Forum Replies Created
February 23, 2018 at 12:50 am in reply to: Plas Coch & Bro Alun Schools are now broke due to budget [letter] #145166
Issue I have with this…
I am aware you’re a staunch labour supporter (and I like to try and see things from both points of view)… however looking at the proposals put forward in the ‘alternative’ budget, that would go a whole distance in order to plug this gap?
Yes, the music service would have an impact – but that’s a £250,000 between approximately 50 schools (ish?) and that’s just under the presumption that Wrexham music service is wholly geared towards schools.
I’d have to check the webcast again and scrutinise the proposal more carefully… but I genuinely don’t recall anything in the alternative budget that’d support your argument – there was the argument of adding £500,000 in to SECONDARY schools (of which neither of these are)?
Surely… if the alternative budget was passed, then the opposition parties would have been voting in favour of the budget as amended by their amendment? Which would have seen exactly the same set of finances put forward.
If they weren’t going to vote in favour of the amended budget, then why was the amendment put forward in the first place other than for a bit of media attention? However, if I’ve overlooked some critical elements of the alternative budget that would satisfy the budget deficit – please let me know.
I don’t think it’s a particularly ‘nice’ budget – and there are certainly bits that people can take a slight to in my opinion. However, I find it rather naughty to try and make a party political point out of the budget when amended would have had the support of Labour, Plaid et al.
I’d like to think Rob keeps this up, for prosperity’s sake more than anything. Doesn’t show you in a particularly good like Idris.
Yes Matt, just yes!
Throwing my 10p in the pot on this one.
The argument people generally employ when saying no to those that promote votes at 16 is that they believe that those who are 16 are either, 1) Immature, 2) Politically volatile, 3) Politically uneducated or (my most hated phrase in the English Language) 4) A lack of life experience.
I think the above generally surmises the argument. However,these days especially… how many people over the age of 18 (or 21 for you of the opinion) can truly pass the above test?.
Politics isn’t just about jobs, health, education and pensions – whilst they are all immensely important issues, politics is about debate and discussion and social & civic leadership – for all three of those points, you need a range of individuals involved and engaged.
A crude point could be made that even if 10% of those aged between 16 and 18 voted, that’s still X amount more opinions than previously heard, yes it may reduce the overall percentages, but let’s get MORE people engaged first, then worry about the stats at the end.
I just want to break this issue in to two seperate ones if I may?
1) Councillors being able to use / distribute webcast footage.
2) Anybody selectively picking bits from the above footage to demonstrate their own points.
In response to number 1, I’m genuinely peeved. I think WCBC is missing such a trick. Supposedly the council want more non-politico’s getting involved with the council and proceedings. Let’s face it, many of us probably wouldn’t even know what’s going on without the fantastic work of Rob and Daryl (with the occasional guest star!) aka the Wrexham.com team. Why do they do such a good job engaging us? 2 reasons… 1 is the quality of the reporting ( Rob, if you see this.. you can pay me by BACS or paypal… I’m modern like that!) and 2 is the fact that it’s an online interactive platform that’s easy to use and gives people like you and me a chance to comment freely. The concept isn’t new. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Myspace, Beebo and so many more websites were created on the same premise. They allow easy access.
As for people distributing footage… I see no problem in that and it annoys me that WCBC block councillors from Tweeting, distributing video and the like… and it also annoys me that the council took away evening meetings. If I feel strongly enough to go to the guildhall about an issue, I used to be able to go freely during the evening and say my piece and lobby where required. Not that it was a common thing, but it was an option given to us. It also meant that councillors could be more diverse than the vast majority of pensioners ( nothing against pensioners what so ever, but I fully believe you need a diverse range of individuals from a diverse range of backgrounds on a council to make it effective).
In short… free up the ability to use social media as an elected representitive & WCBC shouldn’t want to hide their footage. They are public representatives. Let’s show the public how well (or not so) they do the damn job.
Second point… selectively representing the meetings.
Without looking at the footage… surely selectively representing information is something we all do, all the time, all day long. Editing or perspective – you decide. However… this is where the consumers of that information need to be sophisticated enough to check the sources. However… if your writing a book… telling a story… remembering an event.. you’re going to do it from an edited point of view. Don’t get me wrong… do I like Carrie’s views – not always… but I can’t knock her ability to send out videos.
The caveat to this is whereby the edit is very easily mis-interpreted. Slightly crude, however if anyone has a adult sensibility and wants a really easily understandable view of this in action, listen to Tim Minchin’s song Cont (or Context!).
A signature is essentially an automatic ending for all posts on a forum. You could think of it like “Kind regards, Damian” at the end of my emails. It’s automatically popped on the end of whatever you say – unfortunately it doesn’t show as anything different to differentiate – but rest assured…. Councillor X’s post was just to ask the identity of the leading councillors.
What would be your idea of adequate AMA?
I don’t know how many specials there are so unable to make a proper judgement.
To take this even further, if dual political roles are an issue, is it not also the case that local politicians should be dissuaded from serving both as both County Councillors and Parish Councillors, and in one instance, a police commissioner? Do such dual roles in local politics create conflicts in their duties and responsibilities? Are they able to devote adequate time to both roles? Does the acceptance of dual roles in local politics lead to ‘career politicians’ within local government? I do not know the answer but it would be interesting to read the opinion of others!
Interesting point – there’s loads of examples of dual role holders. Including many current AM’s who are current Councillors. Though must admit, many of these were wiped out in 2016 WG elections.
Personally, don’t see a MASSIVE issue in a Cllr wanting to stand for Parliament or WG. Providing if they win, they call a by-election in the original role. There’s actually a petition for this (I’m sure there are many to be honest… http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=005381)
I believe you’re right to suggest that there is a conflict of interest in dual-holding roles. (One of the reason I argued for a Cllr not standing in both Community and County elections simultaneously – I believe they should be present as a witness to observe and engage, but not vote!)
Regarding Career Politicians – I don’t really know what I think of the idea, I understand that many people think it’s a negative thing – however if a Politician is good at their job, then what’s the harm in them standing for a long period of time. Just look at the late Gerald Kaufman as a prime example. 30+ years in parliament! Unsure of his other political history though!
Appreciate your comments Interested.
Personally can’t see the point in putting myself up for the role and doing it halfheartedly.
Positive feedback thus far I’d like to think! People glad that I take the issues on and then will provide an update within a week or 2. HOWEVER… it’s difficult to gauge at this point so I don’t want to get overconfident! If I was a betting man, I’d probably put a couple quid on an Each Way bet on myself.
Quite agree with you regarding candidates going on the offensive. I could be accused of that in 2015, must thank Cllr Arfon Jones – he’s pulled me up on a few things in the past and I’m not afraid to admit I bit like a fish! I’ve got my collaborative cap on these days :)
Will be shocked if Dana is not returned in May if I’m honest.
Whilst I’m not a fan of the Labour Party (as a party) I do admire people at every level of politics who 1) get stuck in and 2) engage.
Think she is spot on for both categories.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .