Forum Topic

Day centres to close

"Other cuts include the closure of the Albert Dane day centre and LINKS day service. People using these services will be assessed to see if they are eligible for an individual budget, which gives recipients choice to purchase care services that meet their needs."This above statement by the council people wanting to close the services are nonsense. The people currently being assessed being able to then purchase the services is stupid. The day centre will have closed so what can they purchase. Fore many carers these places provide relief and a friend from the Albert Dane centre said that only 3 of the people there on the day she was there are able to speak and so how can a consultation occur. There is a quote that the centre does not come up to modern standards, but this is an easy way of someone defining that a place has to close. Read the link http://www.ealingtoday.co.uk/default.asp?section=info&link=http://nnet-server.com/server/common/concouncilcuts001.htmand alsohttp://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2010/09/17/suicide-fears-if-links-day-centres-are-closed-64767-27289499/ It is strange how the first cuts are against the people unable to shout.

Peter Chadburn ● 5674d66 Comments

'I rented it out to Ealing housing ltd, who put tenants in there. They were temporary accomodation tenants. The rent was better than market rates, and it was a five year let.'So can i just clarify - are you a councillor? Supposedly representing Ealing council tax payers best interests? And claiming that public sector workers are the ones that are milking the tax payer - whilst you have been ruthlessly exploiting the public purse with your over inflated rent? You have been taking advantage of the people that trusted you, that voted for you. You are a profiteer on the hardworking taxpayers purse and a shameless hypocrite!How many more properties do you rent out to councils?  How much more do you profit by the appalling level of homelessness that enables landlords like you to milk the system?

Simon Stewart ● 5548d

Interesting how whilst i have been in new zealand, no one has managed to find out what the alternative arrangements will be?? this shows how shabby this administration has been on this. they could have cut around ealing or other areas, but no the cuts affect the weakest in our society.

Peter Chadburn ● 5557d

So how does having Councillors so allied to major political parties benefit residents?So what are the alternative arrangements for those who were attending these day centres?It seems to me that their value is being rated by the number of people who will complain at their loss - simply because fewer people use them and are affected by their loss (ie those users and relatives/carers of those users) than the number who carelessly and thoughtlessly use the waste collection service.

Philippa Bond ● 5560d

Let's hope you are not going to do the Labour thing of going under the covers permanently.That does really make us sick.

George Knox ● 5560d

Hi, I just want to add something about the flat you rented out on Rectory Park. What is the 'market' rent for a flat on Rectory Park? Did you ever live there? Or did you buy to rent and make a profit from the tax payer by renting out to a homeless family claiming housing benefit? The rent surely was more than an average council rent for a flat on Rectory Park. We have always had a need for 'social' housing, yet the Conservative sold most of them off, then have made social housing a dirty word, and private landlords rich out of tax payers money.

Jaz Brown ● 5560d

George, Robin and ThomasWe are from different ends of the political spectrum, and will never agree on the issues of the day. I agree with probably only one comment any of you have made and that is the one from thomas. you are right Thomas, I have spent far too much time on here. This will be my last post on this thread, so feel free to say I am in hiding, safe in the knowledge that I won't respond. GeorgeYour list in your first paragraph makes for depressing reading. These things are happening today in this great country. I blame the Labour party who ran the country into the ground over a 13 year period with the help of the unions who fund them. Remeber Liam Byrnes note to George Osborne, "THERE'S NO MONEY LEFT". That's why your list is as long as it is. You blame the conservatives. We will have to agree to disagree. RobinI didn't know what Ashcroft wanted from us, that is why I have not been able to answer your questions. I have since done a search and pulled something out of the daily mirror. They estimate that Ashcroft should have paid £127m in taxes over the ten years he has been a lord. That's a lot of money. How you would have spent that money is very different to how I would spend it. If true, it still pales into insignificance when compared with how much the unions cost us. I don't despise unions, I despise some of their more extreme behaviour. They are not all reasonable, and when they are unreasonable, it is the taxpayer who pays. i have given examples in previous comments on this thread. I am a bit concerned by these days of action in March that George refers to. People who work in the private sector will struggle to accept that the demands the union are making are reasonable. ThomasYour first thread is confusing what was going on nationally with what we were doing locally. The leaflet that Ray Wall put out in Hobbayne was referring to our plans for the managment of the housing service, not what the conservative plans were nationally. Ealing homes contract comes to an end on March 31st this year. We did an options appraisal and decided that we wanted to see what the market would charge to manage the service, not own it, before deciding what offered council taxpayers, tenants and leaseholders best value for money. Labour have since taken the service back in house without publishing their own options appraisal or the legal advice they received even though we have asked several times for it to be published.Nationally, the conservatives were discussing reviewing whether or not it is still sensible to offer lifetime secure tenancies to council tenants, once they become council tenants. This I am sure you will agree is necessary given that we have over 10,000 on a waiting list in Ealing waiting to be housed by the council. The national plans I believe will apply only to new council tenants, not existing ones. Rays sent an incredibly misleading leaflet out to tenants advising them that the councils plans for the housing service would mean they would lose their secure tenancies and have them replaced by shorthold tenancies. I hope that clarifies this for you. ThomasThe careers advice you gave is not necessary. i have lived in this country for 23 years now and have never taken any benefits. My health has been good, so I have worked all that time and continue to do so, paid my taxes etc. I don't live off the council taxpayer. My allowance is £9600pa and I get a special responsibility allowance of over £5,000 because I am in the shadow cabinet.I probably do on average 25 hours a week in my role as a cllr.  I don't know where you got the impression that I despise public sector workers. I don't. I have worked for almost five years with council officers who work very hard. i appreciate and respect them. I just don't understand why their pensions and terms and conditions are better than those of people in the private sector. As a taxpayer, i think that the final salary schemes are no longer affordable. If we haven't got them in the private sector, why is it fair that the public sector workers should have something that clearly is no longer affordable. The flat that i had rented outi bought it in 2004 before I became a cllr. I rented it out to Ealing housing ltd, who put tenants in there. They were temporary accomodation tenants. The rent was better than market rates, and it was a five year let. Labours housing benefit scheme favoured landlords more than taxpayers. This is why Cameron has brought in the HB rule changes that he has. It was in the Rectory park estate which is due to be regenerated. The council made a round of offers in november 2010 to all leaseholders there to buy the properties back. I accepted the councils offer, and no longer own the flat. I have been advised that had the estate not been up for regeneration, and i sold privately, i would have got more than i did. That might make you happy Thomas. Still having said that, the process that the council have in place for these purchases is robust, fairly applied and i believe protects the council taxpayer. I have enjoyed the debate with you, and hope that my tone has not offended any of you. I believe as strongly in what i have said as you do in what you said.

