honestly say we have a clear map to how we want to address what we percieve to be a critical situation in the district.

Apart from have a little moan to the media, what are the Lib Dems suggesting? You are quick to ask for alternative proposals, but when I produce them, I'm still percieved to be doing nothing!!!

This is all pretty academic anyway. WBC will already know what it can and can't cut. They in reality are the only people with sufficient data and knowledge of the workings of local government to be able to make it all happen. We have been included in the loop for no other reason than to either provide a whipping boy if it all goes wrong or as a way of offsetting the blame when unpopular cuts are made.

I'm sure that RG & co will be entertained by Nick Carter because that is what he is is obligated to do and when the deputation has left and the spreadsheet that's been delivered hits the wastepaper basket, everybody will sit back smiling assuming they are being listened to and will pat themselves on the back for delivering the perfect solution. NC will smile knowing that he has done the perfect PR exercise and then get on with the job.

Am I being cynical, perhaps, but having worked for major nationals in the past, know that you can't cobble a budget for the long term future in such a short timespan and without understanding what each and every department does and what staff are involved.

The way to move forward, in my opinion, which will probably end up in the same wastepaper basket, is to examine in detail all the jobs within WBC and look towards restructuring with perhaps fewer chiefs and more indians. Every time I see an advert or jobstructure for a council position, it is always full of high level job descriptions.

Every council employee that is in a managerial position should be told to write a job description for the job they are doing and what they could add to their job. Oh, and tell the unions to get stuffed because if they call for industrial action after a few days, it will become obvious who is and who isn't essential to the business structure and of course the money saved in wages will start the ball rolling.

How do you save £100k on the cinema?  The subsidy may be wrong, but WBC are contracted to keep it going for at least 5 years.

Do I honestly think that anyone will take a bit of notice of what we have proposed today? Probably not. But there is always a chance, and the real purpose of meeting the chief exec is to call for access to the detail we need to complete our proposals. If the council refuse to provide detail, I'm sure there will be legal avenues that I can explore to change that. I wonder how Cameron will feel that the council are not doing what his government are championing?

The ideal outcome would be for Nick Carter and Graham Jones to call in all of the parties in West Berkshire and let them submit their own alternative. Once everyone has submitted their ideas, the "experts" can look through all of the data and maybe we can do things differently rather than hitting the vulnerable hard.

Quoted from blackdog

How do you save £100k on the cinema?  The subsidy may be wrong, but WBC are contracted to keep it going for at least 5 years.

It's not so much axing it, but the cinema won't require the subsidy as it is far from making a loss. My own idea would be to approach Vue and ask them to wave the contract as the cinema is turning a rather decent profit and it is unlikely to ever be called in.

Selling off the Market Street car park and bus station?  That's already planned as part of Vision 2025 - given WBC's record they could raise as much as a fiver.

No need to axe free car parking for staff - just move the office based activities out of the centre of town - plenty of empty office space in Hambridge Lane and Hambridge Road - perhaps the planners would rethink the viability of the Racecourse development if they knew they would be in the traffic jams on their way home every night.

Working in the regeneration field, I know that the council coul make around £10m for the bus station and Market Street car park with a further £15 million for the assets in Faraday Road, possibly slightly more. That would leave a couple of million to relocate the football club, so what I would say to the Blues is give the ground to the council and we will build a joint facility for the Blues and Newbury FC. We could then sell the Blues ground for three or four million, which would give us upto £6m to build a nice community stadium with a few training pitches outside. If the stadium had corporate facilities and the like, both clubs would have the facilities to generate revenue to allow them to compete at higher levels. I know it is thinking outside of the box, but that is exactly what we need to do to get out of the mess we are in. Getting rid of the £4m Berkshire County Council debt interest has to be a priority.

For the record, when the Faraday Road assets are sold, a condition will be that the buyer pays for a new access point for the area from the A339 before any development can be built.

Not sure where you are getting your figures from but...

Market St parking and the bus station are earmarked for the so called 'urban village' part of the Vision.  The Parkway part of the Vision involved selling a prime piece of real estate to SLI for £1.  You see where I'm going with this.

If you think they can get £15 million for their Faraday Rd site it must be bigger than I imagined - or are you including the allotments?  If so you'll hit a snag - allotments are the most protected form of land in the country - it's easier to sell off parks (still you could alway plan a housing estate for Goldwell/Northcroft).

As for the Berks CC debt - £4 million in interest - how much is the debt? Must be £50 million plus in order to cost that much in interest.

£23m is the BCC debt.

We have to establish whether the "visions" are affordable, and whether there is a better way. You will see in our manifesto that we believe a Leisure based facility inluding a hotel would generate a lot more capital for the Bus station site and the Market Street / FGW car park will basically provide additional parking capacity and a bus / rail / taxi interchange. Something different to what the Tories want, and something that will provide us with a combined figure of around £10m.

As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people.

