This is a press release from Richard Garvie, not the Labour Party.
Around thirty protesters today broke into the West Berkshire District Council Chamber to demand answers from council officers regarding cuts to adult day care centres in the district. Although an apolitical campaign, Newbury Labour Party provided community organiser Richard Garvie to organise media coverage of the event and to publicise it. Portfolio holder for these services Joe Mooney was invited to attend the event, as was the leaders of the Liberal Democrats and other local political parties. Speaking to Newbury.net in response to a press release from the Liberal Democrats, Richard Garvie urged caution from local politicians from deflecting from the real issue.
"I'm a bit saddened that the leader of the council has tried to use party politics to deflect the real issue here. Service users wanted information from the council and to show that if the facilities are removed, they will utilise the council offices as an alternative venue. I'm delighted that the Lib Dems sent Cllr Hunnemaun along to show solidarity, it's just a shame that he didn't venture inside to listen to what the protesters had to say about how they are being affected by the closures. This issue is not about party politics, it is about our day centre provision. The Conservative Party would do well to remember that people are not interested in point scoring, they want answers and solutions. If they can't provide those answers or solutions, they should resign their positions and let others put forward their ideas."
Protesters will now form an action group to challenge the decision to close the centres, and a delegation will head to parliament to deliver a petition to the Department of Communities and Local Government.
FACTS
£2.2m of Adult Social Care services are being cut from the coming financial year.
The Conservative administration plan to cut a further £2.9m from Adult Social Care in next years budget
The £3.2m "additional investment" in this years budget is to cover financial pressures within the department, £1.9m of which was accumulated in 2010/11
Five of the nine day centres in West Berkshire are closing
£7.4m of the £8.2m cuts this coming financial year affect the Elderly, the disabled and young people / families.
For more information and copies of documentation which support the facts within this document, email Richard on info@richardgarvie.com and he will provide links to the information on the West Berks website.
If this is only from RG and not the labour party how come he has issued a press release ? Can anyone issue a "press release" ? Can I do one ???
It's absolutely bizarre.
His / Labour's press release mentions an "apolitical campaign" and says he's "saddened that the leader of the council has tried to use party politics" then goes on to politicise the debate by saying "The Conservative administration plan to...".
Not at all. I was just trying to make it clear that this event was not political. If you were there moonphoenix, you would know that it wasn't some grand Labour Party political event, and suggestions that it was organised by the Labour Party are wide of the mark. I got involved to assist with putting something together to raise the profile of the campaign against these centres closing, and I feel like we got every bit of publicity for the cause that we could possibly have got.
What made me put out that press release is that Graham Jones is trying to discredit the protest by saying it was politically motivated and the Lib Dems sent someone down to get on TV, but they didn't bother coming inside to listen to what was said. The whole reason people are upset is that they feel the council officers and elected members aren't listening to them or giving them enough information. If Roger Hunnemaun had came inside rather than trying to get on TV, the people in attendance would have felt that someone from the council was listening.
Because of these people trying to make this party political, my capacity can now only be as an advisor to the campaigners. Why should political affiliation stop anyone from fighting an issue with those who wish to remain independent of political affiliation? I just feel like this is dirty tricks trying to put people off campaigning, including myself. If any party organised a rally, I doubt many would show up because they don't want to get involved in political squabbles.
All I would say, it's curious that we asked to speak to officers of the council, and at no stage asked to speak to politicians at the council offices. Why did the council produce a press release from Graham Jones anyway? Aren't the council and the Conservative Party supposed to be seperate of each other?
Newbury Labour Party provided community organiser Richard Garvie to organise media coverage of the event and to publicise it.
Own goal for the Labour party.
I also love the fact that Richard goes to great lengths to assure us that his motives aren't political, yet coincidentally manages to have a pop at the Conservatives whenever he can.
I'll use the same phrase that Richard used when addressing another forum member, "You are a joke."
A criminal offence then. What a great thing to put into your own press release Richard.
Own goal for the Labour party.
I also love the fact that Richard goes to great lengths to assure us that his motives aren't political, yet coincidentally manages to have a pop at the Conservatives whenever he can.
I'll use the same phrase that Richard used when addressing another forum member, "You are a joke."
I simply asked if they were not supposed to be seperate of each other?
It's absolutely bizarre. His / Labour's press release mentions an "apolitical campaign" and says he's "saddened that the leader of the council has tried to use party politics" then goes on to politicise the debate by saying "The Conservative administration plan to...".
It is a bit bizarre, but I'm wondering what I would do if I was a labour activist in these parts. Hell will freeze over before they stand any chance of being elected. So I think what I would do is to keep very quiet and let the tories and libdems dig themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.
For example, if the libdems don't stop the NHS privatisation (and there's every likelihood that they won't, we can say with some confidence, because Clegg promised at the weekend that they would ) they will be completely wiped out in the next general election. Most people don't realise what Lansley is up to but when they do, which will be too late to do anything about it, they'll be very cross indeed.
Meanwhile, the local libdems can't dissociate themselves from Clegg so they'll be taken down with him. At that point, Mr Garvie, if you take my advice, you can re-emerge and take on the tories in a head to head fight. So for now keep schtum and/or be a bit more careful with your spelling.
PS Phil: is responding to posts here an official part of your job (I can imagine why it might be) or do you do it in your own time? Perhaps we should put in an FOI request.