Colm Costello ● 5561d

ColmHB reductions, social housing rents to rise above inflation, families being separated, Legal aid being reduced, Charities having their funding cut, house building coming to a juddering halt, VAT up with retailers using that as an excuse to put a little bit more on, no reduction of the cost of petrol rises, fares up above inflation, utilities up above inflation and several hundred thousand people to lose their jobs, pay freezes for millions, University fees tripled, pensioners personal allowances not going up, Welfare benefits rising with CPI ,instead of RPI, and the same for many pensions, threats of employment rights being eroded, bank charges going through the roof, police numbers going down, prisons being shut down, NHS services being hit,  etc etc. The people who vote, generally older people, have the memories which are still fresh of how Thatcher smashed up communities. Do you really want all of that again?And we haven’t got to the action days of March yet. The Unions are not going to have Old Etonians telling them how to run this country. You can understand why some or many of them hate many values your party stands for. And before you ask, Darling’s approach was to take the cuts at a more measured pace.But I agree Councillor Bell should beware.

George Knox ● 5561d

Colm Costello,You sound like a bitter and twisted man who is envious of public sector workers.  You also seem to have nothing better to do than to rant incessantly on this website. Instead of resenting others why don't you get a proper job that will give you something constructive to do?  That way you can pay taxes like all the public sector workers and trades union members you keep slating. You are a councillor (unfortunately!) and you are therefore living off public money.  I see from your website that you are a landlord that rents his property to Ealing Housing Ltd which lets to councils.  No doubt you charge the council an inflated rent.  You are a hypocrite pretending that public sector workers are a drain on tax payers.  You seem to do pretty well on that score yourself!

Thomas Hillyard ● 5561d

"telling council tenants that if they voted for us, they would lose their secure council tenancies..."......THEN HE WAS SPOT ON WASN'T HE? Isn't that exactly what the Tories are doing now despite all the denials before the election?http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-management/secure-tenancies-face-axe-as-funding-is-cut/6512124.article?MsgId=18627

Thomas Hillyard ● 5561d

You have made no attempt to answer my question at all.I enquired as to what Ashcroft wants in return for bankrolling your party.You dodged this question by asking me how much he has cost the taxpayer.Nevertheless, I will do you a courtesy that you haven't done me - and answer your question.The amount of money Ashcroft has cost the taxpayer is the amount of money that the inland revenue lost as a result of him being domiciled in Belize.Someone who sits in our House of Lords and who serves as Vice Chair of one of our two major national political parties should be paying tax in this country.But he doesn't - and the rest of us (including the public sector trade unionists you so despise) have to make up the shortfall by paying more in taxation ourselves.The scandal is that this man says "If home is where the heart is, then Belize is my home". This, in my opinion, is a disgraceful remark coming from someone who seeks to influence this country's political and legislative agenda.No wonder you find it impossible to defend your party's largest single donor.

Robin Taylor ● 5562d

RobinI can't answer the questions re Ashcroft, because I don't know what he wants. Please, if you do, then tell me what he wants, and how much it costs taxpayers in this country. I know what the unions want and we can put a price on that to the taxpayer. I don't want to go back to victorian times. I want to see public sector pensions that are similar to the ones in the private sector. I want to see public sector terms and conditions that are similar to the private sector. Unions do good work for sure, but they are often unreasonable, and it is us taxpayers who pay for that. Why do Ealing taxpayers have to pay for the unions to carry out their business on council time. They don't have to pay for school governors to do their work. They volunteer. Why are so many people in this borough lumbered with a pension deficit of over £350 million when an awful lot of them have no pensions at all. How is that fair. The unions are largely responsible for the huge bills that taxpayers face because of these huge public sector pension deficits, because they refused to allow the previous Labour government to reform them. In other words, they were unreasonablle. I have tried to answer your questions robin, it's a pity the same can't be said of you

Colm Costello ● 5562d

It's pointless debating with you.You won't answer questions about Lord Ashcroft because it is not convenient for you to do so.Instead you try to obscure the issue by bashing the unions.This anti-union phobia which is much in evidence in the Tory Party is like a mental illness.Trade unionists are ordinary people who work, pay taxes and make a contribution to our economy.Those, like you, who oppose them just for the sake of it would like to turn the clock back to Victorian times when workers had no rights whatsoever.Thankfully, the Labour Party is strong enough to stop you achieving that aim.

Robin Taylor ● 5562d

RobinIf you would prefer cllrs not to come onto this forum, then just say so. Other people complain that we are in hiding when we don't come on here. I look forward to hearing Ray explain away the leaflets he is responsible for. I didn't answer the question on what Ashcroft wants in return for giving us 5% of what we raised in funding, because i genuinely haven't got a clue. If you call 5% bankrolling, what do you call 60% of their fundraising, which is the amount the unions gave to the Labour party. I gave you an example of how much the unions cost this country, I'm still waiting to hear from you, how much Ashcroft costs taxpayers here. Your attempt to compare public sector workers with Ashcroft is a pretty sad attempt to take the unions out of the conversation. Let me give you another example of what unions cost us in Ealing. Union reps are paid by the council taxpayer to carry out their union business. It costs us £250,000 per annum including the unions time in Ealing Schools. How much was this cut by cut by. 20%. Rangers service cut by almost 48%Envirocrime officers cut by 42%Can you explain that one Robin. i look forward to your explanation on that one and how much Ashcroft costs us taxpayers

Colm Costello ● 5562d

Well it's no surprise you do not want to answer my question about what Lord Ashcroft expects to get in return for bankrolling your party with his millions.Here's a clue as to his possible motives (from Wikipedia):-"Ashcroft allegedly gave the People's United Party in Belize $1m when it was in opposition. During its period in power, it introduced laws that are claimed by opponents and media commentators to be financially advantageous to Ashcroft."Well, what do you know?Also, Wikipedia records that in 2009 the Prime Minister of Belize told its parliament "Ashcroft is an extremely powerful man. His net worth may well be equal to Belize's entire GDP. He is nobody to cross."Your party made him its deputy chairman. Quite an influential position, I would say. Wouldn't you?In March 2010, Ashcroft admitted that he was not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes. He has an estimated fortune of £1.1bn - making him the 37th richest person in the UK, according to the 2009 Sunday Times Rich List.And yet you want me to criticise public sector workers for trying to defend their pension entitlements? At least they contribute something to our society and actually pay TAXES here.Regarding Ray Wall: I am a resident of Southall Broadway Ward - so I have no idea whether your smears against your Hobbayne Ward colleague have any basis in truth. Perhaps Ray would like to come on here and answer them (but then again, perhaps he prefers to spend his time serving his constituents).It is clear from what you say that you do not recognise the widely accepted factor of "Name Order Effect" as having had any influence on your success in narrowly holding your seat. This suggests to me that you either have a very high opinion of yourself or a very low opinion of your Tory team mates Rosa Popham and Gerry Saravana-Wall.I wonder which it is.