With regards to the parkway land, Sandleford, the Racecourse, Theale and other planning decisions, there are many questions that the officers and the Tories must answer. For that reason, we need a planning review, and Labour will provide one. That (however) is another thread, and there is one already from what I remember!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

.......For that reason, we need a planning review, and Labour will provide one. That (however) is another thread, and there is one already from what I remember!!!

No they won't. Stop deluding yourself. Labour will NEVER get in here, not prior to the mistakes of TB & GB, and certainly not now!

Quoted from richard.garvie

£23m is the BCC debt.

They are paying £4 miilion interest on a £23 million debt? 17%!!!  I hope a large proportion of this payment is paying off the capital.

If not then they could save £2 million a year by refinancing the debt at 8.5% - should be easy enough with interest rates so low. Get lower interest and save even more.

Simply paying off debt by selling assets does not always make sense - if you can earn more from your assets than the cost of servicing the debt then you are better off with the debt and the assets.

Quoted from blackdog

Simply paying off debt by selling assets does not always make sense - if you can earn more from your assets than the cost of servicing the debt then you are better off with the debt and the assets.

Exactly, because otherwise, what do you do next time Labour exit government?

Quoted Text

We don’t know what the corporate general office does, but do we really need to spend £330k a year? Possible saving: £100k a year

Ok then. A detailed explanation please of how you are going to save 100K a year from this department, given that you dont know what it does.

Quoted from richard.garvie

It's not so much axing it, but the cinema won't require the subsidy as it is far from making a loss. My own idea would be to approach Vue and ask them to wave the contract as the cinema is turning a rather decent profit and it is unlikely to ever be called in.

Oh yea, of course, that should work. Vue being the good guys they will tke up this offer with relish.

Pass me an irony smilie please.

We don't have to pay the subsidy unless the cinema makes a loss. It's doing VERY well, and doubtfull it should ever lose money. There are already plans by the current council to sell off / give away these land assets so we would simply maximising income and ensuring that we get the best outcome for the district.

Quoted from richard.garvie

We don't have to pay the subsidy unless the cinema makes a loss. It's doing VERY well, and doubtfull it should ever lose money. There are already plans by the current council to sell off / give away these land assets so we would simply maximising income and ensuring that we get the best outcome for the district.

This is new to me - you are saying that the subsidy goes to Vue if, and only if, they make a loss?

Not to the Kennet Centre people who have five empty units sat under the cinema, very obviously making a loss?

Of course, if you're right then you cannot save £100k a year in this way - you can't save it by not paying it if you are already not paying it.

Quoted from richard.garvie

£23m is the BCC debt.

We have to establish whether the "visions" are affordable, and whether there is a better way. You will see in our manifesto that we believe a Leisure based facility inluding a hotel would generate a lot more capital for the Bus station site and the Market Street / FGW car park will basically provide additional parking capacity and a bus / rail / taxi interchange. Something different to what the Tories want, and something that will provide us with a combined figure of around £10m.

As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people.

With regards to the parkway land, Sandleford, the Racecourse, Theale and other planning decisions, there are many questions that the officers and the Tories must answer. For that reason, we need a planning review, and Labour will provide one. That (however) is another thread, and there is one already from what I remember!!!

I don't really see that the bus station will produce £10m as a site for whatever development, other than perhaps Disneyland and as you seem to be replacing the Market St and FGW car park with a car park the nett gain there is nil.

Why should the football ground be sold, it is a local facility which as I believe you said, is viable with a good business plan and finding a supermaket, as you suggested, to pay for a move and the costs involved in the reconstruction so that WBC can raise a bit of capital seems a little doubtful to me. As far as moving allotments is concerned, there was a vey rapid backtrack when WBC initially suggested that they be converted to green space to recompense for the land taken by the pavilion. When somone has spent years doing whatever allotment holders do to their soil, I can't see them pulling up their bean sticks without some discussion. Glad you're also back tracking.

Isn't there some judicial review going on at the moment about the WBC planning policy so jump on, but perhaps you might want to rethink the Labour policy on planning for WBC as by the time you come to power it will all be settled.

But it is allocated in the budget, what I would be suggesting is that subsidy is removed from the budget. You can't "save" it from the budget unless you remove it from the provision. To do that, you would require permission from vue.

Quoted from brian

I don't really see that the bus station will produce £10m as a site for whatever development, other than perhaps Disneyland and as you seem to be replacing the Market St and FGW car park with a car park the nett gain there is nil.

Why should the football ground be sold, it is a local facility which as I believe you said, is viable with a good business plan and finding a supermaket, as you suggested, to pay for a move and the costs involved in the reconstruction so that WBC can raise a bit of capital seems a little doubtful to me. As far as moving allotments is concerned, there was a vey rapid backtrack when WBC initially suggested that they be converted to green space to recompense for the land taken by the pavilion. When somone has spent years doing whatever allotment holders do to their soil, I can't see them pulling up their bean sticks without some discussion. Glad you're also back tracking.

Isn't there some judicial review going on at the moment about the WBC planning policy so jump on, but perhaps you might want to rethink the Labour policy on planning for WBC as by the time you come to power it will all be settled.

