... the question. Or to be more precise, council tax funded youth clubs or not?
The lead story in the NWN today is about protests related to planned youth club closures.
In my experience, most of the kids who actually attend youth clubs tend to be the 'joiners' - mostly from middle class families and who will typically find other things to do with groups or clubs run by volunteers when council run youth clubs are closed.
The teenagers we need to be more concerned about, I think, are the non-joiners and if there's a role for taxpayer funded youth workers, it's for the mobile kind - getting out and about, talking to them on the streets and looking out for those who are vulnerable or likely to get into trouble. This group don't tend to have vociferous parents who will organise campaigns on their behalf.
I may be completely wrong, of course. Anyone out there who actually knows about this topic and has some experience care to offer an opinion?
Logged
26
March 3, 2011, 4:50pm
Guest User
Does it not depend where you live? My childhood was in Bristol and most local areas would have one or more youth clubs. It tended to be that all sorts that went to youth clubs. Including the kind who on the nights when the club wasn't on, would be found on the street corner. They could be quite rough. Newbury could well be totally different though and times may have changed greatly.
Does it not depend where you live? My childhood was in Bristol and most local areas would have one or more youth clubs. It tended to be that all sorts that went to youth clubs. Including the kind who on the nights when the club wasn't on, would be found on the street corner. They could be quite rough. Newbury could well be totally different though and times may have changed greatly.
There was no playstation or xbox in those days (I assume you had TV though) so there was more incentive to join a club. Todays lot get bored very quickly if the club does not provide stimulating entertainment. Just having a big room with a few ping pong tables doesn't do it. That's why the skatepark could provide good value.
There was no playstation or xbox in those days (I assume you had TV though) so there was more incentive to join a club. Todays lot get bored very quickly if the club does not provide stimulating entertainment. Just having a big room with a few ping pong tables doesn't do it. That's why the skatepark could provide good value.
I agree about the xbox etc, but I do think that the skateboard park is unlikely to attract the type that Noobree is referring to (those that don't join clubs). I'm just guessing, but I would assume that the skatepark would attract enthusiasts. Not the type that hang around town in large groups and arguably need "engaging".
I agree about the xbox etc, but I do think that the skateboard park is unlikely to attract the type that Noobree is referring to (those that don't join clubs). I'm just guessing, but I would assume that the skatepark would attract enthusiasts. Not the type that hang around town in large groups and arguably need "engaging".
I'm sure you're right but the Skatepark was being used as an example of engaging with young persons. For others it will be part of the job to find what excites them and provide the encouragement both to make them want to join in and perhaps convey some enthusiasm to the parents who might not be too bothered about what their kids are up to.
I'm sure it does. I'm just interested to know what the rationale is for closing the clubs. There must be some reasons and I'm guessing that it's because they are either not well attended or those who use them aren't the ones that cause problems.
The same point applies to all the cuts (or, as BBC journalists have apparently been instructed to call them, 'savings). Whatever the underlying reasons for our financial predicament (and I think we've all heard enough about that and have got the 'it's all their fault' message) it's time to move on from the blame game. Politicians have a responsibility to explain clearly and carefully what is being done and why. We ain't seen nothing yet. It's worth noting that the councils which are cutting the hardest and deepest are mostly those which don't have elections this year.
A particular point we should be putting to WBC is whether they've looked at further sharing of back office services and senior management tasks with other councils in our area as way of reducing the impact on front line services.
Maybe other venues could open their doors. Hungerford Football Club lets young teens in early evening and it seems really popular. Bit 'cooler' to meet at the football club rather than the youth club.
Good idea Jay. I'm a bit sceptical about many aspects of The Big Society spin - particularly the fact that so few of its proponents seem to have done anything substantial on a voluntary basis themselves* - but I do think there are many aspects of life in our town which could be improved by a bit more community action.
People are far too ready to complain and moan about our local councils while at the same time being reluctant to get off their arses and actually do something. Maybe the cuts will be a good thing if they encourage/force people to get involved.
*anyone know if Richard Benyon has done any substantial volunteering? I don't count giving money away via his trust - that's easy for someone like him - or organising the occasional litter pick, as he did recently. I mean spending hours a week doing something for his community.
He was also a district councillor for many years - any money he received for this would be trivial in comparison to his wealth - so it was essentially voluntary work. Of course there was a secondary reason - the development of his political career.
But his main charitable work in recent years has, I believe, been for the Help for Heroes charity of which he was a founding trustee. He is a trustee of the Mary Hare Foundation - a pretty good local charity and the Citizens' Advice Bureau.
*anyone know if Richard Benyon has done any substantial volunteering? I don't count giving money away via his trust - that's easy for someone like him - or organising the occasional litter pick, as he did recently. I mean spending hours a week doing something for his community.
Easy to be critical, may I ask what voluntary services you give back to the community ?
Agreed... a touch of the "What have the Romans ever done for us" about that comment.... Politicians are an easy target, but I somehow doubt whether noobree has committed quite as much time to 'worthy causes' as RB. But then again, that's what politicians do...... While I'm happy to spend my weekend flopped in front of the box or pottering about in the garden, your average thrusting politician is out kissing babies, cutting ribbons, attending endless village fetes, jamborees, jumble sales and gatherings at old folks homes. Handing out prizes to schoolchildren or vegetable growers and giving impromptu speeches at the drop of a hat....