Robin Taylor ● 5562d

It is tempting to ask why the last administration did not make a start on revising terms of contract - or perhaps they did? For instance do new employees have the same terms as longer serving staff?  I suppose it is some hope that Councillor Bell will do this but will rather do to our council employees what has happened in Manchester Council today - so generating more troublemaking by encouraging strikes.Perhaps you should start one of those new fangled petitions which some moron managed to post on the Council website ONLY three days ago:)?I don't know about Ealing but I chanced upon some distant Council's webpage where that Council also pays in for Councillors. It seems that this is an item for declaration on Member's interests. Do any of our Councillors get a Council pension and have they declared?Historically public servants did not get paid as well as in the private sector and so the idea has been to reward people who worked for the public good by paying them a better pension. For longer serving public servants they would be less likely to have to call on the state for welfare benefits in old age - no bad thing.However the world has been turned upside down and now we have the Tory politics of envy masquerading under the word fairness.One of the reasons I would not vote for GB was because he smashed the pensions industry. Now there's a thing.I read the other day that Warren Buffet thinks that it is no use working hard. The object is to work hard at wealth creation. Why spend so much time being a Councillor?

George Knox ● 5562d

Georgei am not a member of the Ealing council pension scheme, so I won't be getting a pension from it. Councillors have only recently(in the last 4-6years I believe) been allowed to join it, but they have to pay the full cost of membership, whereas employees pay some and the employer, the council taxpayer, pays the rest. So the deficit of £350m+ is the council taxpayers to pay. As a self employed person whose income is not what it was a few years ago, I had to stop paying into my personal pension plan. Through my council tax, i am paying more into the pensions of council workers pension pots than my own right now. I don't think that is fair. The staff should of course have a pension, but the unions should be willing to recognise that it is no longer fair that public sector workers have these gauranteed schemes which we pay for, while a lot of us don't have a pension of our own. That's where the Labour party should be ashamed of themselves. They should have reformed these in 2003 and stood up to the unions who bullied them into protecting the pension benefits that their members enjoyed. If they had stood up to them, then the deficit in Ealing would be a good deal lower than it is today. that is the cost of the unions for you

Colm Costello ● 5563d

Will you be getting a pension from Ealing Council?

George Knox ● 5563d

Robinyour argument that Lord Ashcroft funded far more than 5% in target seats is absolutley silly. the same could be said of the unions who play a huge role in directing and funding Labour elections. His overall contribution is 5%. I will give you an example of how much the unions cost us taxpayers and then you can give me an example of how much Ashcroft costs taxpayers, so we can see who costs more. My job will be easier than yours i suspect. Public sector pensions cost the counctry a small fortune and were designed when life expectancy was a good deal lower than it is now. The retirement age and other terms on offer in public sector pensions are a good deal more generous than those on offer in the private sector. David Cameron has referred to this as pensions apartheid. Thanks to that clown Gordon Brown, these final salary schemes are almost not available at all now in the private sector because of his tax raid on them in 1997, and all the rule changes he forced on them to pay down defecits more quickly, rules that barely apply to public sector pensions because most of them are funded from tax receipts, and not out of an accumalated pension fund. Basically they have become too expensive, but not apparently for the public sector, thanks to your friends the unions. The Labour government did try to reform this because they knew it wasn't fair that people who worked in the private sector had to work longer for the same benefits that public sector workers accumalated in a far shorter period, which was paid for by the taxes of everyone, including those in the private sector. So they tried to level the playing field, but were not allowed to by the unions who threatened to withdraw financial support for the 2005 elections. That was in 2003, 8 years ago and that single decision has cost the taxpayer billions of pounds extra to fund these very expensive schemes. In Ealing alone, our deficit is over £350 million pounds Robin. who pays that. The taxpayer.That is an incredibly unhealthy relationship between a major political party and the union movement. The unions tell Labour if you don't do what we say, we won't pay for your election expenses. It seems I underestimated how dependant you are on the unions. I said 40%, when in fact in 2008 it was 52.2% and in 2009 it grew to 60.3%, compared to the 5% Lord Ashcroft gave. Now Robin. Your turn. How much does Lord Ashcroft cost the taxpayer. I have given only one example of the cost of the unions to us. On the point of the election result in Hobbayne, after they counted the block vote, I was 400 votes back. I don't know how many people voted for me because mine was the first conservative name on the list and neither do you. If you want to put the result down to that, then that's ok. Hopefully for you, people reading this don't understand how elections work. As far as your explanation as to how Ray topped the poll, I have another explanation. Ray is well known and when he lost in 2006, to his credit he came to all the Hanwell area committees and ward forums except for one, over the following 4 years. He put out a couple of leaflets too during that time, one where he claimed that we were going to demolish the Hanwell community centre. He also did a lot of canvassing too, though I doubt if he did as much as we did. He had a lot of help from outside the ward so clearly Hobbayne was a target seat for them. What he also did was promise a lot. In one leaflet he promised, if elected to restore the ranger numbers to 24 from 20. Now they face almost being cut by 50%. He also did a leaflet on our estates, which is half the ward telling council tenants that if they voted for us, they would lose their secure council tenancies and have them replaced with shorthold tenancy agreements. That leaflet went to some of our most vulnerable residents in the ward. That is what most people call gutter politics. Scaring the most vulnerable in the community. It's interesting how you are on the sides of the unions and Ray Walls side too Robin. A nice boy like you Robin should be keeping better company. they will only lead you astray.