The allotments wouldn't just be pulled up by anyone. As I have clearly wrote, the biggest problem with moving the allotments would be public interest in keeping them where they are. Have I ever suggested I would move them or sell them off?

I haven't said anything about supermarkets either. Sell off the council offices and the football ground, there would be £2m excess cash from the deal to go towards providing a new facility for Newbury FC. The football club need a facility that will generate a decent living for them to progress, and a deal with the blues would help another club that is desperate for cash. With facilities that generate a greater incom, this will make up for those lost sponsorship dollars and allow the club to get back on its feet and live within its means.

We have made representations to the LDF inspector, and we expect him to send it back to the drawing board. Maybe next time the council will listen to what residents want, not try to railroad their own idea through.

Quoted from richard.garvie

The allotments wouldn't just be pulled up by anyone. As I have clearly wrote, the biggest problem with moving the allotments would be public interest in keeping them where they are. Have I ever suggested I would move them or sell them off?

I haven't said anything about supermarkets either. Sell off the council offices and the football ground, there would be £2m excess cash from the deal to go towards providing a new facility for Newbury FC. The football club need a facility that will generate a decent living for them to progress, and a deal with the blues would help another club that is desperate for cash. With facilities that generate a greater incom, this will make up for those lost sponsorship dollars and allow the club to get back on its feet and live within its means.

Whoops!
You said in the skatepark thread dated Oct 1st Reply 77

"A community facility to replace Faraday Road stadium, allowing Newbury FC to grow and build a lond term facility, whilst also providing additioanl community football pitches. All of which would be paid by a retailer and no cost being met my the District, with a charity trust set up to run the facilities long term."


And just a few posts back, you broached the subject and then like WBC bottled out.

"As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people."

Quoted from brian

Whoops!
You said in the skatepark thread dated Oct 1st Reply 77

"A community facility to replace Faraday Road stadium, allowing Newbury FC to grow and build a lond term facility, whilst also providing additioanl community football pitches. All of which would be paid by a retailer and no cost being met my the District, with a charity trust set up to run the facilities long term."
."

Brian, if you read the full context, I had previously tried to set up a deal to prevent the land at Shaw from becoming housing. That deal is long dead. What I have said about Faradat=y Road now is that £2m of left over monies from the sale of the current ground and council offices could go towards a replacement facility.

Quoted from brian

[/color]
And just a few posts back, you broached the subject and then like WBC bottled out.

"As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people."

Yes, I did say "and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it" before saying "If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people." Just to clarify what I meant by this, the biggest hurdle around moving the allotments would be public opinion. When somebody gave a list of reasons why the allotments shouldn't be moved, they failed to point out public opinion as one of the reasons. For me, that would be the far greatest hurdle.

As I touched on, the only way they COULD move is if there was a much bigger site provided elsewhere, which I'm sure would smooth over the terms of a deal with allotment holders. It's not a fight that I particularly want to have should we be elected, but I am told it's only a temporary facility anyway? By that I mean it's not allocated for allotments, and is provided to Newbury Town Council on a short term basis?

WBC seem to have earmarked the football ground to provide replacement green open space to compensate for the park space taken up by the dreaded pavilion.  Which, if nothing else, shows that the land for the pavilion does not come at zero cost.

As for the football club (I admit I am biassed in having zero interest in football) why do they deserve a public subsidy?  They are little more than the pub team they were a few years back.  What makes them any more deserving that all the other local football teams? Why do they deserve to be given a special ground?

I personally think that a football club can become the focal point of a community, and they do pay a rent (it's not a subsidy from the council). The "Pavillion of Doom" will not be built, they will have to build it over the top of me as I will fight it with everything I have got.

Somebody else may be able to explain as to how the council came to provide a football ground, as far as I am aware it is due to the fact that the club ground back in the old days of the Newbury FC was given to the council below market value in order for help paying off certain debts. This is why the more I think about it, a joint ground with the blues may be a much more exciting and financially viable option?

When you were discussing the football club, you said.....

Quoted from richard.garvie

.......with a charity trust set up to run the facilities long term."

I'm a bit lost on this charitable trust thing that you keep on offering as an alternative. I would really like to know how this works. Who or what is the trust, who organises or runs it. Where does the money come from and does it have to be paid back.

You are bringing up something that I had put in place to stop houses at Shaw a number of months ago. Just to clarify, a sporting trust would have run the community pitches and stadium facilities to generate revenue to pay for the upkeep of those facilities.

By running certain facilities as trusts, you can apply to charity funds and pots of money on a national stage to help fund your project. By giving the Corn Exchange a 30 year lease, they would then find that they could apply for lots of different funding and allow the council to reduce its contribution. By having Shaw House run as a trust, you could have it as a historic attraction, wedding or conference facility or something else, with the council renting space for what it requires. This would allow the facility to generate revenue of its own and depending on use, could apply from funding from other sources. Final example, the Nature Discovery Centre. Either set up a trust to run it locally or give it to the RSPB with covenants and everything else placed on it to prevent any development of the land. The RSPB or a nature trust would be able to secure funding from elsewhere, and they would also be able to monetise the facilities a lot better than the council can and provide a much better facility too.

