Forum Topic

Mr Costello,When you say something it is increasingly obvious that it is most unlikely to be so. There’s never any substance to what you say, just hysterical scaremongering. When it comes to who is more credible, professional council officers or a one-sided politician with a big grudge against the Labour party who consistently makes simplistic, asinine assumptions there’s no contest. Local councillors like you should surely be aware of the council’s property strategy especially if they keep criticising it. Is it too much to expect our Conservative councillors to know better than to try to fool us with such ill-informed rubbish?  It’s easy to find council reports on Google so no excuses for not bothering, after all you receive thousands of pounds every year to represent not try and fool us.P3 of the London Borough of Ealing Property Strategy talks about rationalising the whole portfolio and reducing annual operating and maintenance costs by £11.62m.  The council is also going to realise £23.58m from the sale of old unfit for purpose buildings. As a taxpayer that sounds good to me. I’m surprised you disagree with saving council tax payers this money.P4 lists buildings currently used for vulnerable adults that are not fit for purpose and states that the groups will be relocated in suitable premises in the new service centres in Southall and Acton. The groups are those being relocated from centres such as Priory Centre, Learning Curve, Stirling Rd Adult Centre and Albert Dane – to name but a few. You have implied in previous posts that the council is making no re-provision for these groups, which is a fraudulent claim.Admin staff are being relocated from Acton Town Hall, 301 Ruislip Rd and Westgate House to Perceval House which currently accommodates 1900 staff but will be able to accommodate 2500 as a result of measures such as squeezing a larger number of desks into the building generating substantial savings for council tax payers. You have misrepresented this as well in the past when you must know that the people you are supposed to serve will be better off as a result of such efficiency savings especially in the light of the present cuts to local government budgets. These are examples of savings in back office and overheads areas that your government expects councils to find in order to save frontline services.  Your being at odds with your own party doctrine just to abuse your opposition is opportunistic.

Mike Brittan ● 5205d

Nigel,Sorry you find the facts boring and unfounded party-political dirt throwing more to your taste.If you ever develop an interest in finding out the facts though you can Google most council documents quite easily. The Borough Property Strategy will provide you with the rationale behind disposing of a number of inefficient, unfit for purpose properties the council has acquired over time that council tax payers have been too long lumbered with running and maintaining. This will secure £23.5m in receipts, some of which is to be re-invested in three efficient, fit for purpose satellite offices offering accommodation for vulnerable residents receiving Adults services and the frontline staff who deliver these valued services to them. An example would be those displaced from the Albert Dane Centre which has been the subject of much political misinformation and mischief-making from Conservative councillors like Costello and others who seem to think the allowance they pick up from public money is to cover such antics rather than serve their communities. If you genuinely want to know the figures refer to p. 3 and 4 of the Property Strategy and you will learn that Perceval House currently has workstations servicing 1900 people and needs to accommodate an extra 389 staff being relocated form disposal of three other council buildings. It has the capacity to accommodate up to 2,200 workstations and 2,500 staff. Intensifying the use will reduce council overheads and therefore be more efficient for local people who pay the council tax bills. I wouldn’t sneer at that. P3 also talks about rationalising the whole portfolio and reducing annual operating and maintenance costs by £11.62m.  The council is also going to realise £23.58m from the sale of old unfit for purpose buildings. As a taxpayer that sounds good to me. I’m surprised you disagree with saving council tax payers this money.P37 mentions council car parks and refers to Herbert Road multi-storey car park in Southall needing increased capacity to meet the shortage in supply for the Southall Broadway shopping area and rules out adding further floor on structural grounds. That seems a more reliable demonstration of a need for more car parking space than the Conservative councillors whose propaganda you are inclined to swallow too often. 

Mike Brittan ● 5205d

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong! Nigel, a search facility cannot find something that you yourself have ‘imagined’, no matter how good it is!  As there never was a stream discussing on costs of £800k if the council changed the plastic recycling service finding the one you directed me to was never going to be possible!  You now offer a slight apology for misleading people on that score which is welcome and thanks for pointing out the council document, although I can’t help but notice that you seem now to be saying that there are on costs of £8m – a tenfold increase on what you said before! I guess that’s just another example of how misinformation on this website gets perpetuated. However, what about the other side of the coin Nigel, i.e. the savings generated by the changes – you have ignored that, why? Don’t you think that savings are relevant? After all that’s what’s driving the changes isn’t it  i.e. the need to contribute to savings to reduce the structural deficit. So pretty important surely?With regard to buildings and staff relocation I believe this to be yet another assumption of yours which is, again, simply WRONG!  A little checking on Google and you will find that the relocation to Perceval House isn’t temporary as you claim but permanent. It is a permanent intensification of use of that building to save us money for years to come.And as to the other myth being propagated by councillors who are basically nothing better than  propagandists, that the council is increasing office space for staff at a time when it’s reducing staff numbers, well that’s simply WRONG as well. The council is selling off loads of unfit for purpose and expensive to maintain buildings so as to save council tax payers money into the long term. The new build you are decrying is for the community groups displaced as a result. These groups will benefit from being accommodated in a smaller number of modern, fit for purpose and efficient to run buildings. Cllr Costello is being deceiptful again by claiming they’re for staff from Perceval House.  Anyway, the whole idea is to secure efficiency savings for us so I think most people would be glad about that. I fear you are too readily duped by the forementioned councillor's unpalatable lies! Probably a good idea in future for you to be mindful of what his motivations really are and treat everything he says with the scepticism it deserves, otherwise I think he’ll be leading you up the garden path again and again!