Colm Costello ● 5563d

"5% of our funding has come from him (Lord Ashcroft)."Not in your target seats, it hasn't. It's been considerably more."Why do they (the unions) do that, what do they want and what did they get."They know their members get a better deal from a Labour government - e.g. the national minimum wage. The unions gave birth to the Labour Party - they are part of our heritage - why should we be ashamed? You could ask the same question of Lord Ashcroft - what does he want and what does he get for bankrolling the Tories?"I was sure I lost but scraped through by 22 in Hobbayne. I must be doing something right."Don't flatter yourself. You won because you came higher up in the alphabetical listing of candidates than Rosa Popham and Gerry Saravana-Wall. It's what psephologists call "Name Order Effect", and it relates to the fact that some voters in multi-member wards mistakenly believe they have only one vote: their tendency is to place their single cross in the first box they come to when they read down the list searching for their preferred party. Otherwise, why do you think Eileen Harris and Justin Anderson were the only Tory candidates to prevail in Mandeville and Perivale respectively? Only a candidate with a strong personal vote - like Ray Wall - can buck this trend."Labour were in power for 13 years and could have stopped non doms making party political donations. they didn't because they have their own non doms who have given millions to them. Mittal, Cohen and paul to name but a few."Mittal, Cohen and Paul did not have their own offices at Labour HQ, whereas Ashcroft was based at Tory Central Office and ran your party's target seats strategy. Didn't he also promise to domicile himself in the UK when he assumed his seat in the House of Lords? Another broken Tory promise.

Robin Taylor ● 5563d

RobinDo you really want to talk about party funding. Lord ashcroft is a non dom who has given very generously to the conservatives over the years. 5% of our funding has come from him. The unions have provided at least 40% of the Labour partys funding over that period. Why do they do that, what do they want and what did they get. Who paid for it and did it cost more than the tax that Lord Ashcroft is accused of avoiding. Labour were in power for 13 years and could have stopped non doms making party political donations. they didn't because they have their own non doms who have given millions to them. Mittal, Cohen and paul to name but a few. The Labour party would have gone bankruppt if it wasn't for their non doms. gordon Brown made Sraj paul a peer and a member of the privy council. Get back to local issues would be my advice Robin. As far a as your candidacy in wood end, bad luck, the same thing nearly happened to me this time. I was sure I lost but scraped through by 22 in Hobbayne. I must be doing something right

Colm Costello ● 5564d

I stood for Labour in the old Wood End Ward in the 1994 borough elections - losing by 48 votes.Regarding union funding of the party, my understanding is that it is up to members to decide if they wish to pay the political levy.This is different to the Ashcroft funding of your party because union members pay taxes in the UK - whereas it is claimed that Lord Ashcroft, despite sitting in our second legislative chamber, stores most of his money in a tax haven in Belize.It's quite simple, really. People who want to have a say in the running of our country should first of all pay tax here. I do. So do trade unionists.

Robin Taylor ● 5564d

RobinPeople who work in the public sector all their lives don't always have a great understanding or appreciation of the private sector. Where you got the idea that I thought public sector workers might be criminals is a mystery to me. People who work in the private sector all their lives don't always have a great understanding or appreciation of the public sector. I have worked in the private sector all my life, and my experience of the public sector comes from my role as a cllr. I am happy and proud of our decision on the cashback. I wouldn't bring up party funding if I was you. I and every taxpayer can tell you that the unions who fund the labour party want from them and it is us, the taxpayers who pay for that. Jobs for the boys and the rest paid for by the taxpayer. Can you tell me what Ashcroft wants and how much that will cost the taxpayer. I doubt that you can, and even if he did want something other than there being a conservative government, it would never cost this country anywhere near what the unions cost us.  Anyways, Robin, I don't know what your personal or professional circumstances are, but it is clear you are very keen on the labour party. If your circumstances allow, why don't you stand as a candidate in Hobbayne or somewhere else if that is more convenient for you. You would thoroughly enjoy yourself and it is a great opportunity to try to change things if you think they need changing. That's not a put up or shut up statement. I know that some people simply couldn't find the time to be a cllr or a candidate. if you think you can find the time, then think about it. It is a very rewarding job and you meet some great people too.  Robin, delivring leaflets is easy, telling people who you are, what you will do if they elect you is a good deal harder.Anyways, if you do stand or even just canvass on behalf of Labour, how are you going to explain how they ballsed it all up again, the dirty streets, the higher council tax, the higher parking charges, roads not resurfaced, higher council rents, poorer services all round.

Colm Costello ● 5564d

I don't see why Councillor Costello is so keen to know whether George works in the public sector. Public servants are not criminals you know, and they are quite capable of understanding the role of the private sector.I've been working in the private sector for thirty-one years now. That doesn't mean I don't care about the public services which we all rely on.With your "four legs good, two legs bad" mentality, it's small wonder your party couldn't get an overall majority - even with all the Ashcroft largesse.(P.S.:- I must remember to help out the Hobbayne Labour branch in the 2014 elections. We need a clean sweep of that ward next time).

Robin Taylor ● 5564d

GeorgeIt's been clear for a long time in this thread that we will not agree, especially if you keep calling giving someone back their own money a handout, and keep saying that we may as well have thrown the money away. That's insulting to so many people George, but you can't see that. I am not going to go over again why we gave people back their own money, but I will point out that it was never as you have said in your comment "to put individuals in control of their finances". I don't know where you got that from. Anyways, it looks like you will never tell us if you work in the public sector. You are entitled to your privacy so we have to respect that. I suspect you do because you seem to have no clue about the importance to the public sector, of the private sector. It hasn't been boring George

Colm Costello ● 5564d

As you say we don’t know who benefitted. We don’t know who was in need either. Not exactly a scientific way of prioritorising or focusing on where help was needed. The LONG TERM benefits from the regeneration expenditure do earn plaudits. However you cannot prove that you have made the business community stronger or put individuals in control of their finances due to the ONCE OFF handout. That makes the Tory rationale and motivation suspect.On the other hand, supporting Services – direct and indirect - in the face of an impending financial crisis was and is the greatest priority in the current financial cycle. Throwing money away which you cannot analyse where it ended up, and knowing about cutbacks 18 months in advance of the crisis, was bad timing.

George Knox ● 5564d

GeorgeI explained in my last post, for about the 4th time why we gave the money back. I thought that was the issue that was bothering you. I explained the timing and level of priority that we gave to the people whose money we returned. I'll try againTiming: we gave the money back when people were struggling Priority: we think the private sector is a priority. If you have a strong private sector, then you can afford the services that you want. You still haven't explained why the services and jobs provided in our town centres do not deserve some support during difficult times. Why does the private sector not matter to you. Do you work in the public sector George

Colm Costello ● 5564d

And yes...once more...it was a 'shappy little bribe'. And irony of ironies it didn't even succeed in keeping the Conservatives in power!