We need to think outside of the box and look at what the council will look like in future years. If we are only going to have a budget of £80m a year, unfortunately savings are going to have to be made. The thing is, lets protect frontline spending, cut waste and also see what services / facilities / non essentials that we can divolve into community ownership / management to reduce the burden on the council.

Apply for funding? From where? Have you not been paying attention over the last few months?!?

Quoted from 78

Apply for funding? From where? Have you not been paying attention over the last few months?!?

There are still plenty of funding bodies out there, from the Lottery down to smaller specialist or regional bodies.   However, there may well be more organisations clamouring for part of the pot, especially if local councils take this route towards reducing costs.

West Berkshire Museum has a problem in that it has lost its status as an accredited museum - which closes the door on many funds that support museums.  Before it could survive as a trust some cash would need to be invested to make the buildings viable (not necessarily the grand plans currently being pursued, but at least the resolution of fire safety issues) and get it back on track for full accreditation (probably only needs to satisfy whoever takes on the role of the MLA Council that plans are in place to bring everything up to standard).  Of course the abolition of the MLA Council (recently condemned quango) could change everything.

We are working on the manifesto day and night, and our priority is to identify ways to protect frontline services. The museum is probably the trickiest of all mentioned above, and we have yet to set our own plan for the future of that service. What we have requested from West Berks is a detailed analysis of the current situation and why the museum must be "Bale-d out" by the taxpayers (sorry, bit of humour there). If there is a more cost effective way of doing it, then that is the route we must take. With the scale of savings and cuts so severe, can we afford almost £1m on this building? If that money can be found elsewhere, then great. But £1m of taxpayer funds for me is a little excessive. When people are losing jobs and cuts of almost a third are being made, we need to prioritise what provide the greatest benefit in the district,

Blackdog, what are the key issues around the current building?

MUSEUM

As I see it the key issues (my personal opinion - I am not privy to WBCs deliberations on this or any other issue) are:

1) The state of repair - years of neglect have left two of Newbury's most important 'heritage' buildings in need of a lot of expense to put right.  WBC are required by law to look after these buildings and budgetted around £4-500k for repairs 5-10 years ago but held off doing the work as the lottery funded refurb/enhancement was already being thought of as the 'final' solution. The idea was that the money put aside for repairs would provide the local seed funding that would support the lottery bid. The big plan was delayed as Shaw House took priority - they are now close to putting forward the final lottery bid. The repairs money has sat in the budget for years awaiting this moment.

2) Safety. A fire risk assessment caused the museum to close.  I'm sure a relatively low spend would solve this problem - but you would still be left with a crumbling museum.  Once again the decision was made not to spend this money and to save it to support the lottery bid accepting that the museum would close in the interim.

3) Lottery. They have decided to go for a regional lottery grant - limiting them to £999.999 as £1,000,000+ bids have to go to a national level, which is felt to have less chance of success.

Nett result - a shortfall of £500k to meet the anticipated cost of £2 million. Added to the previously budgetted repairs money this makes up the £1million spend recently agreed by WBC.

The plan - to repair the listed buildings and to demolish the 1930s building that connects the Cloth Hall and The Granary and replace it, on the same footprint, with a building with improved facilities (eg toilets, lift, etc).  I suspect there are also funds in the plan to refurbish displays as well as the buildings.  However, I have not seen the plans and am only guessing - I could easily be wrong. I have no idea how they come up with the cost of £2million.

It is easy to see how they got into this situation, and I suspect many of us would have made similar decisions under the prevailing circumstances.

At this stage, with the lottery bid at an advanced stage, it might cost as much to pursue a seemingly cheaper solution than the current plan.  As far as I can tell all their eggs are in the lottery funding basket - I'm not sure if they have any fall-back plans.

Until the £2million plan is available for examination it is difficult to see how to save WBC money.  They are required by law to maintain the Cloth Hall and Granary - which would probably cost well over £500k today.  They would have to do this before handing the museum to a trust - making that option less viable. The only way to save cash short term is more delay - which leads to increased costs down the line (at least they are unlikely to be served an enforcement notice to carry out the repairs - WBC are responsible for issuing such notices).  I guess there will be elements of the plan that could be deemed luxuries - but the lottery would take a dim view of cost cutting savings made after they have committed funding.

They could move the museum to an alternative location (many would like to see it in Shaw House) but that wouldn't solve the problem of the Cloth Hall and Granary.  

If I were starting from scratch I would look at moving much of it to Shaw House as a West Berkshire Museum with the Cloth Hall kept as a small museum of Newbury.  The Granary could be used as small kiosk/shops and the 1930s bit would provide a lift to the upper floor of the Cloth Hall and an access from the Wharf to an arts centre built on the car park behind (and not in the park!).  I have no idea what this would cost - it just seems a logical solution, not necessarily a cheap one.

I think there is a lot of merit in that post, and especially within the last paragraph. If certain funds are willing to pay for an arts centre in Town, having it on the car park there may well be the best suggestion I have heard to date. You are obviously looking at a reduction of parking revenue, but I think the pro's outweigh the con's. Has this ever been suggested before?