You could say that just doing the above is 'giving something back to his community'. Feked if I'd have the time for all that nonsense.....
I think the idea of the "Big Society" could work, if it was strategically planned and done in a way to allow proper planning. All of the youth services and all of the day care centres could have been taken on by the community if done in a strategic way. People are saying I'm being unrealistic by passing control of the dicovery centre to a charity or community group, giving long leases to other council owned facilities to reduce financial burden on the council. We either embrace the change that the Government want to get through whether we are affiliated politically or we don't. But for the "Big Society" to happen, there needs to be responsible thought processes involved and not knee jerk "savings".
Yes, proper planning with regards to delegating services should be key to the "Big Society". Volunteering and comunity led services are not something new in the UK, it's been happening for years. Cameron wants to see more of it, and I support that. But he needs to facilitate the community taking on these services, not simply slashing services and hoping people will pick them up. A bit like cutting public services jobs and just presuming that they will automatically find work in the private sector.
Yes and no. By effectively planning the handover of services, you can significantly reduce the burden on the LA, but at the same time ensure that all facilities are able to put in place a strong business plan and leadership team before taking on such service. By not planning at all, our council have said "we're closing these facilities" with no real warning, and now they are saving face by saying that community groups can take on the youth centres. There just isn't enough time to plan taking on such a responsibility, and those that do take them on will be doing it by the seat of there pants until things settle down, and that is no way to do it. If the council really wanted it to work, they would have been planning for this for months, if not years.
But passing control of the facilities to the community would reduce the cost of these centres. Are you saying we should not support the centres in any way, or facilitate the handover?
I said the council should facilitate the handover to community control. You are implying that planning a handover is wrong, and affectively we should do what the Conservatives have done and simply stop the funding and hope someone takes them on. We've had almost two years to plan for budget reduction, and we could have prevented the pain that the vulnerable are facing by enabling community control, reduce the burden on the council and possibly secure grants / external funding to go towards running costs. How many grants do you thing will pay out in a matter of weeks?
If the control is handed over from someone who was paid to do the job to the community, then that person is going to be out of a job. But of course ultimately someone will need to be incharge of the budgets etc so 'Community Control' is probably going to end up costing more....
A bit like handing running of a Hospital over to a trust to save money & finding out the new raft of managers needed to facilitate this handover to a trust & manage this trust cost more than the old NHS management team ever did.
Hardly. If the councilm are simply saying "right, we are stopping funding to these projects", the people will be out of jobs anyway. If the handover was well planned and could attract external funding, at least some jobs could be saved. Having community control may not be as cheap as axing them completely, but you can't have it both ways. You either axe all of the projects and be done with it, you plan for a community group to take them over and run the projects or you keep them as they are. I would rather plan it and keep facilities open at a small cost to the council than get rid of them completely.
Earlier, you said "planning isn't big society". That is the problem with Camerons vision, he just wants to cut everything now and hope people pick up the pieces. It's not that simple I'm afraid, and as a result valuable services will be lost.
You miss my point - Because of the current economic climate savings/cuts have to be made. That will mean job losses.
The best thing to do is just axing the projects. Otherwise no savings will be made & people will still have lost their jobs.
Planning & a slow transition will cost more, not save more.
I didn't say it will save more, but it will protect services. Are the Conservatives going to reinstate these services when the economy picks up?
I presume you are a conservative Lovejoy, isn't the PM and Pickles both saying savings should be found elsewhere in local government before services are reduced? Can you tell me what West Berks have done in that regard? Didn't Pickles suggest using reserves before axing services?
If the idea is not to save money - why bother changing anything at all? The very process of change will cost money as the consultants handling any change will all want their pound of flesh.
That's unfair, you can't hold that against us locally, just like we can't hold what Cameron and Clegg are doing against the parties locally.
Really? The cuts you are so angry about are a direct result of Cameron & Clegg central government cuts. Necessary because of the feckless way Labour stuffed the civil service and wasted money on a grand scale (St Barts for example). They have to cut somewhere and frankly wherever they cut, you would have attempted to make capital.
All I'm saying is that this could have been planned better, rather than no planning at all.
How? Have a meeting, decide to cut the youth club budget and then cut it the next week? The alternative is the thing that you (and I) see as a cynical attempt to deflect from the cuts.... the "big society".
Whatever is cut, someone will be upset. I'll be upset if we lose the rights of way team, but I don't see it as more important than education.
To return to a previous debate (and I know it's two separate councils and budgets), but I think it's wrong that a small number will be getting a new and as far as I can see totally unnecessary skatepark for £200,000, when many more will lose their youth clubs at a cost of £250,000.
If the idea is not to save money - why bother changing anything at all? The very process of change will cost money as the consultants handling any change will all want their pound of flesh.
Who are we stupid enough to vote for now? Completely flummoxed as there is not one party that I would willingly vote for after this last fiasco?
I wouldn't hold what Labour did nationally against the local branch. That being said, you can't hold what Cameron and Clegg are doing against the local parties either. Obviously I am biased, but what have the Conservatives done locally to give you any confidence they can sort out th mess they created here? Poor planning, vanity projects that nobody want, poor road network, schools that are struugling. What have they done that is positive in West berkshire?
Logged
Male