If you were there moonphoenix, you would know that it wasn't some grand Labour Party political event, and suggestions that it was organized by the Labour Party are wide of the mark
Well, I never suggested it was organized by the Labour Party, and can't recall anybody else suggesting that. Your roll was minor enough, that I had to wait for somebody to address you by name to figure out who you were. Though your little speech once inside the council chamber could easily be construed as officiating over the event by somebody wishing to add a little spin.
I don't trust any party politician. And one would have to go far beyond in a display of moral fiber what I would expect of a regular guy to gain any trust. While this was not a party political debate. The frustration is felt at everybody trying to turn it into one, certainly so. Your little dig at the Conservative party in your press release does not help matters.
I disagree that the best was gained from the publicity in question. It was sensationalist reporting on the behalf of the BBC, that could be easily spun to put our legitimacy in question as regards the movement.
At no point was there any breaking in or storming of anything. It was a quick discussion and a quiet well behaved saunter out of the way of public view. Out of site, out of mind. Or at least the guy who quietly let us in must have been thinking. Now that it has been libelously reported by the BBC of all people that we Stormed and broke in. This could be easily spun to dis-credit us as activists and label us as just trouble causing anarchists. Really, If you want suggestions for a next step. How about contacting the BBC on our behalf and requesting a redaction and apology from the BBC for villainous us in this way?
To be fair, if Richard Garvie is a political noob, you can expect slips like these and I wouldn't hold these things against him. In my view, though, I do think he seeks to undermine the Tory administration. To counter that, though, if the Tories are squeaky clean, then there is nothing for them to worry about, but it does add a bit of colour to an otherwise drab political theatre in Newbury.
If he learns by his mistakes he'll be a genius by the end of the year.
Nice snide remark. Better than your usual standard I must admit. You are always suggesting that people should put themselves where their mouth is. This guy is doing that, trying to get a fairer deal. Good on him I say. Sorry if the council to which you show such unwavering support is embarrassed
Nice snide remark. Better than your usual standard I must admit. You are always suggesting that people should put themselves where their mouth is. This guy is doing that, trying to get a fairer deal. Good on him I say. Sorry if the council to which you show such unwavering support is embarrassed
To me it seems that "this guy" is trying to promote himself off the back of those who have had the services they use cut.
You only need to look at the first line of the first post for evidence of that. If you need more, look at MoonPhoenix's comments.
Nice snide remark. Better than your usual standard I must admit. You are always suggesting that people should put themselves where their mouth is. This guy is doing that, trying to get a fairer deal. Good on him I say. Sorry if the council to which you show such unwavering support is embarrassed
To me it seems that "this guy" is trying to promote himself off the back of those who have had the services they use cut.
Could it be that he has sufficient interest in those persons whose services have been cut to make a personal stand. You may see that he is trying to promote himself but that is what anybody unwittingly does when they dig their heels in. Look back through history and the people who made changes to our way of life end up with the statues. Not, in every case what they wanted but national or in this case local gratitude may or may not follow. I can start the ball rolling with Emily Pankhurst. perhaps you might think of a few others. Locally, we had Jimmy Tufnail, he was a major thorn in the side of local government in his day, but he got things done.
Personally, I think he is doing a good job. He has had our dreadful council squirming and twisting for months. Most notably over "CCTVgate". He never let it drop and uncovered a pack of lies and a whitewash. If I do decide to vote next time, RG is more likely to get my vote than any of the others. Wasted or not.
Personally, I think he is doing a good job. He has had our dreadful council squirming and twisting for months. Most notably over "CCTVgate". He never let it drop and uncovered a pack of lies and a whitewash. If I do decide to vote next time, RG is more likely to get my vote than any of the others. Wasted or not.
Lib Liars are finished so can't vote for them? Cons are as much use as a chocolate fireguard? So unless there is some Independent that comes along may as well vote for Garvie? Lesser of all the evils?
Unless you work for the council and have flexi time and are able to take day's off via your guatanteed sick leave.
True story. I was trying to make progress with a planning application @ WBC and was hoping to get clarification when the clerk looked at me and said "you do realise we close at 5pm don't you". It was 4:55pm.
I was shopping in a local Independent who closed at 5:30pm, by the time they had given me the advce I needed to make my purchase it was 5:45pm. At no time was I made to feel unwanted or a problem customer.
I guess the difference is that people in the real world of commerce appreciated customers. But if you get paid via the tax payer and the tax payer can not opt out of the system or take their business to a commpetitor, you get treated as a problem which stops you getting home at the time you want.
I think it's amusing that the Tory Defence League can ask why I post during the daytime (remember, I work on my own time) yet defend User23 from anyone who suggests that he shouldn't be posting in work hours. See the contradiction?
So both Phils off on the same day? How will the council have coped!!!
I think it's amusing that the Tory Defence League can ask why I post during the daytime (remember, I work on my own time) yet defend User23 from anyone who suggests that he shouldn't be posting in work hours. See the contradiction?
So both Phils off on the same day? How will the council have coped!!!
A strange post given you were the one that bought up the subject of working hours.
It's a tad harsh that one person has referred to council workers as "arseholes" and another of the "real world" in a thread about some, I would guess, being made redundant. I suspect those who are potentially losing their jobs are well aware of the "real world".
Logged
Yes ! But I was being slightly sarcastic. Why has Admin chosen to publish RG's press release ?
Female
Male