Eric Alan Leach ● 5564d

I repeat. The complaint is about timing and priority.Your last post is mainly side tracking and is not helpful.

George Knox ● 5564d

Georgeyour second sentence contradicts your first sentence. "What no one knows is by how much the failed electioneering bribe benefitted the business community in the Borough. A ONCE OFF paltry £50 will not have saved our local businesses/traders or increased employment"The problem you and I both have here is we can't measure everything, or prove everything. You can't prove that most people paid off debt with the £50, though I doubt people knocked £50 off their mortgage, they might have. I can't prove how much was spent in towns in Ealing, but as I have explained before, we felt that the services being provided in town centres by the private sector, and the jobs provided by the private sector needed support during a recession. you obviously don't think the private sector, where most of the money comes from to pay for the services you want to protect, are as worthy of any kind of support. That's where we differ. The healthier the private secotr, the easier it is to pay for the kinds of services we want and need. Where do you think the money comes from George. George, you also said"No person who manages their finances prudently borrows before an impending financial crisis which you already knew about. Instead they put the money aside".Look at the borrowing figures from 1999 to 2008 before the backside fell out of the economy and you will see that the previous Labour government borrowed on average over £30bn pa. The economy was growing and they were spending £30bn more than they were taking in in taxesthat might put yours and Robin Taylors bellyaching into context. We are in the hole we are in because that jack ass Gordon Brown didn't do what you and most people think they should do, save while you can so when the hard times come, you have something to fall back on. In other words, don't spend more than you are taking in, in taxes. As Liam Byrne, the former treasury minister famously said in a note to George Osborne after the election, "THERE'S NO MONEY LEFT". That's where the blame lays George and Robin, but if you want to blame us for giving back taxpayers their own money when they really needed it most, then good luck to you. Can I recommend that you visit www.debtbomshell.comThe figures they are talking about are a little bit higher than the £6m that has been bothering you

Colm Costello ● 5564d

PhilYou are way too long overdue on this thread in telling us why you think I am wrong.As you well know, we the public don't understand the technicalities of which pot money should be put into or come out of.However whether the money was capital or revenue and whatever the subset of rules determining the restrictions of the use of that money you need to tell us what discretion was still available to the Council for spending that money. You also need to tell us that just nothing at all whatsoever would have been saved if the money was still in the Council's bank account.Unless you can swear that (even with £6M in the bank) the cuts in Council spend of £1031M (Capital and or Revenue)would have been just as deep no one will believe you.

George Knox ● 5565d

Robin,George is wrong as the £6 million was a one off.  The savings have to be annual, ie recurring.  The £6 million was one half of one percent of the council's £1,031 million annual spending so let's keep it in proportion.  Note that the total savings (cuts!) the council is planning is £55 million or 5% of total spending.  The Labour budget is rather dumb, simply taking a 25% axe to many parts of the council.  There are no plans to bring the generous terms and conditions enjoyed by the council staff into line with those most Ealing residents have to work under.  There is only one new, tiny shared services proposal in HR (unquantified and to be developed).  The successful shared procurement in adults' bought in by the Tories which saved £1 million pa has not been replicated in childrens'.  There is no large re-organisation of the council away from expensive and inefficient service-based silos.  This is clearly demonstrated by the council's over-large middle management cohort.  They number 77 and cost £6.8 million pa.  That is £88K each.  The current savings proposals have only identified 7 casualties in this group.  That is 9%.  It was clear to everyone in the council 18 months ago that this would be a bloody spending round - that is why the Labour government ducked out of doing a comprehensive spending review before they lost power.  Ealing Labour have no excuse for not having thought through what they would do once in power.  The public look in askance at Ealing Labour:- reducing parks team from 27 to 14 (48%)- reducing envirocrime officers 27 to 15 (42%)- reducing community centre staff from 19 to 10 (47%)Meanwhile Labour protect:- union facility time £50K cut (20%)- communications £369K cut (25%)- service heads only 7 out of 77 (9%)To govern is to choose.  Labour's choices are clear.  You might like to stop shouting "hypocrisy" at the top of your voice and engage with the facts.  Read the papers. 

Phil Taylor ● 5565d

"What we do know is that some of the forthcoming budget cuts will be 12% worse than would have been the case if reserves had been £6M higher. So our libraries or our park ranger service or a day centre are being hit harder."Well said, George. And the real hypocrisy is that a number of Tory Councillors (including, happily, at least one EX-Tory councillor) are like flies on the Park Rangers thread shedding bucketloads of crocodile tears about the cuts in services which the Labour Council is being forced to make. They are also saying that Julian Bell has broken manifesto promises - well it's not as if the Tories would ever do something like that, is it?"This is exactly why the shabby little bribe should not have been agreed."Well the good news, George, is that the electorate saw through the shabby little bribe - and deposed the party that was offering it.

Robin Taylor ● 5565d

What no one knows is by how much the failed electioneering bribe benefitted the business community in the Borough. A ONCE OFF paltry £50 will not have saved our local businesses/traders or increased employment. With personal debt being at its highest ever, it would be more reasonable to assume that many paid off a bit of debt rather than spent the lion’s share on the business and trading community in our own borough. Paying down debt is the priority activity of what is happening across the whole country.What we do know is that some of the forthcoming budget cuts will be 12% worse than would have been the case if reserves had been £6M higher. So our libraries or our park ranger service or a day centre are being hit harder. Our new parking charges are iniquitous. Or our Adult or Children’s services are going to be hit harder. Or other Services. And Council jobs.Why shouldn’t tax payer’s money be returned? In present circumstances that line of argument is specious. Since the beginning of time everyone wants to pay the smallest tax they can get away with. But at the same time people want or need their services and they want these to be reduced as little as possible. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have handouts without penalties.The complaint is about timing and priority. No person who manages their finances prudently borrows before an impending financial crisis which you already knew about. Instead they put the money aside. They wait until the financial climate is more favourable and that is then the time when they spend it. If that person instead spends or borrows the money just before a known financial crisis, they are seen to be foolish and reckless. The Tories were foolish with their timing. They complain, and rightly, about the reduction of services now. Had they had a more mature sense of priority and foresight they would have stuffed that £6M in the coffers to lessen the blow of the cuts. They did not. Sadly their recklessness makes them partly culpable for what will happen now. This is exactly why the shabby little bribe should not have been agreed.

George Knox ● 5565d

What I really would like to know from those taking part here, is if you were to receive a cheque through the post from the Island Revenue, would you consider it a 'bribe'?  Would you send it back saying: well we are going through hard time, so please keep that money and spend it for us? Or would you just says - great, I really could do with this to pay my gas/electric bill or car insurance and so on.Cllr Bell keeps going on about the 50M cut that he is forced to make - what he is keeping quiet about is that in the last four years we made over £60M saving to the council budget and at the same time improved our services: we spent £30M on road resurfacing; Greenford, Hanwell, West Ealing, Norfield, Pitshanger Lane and Mandeville Road shopping centres and areas were all regenerated; £12M were set aside for this year for Acton Town centre regeneration. We went from no star to a four star for adult and children services - yes looking after the most volnerable members of our society. Last winter we put an extra £2M in adult services due to the effects that the severe weather conditions had on our elderly residents. To top it all the council budget was balanced year after year and  we left £15M as reserve. This is just to name few of the things we did. As for the £50 cash back - they may seem irrelevant to most of you, but to a lot of people in Hobbayne it did make a difference. It certainly did make a difference to the fifty or so children I know of who received at least a toy each last christmas. And it made a difference to the shop keepers.Thanks God we had the opportunity to give that money back. If you did not want it or needed I hope you gave it to charity!

Rosa Popham ● 5566d

George said"You don't have to be a Socialist to expect on past history that Tories would be more careful with the management of spare money than Socialists"Thanks for that George. I appreciate itGeorge also said"The readers of this thread and the other thread (Julian Bell Warns of Further Cuts to Come) can make up their minds whether in a severe financial crisis it was better to give just some individuals £50 or save some of services which may affect us all, but certainly the more vulnerable"I'm beginning to think that you have no clue how many people actually received the £50 cashback. it was more than "just some individuals". It was around 100,000. Also, there are a great number of people who receive very little for the council tax they pay. It is right that we should provide for the vulnerable members in our community, but we mustn't forget the very large number of people who pay council tax, and ask for very little in return. George said"That paltry £50 has not benefitted the borough as a whole"What do you base this statement on. Local shops in every town centre were struggling with the recession, they provide services and employment in the borough. Why do you think they were not deserving of the cashback and the support that people spending their cashback in their shops would have provided them during very difficult times. Have you heard of the private sector George. Have you heard of individuals who want to make their own decisions George. George said"I just wonder how many very important services and jobs would have been saved had the present administration still had that £6M"Do you accpet that shops in our town centres provide a vital service and employment, or are you only concerned about public sector services and jobs. I'm still waiting for you and others to explain why the people who pay the bills shouldn't be given back their own money when we receive a windfall and don't spend all their money in the first place.

Colm Costello ● 5567d

You call that an explanation?You don't have to be a Socialist to see that the bribe or any bribe was shabby. You don't have to be a Socialist to expect on past history that Tories would be more careful with the management of spare money than Socialists - just before a very bad financial storm which you already knew a lot about about. By virtue of shallow thinking your party was reckless with our money. Shabbiness and shallowness does not make for cynicism. It makes for lack of trust.I just wonder how many very important services and jobs would have been saved had the present administration still had that £6M (or 12% of the cutbacks now envisaged). The readers of this thread and the other thread (Julian Bell Warns of Further Cuts to Come) can make up their minds whether in a severe financial crisis it was better to give just some individuals £50 or save some of services which may affect us all, but certainly the more vulnerable. That paltry £50 has not benefitted the borough as a whole. The £6M would have softened the blow for many Ealing citizens - long term.

George Knox ● 5567d

RobinThat's when the underspend occured and that's when we received the windfall, so that's when we made the decision. I also said that i didn't expect the cynics to believe that and you have revealed yourself as a cynic. Like most cynics, you are bone lazy. You continue to refuse to even attempt to explain why you think the council taxpayer shouldn't have had their own money back. You are a typical socialist. Please explain why the taxpayer shouldn't have been given back their own money when they themselves were struggling. The money was there in that fiscal year. Giving the money back to the taxpayer was one of the options. We could have kept it and spent it in any number of ways. We gave it back for reasons I explained in earlier postings. You say it was the wrong decision, but don't explain why the taxpayer shouldn't have been given the cashback. Please explain your position. I have explained mine

Colm Costello ● 5568d

"The timing had more to do with the council receiving a windfall when it did, coupled with an underspend in that year too, than it did with the fact that there was an election the following year."I see.So it was purely coincidental that this Cash Back happened just before an election.Thanks for the clarification.

Robin Taylor ● 5568d

RobinI'm not sure how involved you are in local government or local politics, but I will assume your involvement is not great, because if you were very involved, you wouldn't make the statement that you made when you said, "why didn't your administration simply levy a lower council tax for the financial year, thus avoiding the expense or returning money". How would you do that. You have to cut it or increase it by a fixed % for every band. Tell me how you wold do this SIMPLY, as you said it would be. Please explain.  Anyways, I'm fairly sure we were told it would be illegal to use the windfall to cut council tax, but not illegal to return the money to it's tightful owners, the council taxpayers, remember them?Had we cut council tax, you would have accused us of bribing the electorate anyways, so whatever we did could be interpreted as a bribe. The timing had more to do with the council receiving a windfall when it did, coupled with an underspend in that year too, than it did with the fact that there was an election the following year. I don't expect the cycnics to believe that, but that is what happened. We had to make a decision then, in that fiscal year, because that's when the underspend occured and that's when we received the windfall. You and others seem to be suggesting that Labour only agreed to it because they were afraid of what we would say in our leaflets, in other words you think they lied to the electorate because they never believed it was a good idea in the first place, but didn't have the courage to say so. So they won their election with a lie. Are you saying this RobinYou have made no attempt to answer the point I made. Why, when the council didn't spend all the money it had said it would spend in that fisacl year, why shouldn't the council taxpayers be given the money that's leftover (plus the windfall)at a time when they were probably struggling. Why do you ignore their struggles Robin.

