BenjaminM
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If punters are not using the facility in numbers sufficient to achieve a return or even a break even figure, there seems to me to be only two options available.
1. Maintain the subsidy for the facility and withdraw it from other areas for which the Council has statutory responsibility, or,
2. Increase the price of admission to cover that deficit. This too, would likely meet with strong resistance. Option 2 however, has a down side insofar that increased prices would likely to result in lower attendance figures (as has been clearly demonstrated by the closure of Public Houses)………….which brings us back again to option1.Assuming the figures quoted in the above posts are correct, I can see very little point in prolonging the time to inevitable closure, sad though it is.
Unfortunately, hand on heart, I feel that in this instance, WCBC have taken the pragmatic approach.
Even for NJones, this has reached a new low. Platitude after platitude. Do you REALLY expect that your proposal has any mileage? I have more chance of learning to plait urine!
Malcolm King was only one of the Councillors who voted for closure…. what sanctions do you propose for the others?
I fully endorse the comments made by Iceman and frankly, feel very strongly that you should retract your scurrilous comments forthwith and issue a timely apology.
I am beginning to get the feeling that there is an underlying factor involved in all of this, that still has not quite reached the surface.
And, as to the 90% who have responded to the low sample straw poll……..a meaningless and statistically unimportant unrepresentative figure.@NJones 11637 wrote:
Yes, another entertaining story from The Daily Mail, almost as entertaining as reading BenjaminM’s predictable responses.
Thank you for that glowing praise. I am glad it raised some sort of human like response from you.
Ah well, better to have a sense of humour than perpetually attempting to spread doom and gloom, I suppose!
I look forward to your next missive with bated breath.
Have a nice day!A bit of harmless fun, nothing more!
And what gives you the right to define her as ‘classy’ in a derogatory manner? Unless perhaps she is a relation of yours and you know better.
Good on you girl, Wrexham could do with a few more like you!How many times does it need explaining ? The formula is there for the adherence of ALL Councils. WCBC is NOT an isolated incident.
I am beginning to think that the the principal character in the novel ‘The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha’ has reappeared in the 21st Century.
What is the point of trying to analyse something to the nth degree that you have absolutely no control over?
Leave it to those that are in a position to make relevant and appropriate decisions……….please!!!!!@wxm 11567 wrote:
Looking at the reports in the public domain for tomorrow’s meeting …there doesn’t appear to be a transparent income and expenditure account that sets out market rents to be collected …and itemised costs that will be incurred, including capital reinvestment.
And your point is ?
Fortunately, some of us understand the acronym HRA (housing revenue account) although no explanation of the term was forthcoming before it’s’ use.
Far from the HRA becoming more complicated, it was simplified in April 2012 so that now the system allows Councils to keep their rental income and use it to fund their housing stock (called self financing). The quotes therefore were quite correct.
As regards the percentage rise proposed, this is not a figure plucked out of thin air but based on a formula instigated by Central Government in 2001 and covering the period to 2014-15. Simply put, it is the Retail Price Index (RPI) figure for the September preceding, plus 0.5%.
It can be demonstrated therefore, that the figure proposed is not too far off the mark.It appears that the term ‘simple integrated plan’ has become a meaningless mantra in some quarters who fail to realise that there are many elements that need come together to achieve a satisfactory conclusion and not a a one size fits all solution to the problem.
I for one am confident that come April, normal service will be resumed and there may be a few months respite from WCBC being constantly subject to criticism. At least I live in hope!Fact: housing benefit is administered by Local Authorities but funded by central government, in WCBC to the tune of £41 million in the last financial year so essentially there is little or no cost to LA’s.
Let us not forget that many, many Social Housing tenants are there because of a lifestyle choice, not because of financial necessity, but partly because of the low rents that are charged compared to the private sector which in turn allows them to have more disposable income.
The author of this post has on previous occasions stated that it is good that WCBC are discussing income generation but on the very next post condemns it. And yet here we are, discussing whether the rise is fair, equitable or necessary. That poses somewhat of an enigma. Which is it to be?
I see no difference whatsoever between WCBC trying to ensure that there is a surplus at the year end and the domestic household trying to ensure there is a surplus at the end of the week.
We are subject to an incessant deluge of the need for an single integrated plan but what is constantly ignored is that an SIP consists of many strands to form the whole, this being just one of them.
We have all been subject to 8 or 9% increases in our energy bills and will undoubtedly be subject to an above inflation rise in council tax, so why should social housing tenants be immune from above inflation rent increases when they are increasing in the private sector?
The blame for the vast majority of WCBC’s woes (and every other local authority) is Central and Welsh government’s reduction in funding. I am not connected in any way with WCBC and I am critical of some of their actions but I do maintain they are doing the job as well as any Local Authority in very trying and austere times and it does little or no good to pillory them on every occasion and on every policy decision.
Perhaps the time is now to support rather than condemn or at the very least, make constructive not destructive observations.@NJones 11475 wrote:
WTF does that mean?
It means, purely and simply that virtually every comment about WCBC that you make, is in the negative without (by your own a mission), reading the information that has been released on the matter.
You have quite eloquently demonstrated your opposition to the possibility of redeveloping the Waterworld site but your attempt to link that to the £10 million regeneration grant is frankly tenuous to say the least.
I am totally in favour of anyone expressing an opinion, but at the very least it is reasonable to expect that opinion to be based on a modicum of fact, not pure conjecture.
It is quite clear that you have a dislike of WCBC but the attempt to blame that entity on everything from pestilence to flood is neither reasonable or helpful (unless of course you have the wherewithal to back up your assertions).
THAT is the reason I chose the wording I used.