I have certainly suggested it on this forum and/or the newburytoday forum before - but not as any sort of official manner - though I may have suggested it to my local councillors and one or two other councillors in informal chats. To be honest I can't remember.

As I see it there are two obvious sites - behind the library or behind the museum. Linking it with the museum would seem to offer a way to combine two projects in one - and arts and museum seem to have some things in common.  Arts centre space could be used for museum talks, museum objects could be used in arts projects and they could share some educational, office and front of house staff if co-located.

Car parking space is obviously not a problem in Newbury - witness the recent Parkway proposal to lose 105 parking spaces because there is plenty of parking elsewhere!  I wonder if that takes into account the planned removal of all parking in front of the Granary and library?  

At least there would be some parking left around the arts centre - making it a lot easier for disabled access than in the corner of the park.

Given the continual growth of Newbury the surface parking cannot hope to cope for much longer - how long before the multi-storey car park behind the library comes back into contention?

I would of thought a multi level car park by the Library may be an ideal opportunity to relieve congestion we are likely to see at the north end of town. If not at the Library, maybe relocate BT and Royal Mail and build a multi level facility there. Whatever happens, it would have to be privately funded.

As for the arts facility behind the museum, I think it's an excellent idea and is definately an alternative to building in the park. I may look into it further if that's ok with you, although I will credit you with the idea if we decide to proceed with it in our manifesto. If the arts centre was joined with the museum, you could host visiting displays like other museums do, and these events can obviously be charged for in addition to what you have said above. Now, if they had a full and proper consultation on the "pavillion of doom", surely people could have submitted sugestions such as this?

The Wharf is already earmarked for development.

Bulldozing the BT tower & post office for a multi storey! Replace one eyesore with another!

Well, a three level multi story built in a similar style to surrounding buildings would look better than the BT tower!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Well, a three level multi story built in a similar style to surrounding buildings would look better than the BT tower!!!

I think you can forget moving or losing the BT tower. It is oversize but when it was built, the exchange was a little more electro mechanical and needed more space but that said, it is a hub for virtually all the communication cabling for Newbury and the area and it would be a major restructuring which BT has already said it had no plans in that direction. BrianB is more au fait with the BT building and may chip in perhaps.

I guess it would all come down to how much benefit there was to the interested parties in moving the exchange. I'd like to think it wasn't impossible to update that part of town at a point in the future.

Quoted from brian

I think you can forget moving or losing the BT tower. It is oversize but when it was built, the exchange was a little more electro mechanical and needed more space but that said, it is a hub for virtually all the communication cabling for Newbury and the area and it would be a major restructuring which BT has already said it had no plans in that direction. BrianB is more au fait with the BT building and may chip in perhaps.

It is the hub for quite a large area, not just Newbury. Is the huge generator still in the basement?  

I don't dispute that there may be problems moving, but I do believe long term that possibly it could be moved to allow the regeneration of that part of town.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I don't dispute that there may be problems moving, but I do believe long term that possibly it could be moved to allow the regeneration of that part of town.

Quoted from brian

BrianB is more au fait with the BT building and may chip in perhaps.

The Atkins report wanted to demolish this building and widen the road at this point. When the building was erected (started in 1969), it was designed to use every square inch of the space in front of the old manual exchange which it replaced.

There was no space to expand outwards and so the only way was up. If you look at this map http://wikimapia.org/2476928/Telephone-Exchange-BT, you can see how it was squeezed in. The building marked Royal Mail Sorting Office existed to the boundary with the roundabout and housed nearly 200 manual operators who used to staff the building day and night. (not all at the same time).

In those days it would have been a mammoth logistics task to divert all of the cables to another location in town. Today that logistics task would be even more difficult especially as millions of pounds have just been spent to install 21CN (The 21st century network of fibre optic technology).

Dream on, if you expect this building to be demolished before 2030.

Incidentally what did happen to the Atkins report? It cost West Berkshire a six figure sum, and I don't think that a single part of it has ever been implemented.

Why not widen the road on the other side? Demolish KFC & the dry cleaners.

Quoted from 78

Why not widen the road on the other side? Demolish KFC & the dry cleaners.

Now that is a good idea, the horrible smell from KFC when sitting at the lights I could well do without.
That perhaps should have happened when the Rising Sun fell down but it's an opportunity missed.

I do think something could be done to make the BT tower a bit more acceptable. It will always be a big brute of a building but does anybody remember the bland tower blocks opposite Prospect Park on the A4 into Reading. Some years ago they were treated to a facelift by Reading council and they look quite good now. Colourful even.

Quoted from brian

I do think something could be done to make the BT tower a bit more acceptable. It will always be a big brute of a building but does anybody remember the bland tower blocks opposite Prospect Park on the A4 into Reading. Some years ago they were treated to a facelift by Reading council and they look quite good now. Colourful even.

Perhaps this would be one area that we could avoid spending too much money on...considering the present economic climate?

