Forlorn Hope
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
They expected and planned for a reduction of 4.5% but it was actually 1.3%, yet Mark Pritchard still wails to the press. Why does he have to continually play politics? Everyone knows he will criticise WG whatever it does so why doesn’t he just belt up, accept that it could have been a lot worse and concentrate on using the unexpected ‘extra’ money to reduce the hit on public service?
Everyone is entitled to be a pessimist Alunh but maybe you do those behind Splash Magic a disservice.
When you talk about Council subsidies, have you taken into consideration the fact that tens of thousands of £’s are taken out for ‘central charges’, Local Government pension costs/deficits etc? Do you understand that as a Social Enterprise, the Trust will have access to grant funding that the Council did not? I understand that a Community Manager has been appointed to take advantage of these opportunities and help implement the “wide ranging programme” you mention
The business plan will have gone through intense scrutiny by the Council’s officers and lawyers before a lease would have been granted so, presumably stacks-up
Of course, if the general public don’t make use of the facility then it cannot succeed but I do think you should have faith in the marvellous people who have come this far and start with the idea that they are both “shrewd” and “creative”
At least we can all park on Waterworld while we do our Christmas shopping. Unless, of course, this essential facility is going to be taken over by a Fun-Fair!!!
Haven’t read through all the posts so this might have been answered but which total numpty was responsible for signing off an agreement that would allow an outside company to come in and have a free hand at demolishing local business without anything to stop them?
Whilst I agree in principal with what Alun and John say, let’s not forget one thing. These 10 are not high minded public servants who believe, like you, that local Government should be above party politics. They are ‘career’ politicians who were elected on a Labour ticket. They only jumped ship because they had lost the argument within their own Group and wouldn’t accept the democratic process.
I vote at elections on part lines (as is my prerogative) and if any of these were representing my ward I would be well hacked-off.
Rogers is there leader and so, as a matter of principal, should stand at a bi-election to test his argument democratically. have you got the bottle, Neil? Thought not!
Straight forward solution. Rogers et al, as mentioned above by Dylan, have no mandate except as ‘Labour’ councillors. They should all resign and seek re-election as part of Pritchard’s merry men. If they are truly interested in serving the people, then find out if the people actually want to be served by them. If so, great – they have a mandate. If not – democracy has been upheld. How can they do anything else if they have an ounce of honour between them? Very good point, by the way, about Pritchard standing unopposed. Mighty strange – or is it?