Colm Costello ● 5568d

Saying "we agreed to give residents back some of THEIR OWN MONEY" is just a silly cliche. Taken to its logical conclusion, why not give residents back all of their own money - then there will be no public services at all and you'll be in Tory heaven.The fact is you chose to perform this stunt in the run-up to the local elections. If this is not so, then how come you didn't do it after you won in 2006 - or perhaps in 2007 or 2008? The answer is that you deliberately left enough money in reserve to do it as an electoral trick and you miscalculated that the Labour group would fall into the trap of opposing it (so you could then put out "In Touch" leaflets proclaiming that they were against the Cash Back).How much did it cost to administer this stunt? You already knew you had the spare money, so why didn't your administration simply levy a lower council tax for the financial year, thus avoiding the expense of returning the money?Well the electorate told you what they thought of your stunt when they showed you the door.

Robin Taylor ● 5568d

GeorgeThere you go again, twisting what i have said. Just to clarify, anything that any administration does while they are in power, or says they will do if they win an election, could be interpreted as a bribe. Mainly by cynics like you George. I didn't say that I thought it was a bribe. It's a pity you have to twist things in this way George, because you make some good points too. What you have to explain George is this. In the middle of a recession, which we were in when we agreed to give residents back some of THEIR OWN MONEY, why do you believe that the only people struggling are people in receipt of benefit or in receipt of some kind of service from the local authority. Why do you think that central government or local government are the only ones struggling. There are plenty people out there who work, and receive very little benefit from the council or the services they provide, or from central government who are struggling too. Why do you think that when we gave them back their own money, that this was the same or worse than throwing away the money. That is pretty insulting to a lot of people George. It's not the councils, it is taxpayers money George.

Colm Costello ● 5568d

That Tory £6+M bribe was a bribe and there is no other word in the English language for it. We now even have Tory Councillor Costello publicly implying that it could be described as a bribe. The Tories are fools for having offered it on some woolly pretext that it was an unexpected windfall. The Labour people were in a rock and a hard place. If they had opposed it with an election coming up, then the Tories would have had a field day in accusing Labour of not caring about the poorer of Ealing. The Tories stitched them up.What none of you Councillors or ex Councillors can admit to, is that the bribe was done knowing before the election that Ealing had to find some £50M of savings. That didn’t stop the Tories frittering away some 12% of that reduction. What the Labour people have done by also voting for the bribe is made themselves culpable for the greater cut backs that we now have. It is only a reckless inexperienced twit who throws away money before an impending major financial storm.If Councillor Taylor is right that some £10M can be saved by sharing services, and it is hard to resist that he is wholly or to quite some degree right, then the Labour’s inactivity make them more culpable. As for Terms and Conditions we all know that Council staff have a fairly rosy set of conditions and it is long overdue for them to be changed so that greater savings can be made on top of the £10M. However the Unions probably have Councillor Bell too tightly in their craw. Already we have some Housing staff back in house, meaning that we have to pay for their pensions etc,etc. Then there is the rumour that the Refuse people will be considered for coming back in house when the May Gurney contract comes to an end. How much more bribery is going on behind the scenes? If this secretive Council was managed by the electorate I guess we could have saved nearly half of the £50M before any major service cut backs.What is the point of breaking up the Council Offices? How much more will the maintenance charges and other overheads be? How will management co-ordinate geographically separate organisations? Why will residents of Ealing have to flog all over the borough to get a service, and what will the transport connections be like?And as for the Labour party caving into the officers and selling our land assets and adding to the general ruin of our heritage - that is completely out of order. It’s a pity the Tories didn’t change some of the staff before their bribe was seen through and they lost their power. How do they think now that they are going to get back in next time round?A plague on both your houses.

George Knox ● 5569d

"Perhaps you have forgotten that your darling Brown had 18 years to regulate the banking system."And perhaps you have forgotten that some of your darling Tories wanted greater DE-regulation of the banking system.

Robin Taylor ● 5569d

Perhaps you have forgotten that your darling Brown had 18 years to regulate the banking system. Also it was him, or it was under his 'rein', that banks were bailed out without securing a decent return from their profit once the crisis was over. Perhaps, despite all, he must have thought that they do have a role to play: having got rid of most of our gold reserve for next to nothing and raided the country's pension fund, where else could he get or borrow the money from?

Rosa Popham ● 5569d

"Brown's 18 years spent on bribing the British citizens with more and more goodies so as to make them more and more reliant on the State."You have conveniently forgetten that it is your party's chums in the banking industry who are "reliant upon the state". Your sort are always very keen on championing the cause of the unrestrained free market as a way of getting rich quick - but when it all goes pear shaped you require the state to bail you out. If you want an example of what you call "hypocrits" it's those who smugly pocket a profit and socialise a loss.

Robin Taylor ● 5569d

"As a consequence, the Tories will hope to benefit from a disillusionment among the electorate that has been brought about by the very fiscal policies which their party has forced on Ealing Council."This is the best I have heard so far. What a joke! Perhaps you are forgetting why we are in such a mess in the first place - oh yes, silly me "it was all the bankers' fault"; nothing at all to do with Brown's 18 years spent on bribing the British citizens with more and more goodies so as to make them more and more reliant on the State. As for the last administration's "bribe" as you call it, can I point out that it was a decision taken at full council and that every single member of the three parties  present at that meeting, which incidently also included Labour, voted in favour of that 'cash back'. Not only that but the then Labour group was arguing that instead of wait till end of November to sort out the logistic of how to hand over the money in the most cost-effective way, that money should have been given straight away to our residents , perhaps in the form of 'shopping vouchers' (how can we trust people with spending their own money?). But the best part of all this is that then, at election time, forgetting that they had also voted in favour of this cash back, they started calling it a 'Tory bribe'. As this was not hilarious enough, to top it all they were sending out letters to their own supporters to donate this money to Labour's fighting fund'. This is from a party that claims to looks after the most deprived and needing members of our society. What a bunch of hypocrits!

Rosa Popham ● 5569d

Dear me, the calibre of our local councillors really did plummet on the night of the 2006 local elections, didn't it?It is amusing to be told that I am guilty of using "rhetoric" by someone who, in the next-but-one sentence, uses the term "dumb Labour administration".But it is not so amusing to discover that a councillor who is in the pay of the public purse apparently cannot see the fiscal connection between the 28% cut in government grants to local authorities and the projected closure of day centres.