Quoted from brian

I do think something could be done to make the BT tower a bit more acceptable. It will always be a big brute of a building but does anybody remember the bland tower blocks opposite Prospect Park on the A4 into Reading. Some years ago they were treated to a facelift by Reading council and they look quite good now. Colourful even.

Perhaps you should call BT and suggest it.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps you should call BT and suggest it.

According to Sky news "Telecoms giant BT has announced pre-tax profits of £547m for the six months to the end of September." so it wouldn't be much to ask ?? It would probably take an age to get through on the phone though!

Quoted from Greenham Common

Perhaps this would be one area that we could avoid spending too much money on...considering the present economic climate?

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the local taxpayer should foot the bill. To all intents and purposes, it is a privately owned building and the owner should, with perhaps some pressure from WBC, tart it up themselves. BT spend little on the building exterior apart from the aerials that sprout from the roof so perhaps it is time they did.
User, do you really believe that my ringing BT would create anything other than hilarity in India, that's if they understood what I was talking about.

If I were BT, I would say that the exterior is good enough.  I'm not sure either what could be done that would upset some one.

Quoted from brian

User, do you really believe that my ringing BT would create anything other than hilarity in India, that's if they understood what I was talking about.

Perhaps you should suggest a meeting to them to discuss it?

Nothing will be done unless the private sector funds it.

Quoted from 78

The Wharf is already earmarked for development.

The only plans I have ever seen for the bit behind the library (the coach park) were for a multi-storey car park (1980s perhaps?) and a library extension (taking very little space). Its not involved in the current Wharf redevelopment for the Vision.

I had a look behind the museum today. A few minor problems with access to the printers and bit and pieces, but I like the idea even more after looking at the area again. The model at West Berks is the old configuration of Parkway if anyone is interested.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps you should suggest a meeting to them to discuss it?

You're not trying to get me to do a Richard Garvie are you.?

Quoted from brian

I do think something could be done to make the BT tower a bit more acceptable. It will always be a big brute of a building but does anybody remember the bland tower blocks opposite Prospect Park on the A4 into Reading. Some years ago they were treated to a facelift by Reading council and they look quite good now. Colourful even.

It had a face lift in the early 1990s. All the windows were replaced for starters.

btw - no matter what West Berks decide to do with the Pavillion, the alotments won't be part of it. They are owned freehold by NTC apparently!!!

Quoted from brian

You're not trying to get me to do a Richard Garvie are you.?

And what does doing a Richard Garvie involve?

Quoted from user23.3

And what does doing a Richard Garvie involve?

Organising meetings or attempting to organise meetings with all and sundry. Richard Benyon thread for instance.

Quoted from user23.3

And what does doing a Richard Garvie involve?

A considerable amount of verbal arse gravy!

Quoted from user23.3

And what does doing a Richard Garvie involve?

Or trying to find facts and not hear-say or urban myth.

Quoted from booboo

Or trying to find facts and not hear-say or urban myth.

The alternative spending cut plan seems to extremely light on facts.

What's wrong with trying to debate on local issues with local "politicians"? It's not like they are keen to go out and engage with people, is it?

Quoted from richard.garvie

What's wrong with trying to debate on local issues with local "politicians"? It's not like they are keen to go out and engage with people, is it?

Not strictly true ..... I e-mailed RB and asked him to come and see me and he did ..... he then followed up with a second visit a week later.

Well, Richard Benyon won't debate the court closure or the spending review, which will actually hit West Berkshire harder than most areas. For example, due to the low number of children who will have the pupil premium applied, West Berkshire schools will actually see a reduction in budget. West Berks Hospital - budget reduced, possibly losing some services. Child benefit - a lot of mums in West Berkshire will lose their child benefit due to the hubby earning more than £45. Housing benefit - that little top up that some families get - gone due to new limits being applied. EMA grant - scrapped. Sure Start Centres - Massive cuts and no longer a commitment to provide fully trained staff. Tuition fees raised. Tax credits - slashed. In Pregnancy grant - gone. Our MP won't enter into a debate because he knows everybody will be coming at him from every angle.

We then have Graham Jones who refuses to engage at all with regards to the spending cuts. It's a complete sham or an administration. The Tories asked people to go online to suggest cuts, and within 48 hours announce savage cuts to ourn day centres, care workers and youth service. Not that any of it will affect Grahm Jones... HE AND HIS FAMILY LIVE IN WANTAGE!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Well, Richard Benyon won't debate the court closure or the spending review, which will actually hit West Berkshire harder than most areas. For example, due to the low number of children who will have the pupil premium applied, West Berkshire schools will actually see a reduction in budget. West Berks Hospital - budget reduced, possibly losing some services. Child benefit - a lot of mums in West Berkshire will lose their child benefit due to the hubby earning more than £45. Housing benefit - that little top up that some families get - gone due to new limits being applied. EMA grant - scrapped. Sure Start Centres - Massive cuts and no longer a commitment to provide fully trained staff. Tuition fees raised. Tax credits - slashed. In Pregnancy grant - gone. Our MP won't enter into a debate because he knows everybody will be coming at him from every angle.