Mike Brittan ● 5206d

Mr Costello,I think it worrying that a politician, as you say you are, would so casually dismiss the major problems people are facing in favour of a rant about one car park you personally don’t want. Wood and trees has to come to mind.Perhaps you forget the booms and busts of 1979-97, the ‘Tory’ years, with high unemployment, negative equity, interest rates of 16%,  repossessions of homes, dilapidated schools with leaking roofs and outside toilets, poor quality hospital services, the sale of school playing fields, overcrowded classroms etc…etc… Personally I can remember how miserable people became and how desperate they became to get the Conservatives out of government. By contrast I think whatever criticisms people may have about the last Labour government I think most would agree that the years they presided over were more stable and secure for more people. And without doubt the Labour government’s investment in schools, hospitals, police etc… is evident all around us and will continue to benefit people for years to come. When it comes down to who did the damage to the economy of this country, the real answer is the same culprits that did likewise throughout Europe and the United States i.e. irresponsible investment bankers and their sub-prime mortgages.  By being silent on that issue and blaming your opponents all the time you are letting the bankers off the hook. So why do we not hear more from you about them and the £40billion they stole from all the taxpayers in this country? In my opinion their potential bankrupting of this nation and half the world is more likely to be the cause of sleepless nights than your car park!

Mike Brittan ● 5225d

A very sensible series of points. Personally I think party politics has steadily become a disaster for local councils and is now past it's useful life.In the real world, the vast majority - who remain in the main the silent majority, have a bedrock of both socialist and capitalist virtues.  None of us like greed or corruption, discrimination or suffering,  But all these are alive and kicking and propogated by both political parties purely in the main to score points of each other.The last Labour administration lost it's way, probably led on by the increasingly inept and consumate government and it's own peculiar take on fairness and greed.What I liked about the subsequent Conservative administration is that it had a strong diligent and above all listening leader who seemed to make a decent job of side stepping spiteful politics and keeping some of his more idiotic councillors at bay. In the main it was a well run administration that got the borough back on it's feet and stopped the rot.That does not mean they got everything right, but on many issues they did listen and were prepared to change their stance. They also honoured several previous arrangements, not least the Foundation policy of CPZs ( by labour) not being for profit but a service for residents with a promise of never increasing rates beyond the rate of inflation. Also recognising that residents can demand the power of veto on any active scheme to end any particular zone.So how did this current group justify a 60% hike with no concessions for elderly residents living in zones either with or without vehicles?. Hugely damaging to many lonely people- This from a party that is supposed to champion the less able.

Michael Brandt ● 5228d

Nigel - see below.  Evidence plus link for audit trail.Now I look forward to evidence of you eating humble pie!!News Story - Ealing Street Lighting PFI signed The OJEC notice was published 20 months ago and the contract has been signed only four months after EDF Energy were chosen as the Preferred Bidder.This 25 year contract will include the replacement and renewal of more than 20,000 items of equipment at a cost of around £20m in the first five years of the contract. The service began on 1st August 2005.Miriam Maes, COO of EDF Energy’s Development Branch, said: "We are delighted to sign this deal with Ealing Council. This partnership will work to deliver real improvements to the Borough’s lighting with all the associated benefits to public safety and energy-efficiency that brings.“This is also a fantastic opportunity for EDF Energy to build on our position as one of the leading utilities and major players in the UK PPP and PFI market. With this contract, we have strengthened our position as London’s premier street lighting service provider. We’re looking forward to working with the Council to really enhance the street lighting service for the people of Ealing.” Cabinet Member for Streets and Environment, Cllr John Delaney, said: “This is a great day for Ealing and I am thrilled that we have reached this important stage of the Street Lighting PFI. This partnership is an important step forward for the Council, as it will help us create a safer and more attractive environment for our residents.”http://www.projectdatafile.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=1097

Mike Brittan ● 5230d