Robin Taylor ● 5571d

Robin,As a self-avowed Labour supporter you would have more credibility if you stuck to arguments rather rhetoric.  The closure of the day centres has been driven by two factors (stated in the reports):(1) across the board revenue cuts being "shared equally" by a dumb Labour administration, and(2) the same administration's acceptance of the council officers' property strategy which quite simply aims to sell off community assets in order to fund three new council offices in Acton, Southall and Greenford.  The council's budget papers don't talk about changing staff Ts and Cs although the Labour group may be slowly waking up to the possibility now (only a good year after they should have been thinking about it).  There is the capacity for £10 millions of saving here.  They have only one tiny shared services proposal in HR as yet unquantified.  The previous Tory administration saved about £1 million per annum by sharing the procurement of adult services with the West London Alliance councils.  A move to extend this to childrens' services seems to have been shelved as the officers don't like it.  The scale of changes envisaged by Westminster, K&C and H&F make Ealing look slow moving in the extreme.  There has been no re-organisation of the council to re-align it from a siloed, service base organisation into a customer facing organisation.  So, whilst services are slashed, the number of expensive service heads, who cost £6.8 million pa or £88K per head, has been reduced by 7 out of 77.  A 9% cut.  Even if the council had to make revenue savings in the area of day centres you could explore the 3rd sector taking over these assets if the Labour council and its officers weren't so keen to literally grab the land. 

Phil Taylor ● 5571d

This thread proves that the ConDem government are playing a real blinder.They are meeting their deficit reduction target in part by reducing the amount they are giving to local authorities.As a consequence, councils are being forced to make unpopular cuts and are effectively carrying the can for central government policy (although in the case of Ealing's new administration, they are also having to deal with the financial problems brought about by the previous Tory council's unsuccessful attempt to bribe the electorate with its own money).Come the next Ealing borough elections of 2014, many people - including evidently some of those on this thread - will be blaming the Labour Council for unpopular cuts. As a consequence, the Tories will hope to benefit from a disillusionment among the electorate that has been brought about by the very fiscal policies which their party has forced on Ealing Council.And before anyone suggests it - no, I do not agree with the projected closure of the Albert Dane Centre. But let's not kid ourselves that if it was saved there would not be other unpopular cuts that would have to be made in its place.Governments do not usually devolve power to borough councils. Since Thatcher onwards, the tendency has been to centralise. However, there is one thing which this government is very keen on devolving: blame.

Robin Taylor ● 5572d

What are the "alternative support arrangements"?

Philippa Bond ● 5572d

The proposal is to close  the day centre and assess people using the service against the social care eligibility framework and support customers to find alternative ways of meeting their needsIf the proposal is approved those customers who meet our eligibility criteria (i.e. those assessed as having Critical or Substantial needs) will be given an Individual Budget. They will be able to choose to manage this budget and purchase support (cash budget) or to ask the Council to manage the Individual Budget and arrange services on their behalf or a mixture of both.  Customers who do not meet our eligibility criteria will not be offered a council funded service via an Individual Budget, but will be signposted to alternative support arrangements that exist in the voluntary sector.  Above in Ealing Council's own words is what they are doing. A Consultation is taking place and the result of that consultation has already been decided. So they will assess the users and of course many will find themselves not eligable. signposted to alternative support arrangements sounds suitably vague. The Document can be found at http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/cabinet/25may2010-23may2011/_14_Sept_2010/Item_10_-_Adultsx_Services_Budget.docRead thropugh the management gobbledegook. I wonder how the caring Councillor Jasbir Anand can sleep at night!!!

Peter Chadburn ● 5662d

I would guess so, which will make them more shamefull. I have seen a few annoying aspects of behaviour from the Council but this would shame them the most.

Peter Chadburn ● 5667d

So would they be selling off the land to a developer?

Libby Kemp ● 5668d

..."however councils do not tend to be blessed with creative talents."...... either hired or elected it would seem.

Alan Brainsby ● 5668d

Exactly. morte creativity is needed. however councils do not tend to be blessed with creative talents.

Peter Chadburn ● 5668d

Quite agree on the banal "close the facility as its not modern" attitude which I now interpret to mean "this site required for another block of flats" because it was said about the excellently sited Mattock Lane Clinic which was newly opened in the 1980s!Perhaps it would be possible to focus on operating these facilities with lower operating costs through more community involvement and less council support?

Robert Darke ● 5668d

See on todays headlines the Conservative point on this. I have written to the gazette about the Moral Vacumn in Ealing Council if this occurs. I have also e-mailed all Ealing Councillors and our 3 MP's. Mark's response to me covered much of what has been posted. I would as someone who voted Labour in the last Council elections think that the Labour Councillors would vote for such a closure. have had responses from all 3 parties. But as Council Officers are making the recomendation a question of how much scrutiny of these recomendations by officers actually occurs. understand that this is before the scrutiny panel thursday evening. In a Post Blair era hopefully Labour will get back to defending the weak and the poor.

Peter Chadburn ● 5668d

Too true,obviously with so many officials costing more than the prime minister then it is too expensive to decide anything.

Peter Chadburn ● 5671d

If these centres don't close how will the skatepark and its consultation be paid for?I suppose it will all be blamed on the 1959 Mental Health Act...

Alan Brainsby ● 5671d

Have also heard that protest posters put up by users were ripped down by council officers at one Day centre. Trying to silence people who struggle to speak is quite shameful. Outright closure would set a pretty low standard for the level of civilized behaviour in Ealing.

Peter Chadburn ● 5671d

So the £50 stunt shows how one administration did not think ahead as to what council tax payers were due to face. however the decision to close these centres could be the moral breaking point for the current one and so early in their time.

Peter Chadburn ● 5674d

There were many things I would have preferred the Council to do with that!  I wonder how many like me never bothered to collect it I was so irritated by it?  I had intended to give it to charity.

Philippa Bond ● 5674d

Our £50.00 cash back last year would have paid for this service.

Libby Kemp ● 5674d

I'd prefer my Council Tax to go here and in transport for those unable to use public transport/their own private transport rather than in paying Landfill Tax because people can't be bothered to separate their waste between that which can be recycled (and is a resource) and that which is reusable, and that which cannot  - when we have a good Council service compared to many places. Rant over?  Why?

Philippa Bond ● 5674d

Very true, it is a moral judgement by people without morals. The way it is dressed up is quite sickening.

Peter Chadburn ● 5674d

I know we have to have cuts but, for me, funding of this sort of place is one of the last things I would cut. Flowers do look nice hanging from our lamposts but surely help for the mentaly ill and thier carers is more important? I'm sure there's loads of less important things that could have gone first. How much was wasted giving out small green bins to collect waste in befor emptying into larger green bins, that we already had? I know what I'd rather have my taxes spent on, the vunerable.

Marie Shelly ● 5674d