We then have Graham Jones who refuses to engage at all with regards to the spending cuts. It's a complete sham or an administration. The Tories asked people to go online to suggest cuts, and within 48 hours announce savage cuts to ourn day centres, care workers and youth service. Not that any of it will affect Grahm Jones... HE AND HIS FAMILY LIVE IN WANTAGE!!!

And we're off again. Perhaps if you didn't write things like "We don’t know what the corporate general office does, .. Possible saving: £100k a year", refrained from personal comments about his fellow party members and didn't call him Dickie you might have more credibility and stand more chance of him meeting you. Just a thought.

Just stating a fact. These cuts won't affect him, so whilst they still have these vital services where he lives, we lose ours because he can't be bothered to look elsewhere for savings!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Just stating a fact. These cuts won't affect him, so whilst they still have these vital services where he lives, we lose ours because he can't be bothered to look elsewhere for savings!!!

You've done it again, you've said it's a fact that "he can't be bothered to look elsewhere for savings".

How can anyone take you seriously when you post potentially libellous things like that?

Surely if he had looked elsewhere, he wouldn't be slashing our day care centres!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

Surely if he had looked elsewhere, he wouldn't be slashing our day care centres!!!

Just be careful about posting your opinion as fact, especially when you're posting such woolly assertions such as "We don’t know what the corporate general office does, .. Possible saving: £100k a year". You have no idea whether he's looked elsewhere but it's obvious to all that you "couldn't be bothered" to find out what the corporate general office does.

At the moment I'm guessing most people think your gaffes are amusing, but this could change as we see a growing number of disgruntled posts directed at you on the other forum.

Hold on, I made it very clear that we had requested that detail and it has been refused. Now things look to be progressing on the detail front, I will happily update our alternative once we have the detail requested. I did make it very clear that it is subject to change because of the lack of detail in some areas, and our requests about more detail in some areas were refused. The fact is, nobody at the council would tell me the exact function of that department, I know a little bit of detail from what we gathered from talking to other people who work at the council, and from what we were told I definately think some of the budget can be reduced. Once I get the detail I need to finalise our alternative, I will happily come back to you and say I made a mistake if that is the case.

I believe £100k can be saved in that area from the information I have, and now the council are cooperating I will be able to confirm that either way.

Quoted from richard.garvie

we had requested that detail...... once we have the detail requested...... and our requests about more detail in some areas ....... me the exact function.......what we gathered from talking .......we were told ..... Once I get the detail I need to finalise our alternative, I will happily come back to you and say I made a mistake if that is the case.

There are a lot of we, our, me and I in your posts. Are you working alone and using the Royal 'we' or are you part of a group and if so are you the nominated spokesperson. I know that you consider yourself to be the face of Labour in Newbury but does the party consider you to be their front man.

I am only the organiser, and part of what is a rapidly growing local party. My job is basically coordinating our efforts here in West Berkshire.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Hold on, I made it very clear that we had requested that detail and it has been refused.

So let me get this clear.

You rung up the council, asked for the general office, when put through to them asked them what they do and they refused to tell you?

I think that either you're telling porkies again or you couldn't be bothered to give them a ring.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I am only the organiser, and part of what is a rapidly growing local party. My job is basically coordinating our efforts here in West Berkshire.

Do you mean that you are representing the local Labour party.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I am only the organiser, and part of what is a rapidly growing local party. My job is basically coordinating our efforts here in West Berkshire.

Rapidly growing - 50% increase?  i.e. it was just you but now you have someone else who's half interested!

The fact is we have now passed the 200 figure in West Berkshire, which is double what we had before the general election!!! I'd say most of the new members here are ex Lib Dem supporters who are now a bit upset about Clegg and Co.

We may have been fairly small before the election, but I'd love to know how many the other parties have here.

Quoted from richard.garvie

The fact is we have now passed the 200 figure in West Berkshire, which is double what we had before the general election!!! I'd say most of the new members here are ex Lib Dem supporters who are now a bit upset about Clegg and Co.

We may have been fairly small before the election, but I'd love to know how many the other parties have here.

Exactly as I predicted then. You'll take a few votes from the Lib Dems which will allow the Conservatives to win more seats.

You've dodged a question, again, did you ring up the council, ask for the general office and when put through to them asked them what they do and they refused to tell you?

Quoted from user23.3

So let me get this clear.

You rung up the council, asked for the general office, when put through to them asked them what they do and they refused to tell you?

I think that either you're telling porkies again or you couldn't be bothered to give them a ring.

Anyone can edit a post after originally posting it!!! Not quite, I asked for that information from another source higher up the foo chain. What I have thought about doing is spending a day working in each of the departments that I have allocated for savings. It remains to be seen if I would be allowed to do this, but it would give me an even clearer picture and allow me to take the views of people who work in said departments.

I will wait for a few people to answer this post, then come back later and add a question for you User23.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Anyone can edit a post after originally posting it!!! Not quite, I asked for that information from another source higher up the foo chain. What I have thought about doing is spending a day working in each of the departments that I have allocated for savings. It remains to be seen if I would be allowed to do this, but it would give me an even clearer picture and allow me to take the views of people who work in said departments.

Shame you couldn't be bothered to pick up the phone for more information.

Are you proposing to do this for free?

Yes, I'd like to just go in and shadow department leaders for a day just to further enhance my understanding, and yes it would be free. The purpose of our alternative budget was to show that there are other areas to save money other than critical services like the Ormonde Centre and Hillcroft House. Without these services, there is no alternative place for service users to go.

If I can get a better understanding of every department by working a day per week in each department, I will definately be in a better position when we prepare our alternative budget for 2011/12.

As for picking up the phone to a department, I doubt they would have told me anything, instead passing me through to the person I ended up speaking to anyway.

I think user23.3 is just throwing mud in the hope some sticks.  It is preposterous that any given person could just phone up a department and get the information asked.

Quoted from richard.garvie

As for picking up the phone to a department, I doubt they would have told me anything, instead passing me through to the person I ended up speaking to anyway.

I reckon they would, you couldn't be bothered to try. Best not "sling mud" as someone else has said if you're not willing to be bothered yourself.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I think user23.3 is just throwing mud in the hope some sticks.  It is preposterous that any given person could just phone up a department and get the information asked.

Of course it's not preposterous.

I'm betting you'd find people all too eager to talk about what their department does.

Quoted from user23.3

I reckon they would, you couldn't be bothered to try. Best not "sling mud" as someone else has said if you're not willing to be bothered yourself.Of course it's not preposterous.  I'm betting you'd find people all too eager to talk about what their department does.

When people from that department might have more important things to do?  Fair enough have an interview, but not just to ring up on spec and get the opinion from God knows who.

I think that in the real world, you have to follow official channels. We have spoke to some people off the cuff, but those people were not just called up on the spot, they were people introduced through friends or ex employees of the council.

If you ring up anywhere asking for information, my guess is that you would always be directed to the person I have ended up dealing with in that organisation.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think that in the real world, you have to follow official channels. We have spoke to some people off the cuff, but those people were not just called up on the spot, they were people introduced through friends or ex employees of the council.

If you ring up anywhere asking for information, my guess is that you would always be directed to the person I have ended up dealing with in that organisation.

Exactly, people would usually be 'under orders' to do as such.  They could be censured if they did otherwise.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think that in the real world, you have to follow official channels. We have spoke to some people off the cuff, but those people were not just called up on the spot, they were people introduced through friends or ex employees of the council.

If you ring up anywhere asking for information, my guess is that you would always be directed to the person I have ended up dealing with in that organisation.

The real world is phoning up and doing the research yourself; being bothered to do so.

What qualifications do you have for spending a month with department heads and advising them on how to spend taxpayers money? It's just when your CV was online (that you now seem to have removed, what do you have to hide?) the biggest achievements on it were the Newbury Stadium Project and bringing US banger racing to some obscure TV channel.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I will wait for a few people to answer this post, then come back later and add a question for you User23.

Don't bother, he won't answer.  We're still waiting for his ideas of where the cuts should be made.

Quoted from blackdog

Don't bother, he won't answer.  We're still waiting for his ideas of where the cuts should be made.

I've already answered it, central government should put up Income Tax

Quoted from richard.garvie

What I have thought about doing is spending a day working in each of the departments that I have allocated for savings. It remains to be seen if I would be allowed to do this, but it would give me an even clearer picture and allow me to take the views of people who work in said departments.

LOL, that should go down well! You wandering around the Council Offices looking over peoples shoulders & deciding who to sack.

I thought it took years of experience to be able, in single day, to get the feel of where the money can be saved in a large corporation.

Quoted from user23.3

I've already answered it, central government should put up Income Tax

That's avoiding the question, not answering it.  WBC are unable to put up income tax, and have been told not to put up council tax, and will not get as much funding from central government - so they have to make cuts.

Given that the cuts will happen, where do you think WBC should make savings?

Or are you simply unable to face reality?

£33,320,000 is the figure we need to save each year by 2015, which means a reduction of around £8m a year over four years.

I actually run my own business in the regeneration industry, and yes, I dabble in the media industry every now and again. I'm just saying that it might be a good idea to spend a day in each area to further enhance the decision making process.

It would appear that some people are ignoring the fact that cuts and savings will need to be made, around a third of the budget will go over the next four years.

Quoted from user23.3

I've already answered it, central government should put up Income Tax

In other words WBC should be able to waste as much money as they see fit!

Quoted from user23.3

I've already answered it, central government should put up Income Tax

They've already planned to do that, as I said before. Vat goes up to 20% on Jan 1st.

Quoted from brian

They've already planned to do that, as I said before. Vat goes up to 20% on Jan 1st.

User wants to add an income tax hike as well.

VAT is going up, NI is going up... but Council tax is frozen. 1% on council tax actually represents £750k, so we need an increase of about 30% on council tax to prevent savings at the council... I can see that going down well