Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: admin on July 07, 2014, 02:25:20 PM
-
There is an e-petition open for signature until 15 July on the council web site. Not sure who instigated it but the withdrawal of council support for Friends of the Park Task Days will have a crucial to the well being of Stockport Parks, including Marple Memorial Park. If you love your local park, please take the time to sign it!
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=54&RPID=2871104&HPID=2871104&$LO$=1
We, the undersigned demand that Stockport Council not only reverse its decision to withdraw support for Friends of Parks Groups task days but instead provide active support to the volunteers to enable them to carry on maintaining and improving Stockport Greenspaces.
The cost of actively supporting these events would be minimal - the Council does not actually know how much it will save. The Council should be ashamed of their lack of vision in running down our much loved Greenspaces, there will only be minimal maintenance and less litter picking. While at the same time they are reducing support for the hard pressed voluntary groups who work to maintain these public spaces & a large number of the many Friends groups will soon cease to exist if the Council does not reverse this decision.
Friends Groups have raised at least £3 million for Stockports Greenspaces over the last decade - how do the Council plan to replace this invaluable input of funds?
-
There is an e-petition open for signature until 15 July on the council web site. Not sure who instigated it but the withdrawal of council support for Friends of the Park Task Days will have a crucial to the well being of Stockport Parks, including Marple Memorial Park. If you love your local park, please take the time to sign it!
http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=54&RPID=2871104&HPID=2871104&$LO$=1
We, the undersigned demand that Stockport Council not only reverse its decision to withdraw support for Friends of Parks Groups task days but instead provide active support to the volunteers to enable them to carry on maintaining and improving Stockport Greenspaces.
The cost of actively supporting these events would be minimal - the Council does not actually know how much it will save. The Council should be ashamed of their lack of vision in running down our much loved Greenspaces, there will only be minimal maintenance and less litter picking. While at the same time they are reducing support for the hard pressed voluntary groups who work to maintain these public spaces & a large number of the many Friends groups will soon cease to exist if the Council does not reverse this decision.
Friends Groups have raised at least £3 million for Stockports Greenspaces over the last decade - how do the Council plan to replace this invaluable input of funds?
Done sixty six so far signed 'come on every one we need more lots more,
-
I think organisers of this sort of thing have a responsibility to say which other area of activity should bear the savings instead.
-
What madness that there should be an attempt to bring to an end the voluntary work being carried out by those who wish to see the survival of the parks. Not only will the local councilllors not fund park staff, they now will not fund volunteer's efforts. More funding is needed. It is impossible to cut anything else so we need to pay more in Council tax.
-
I think organisers of this sort of thing have a responsibility to say which other area of activity should bear the savings instead.
That is a reasonable point, but it needs the council to put forward a range of options for spending cuts and/or or council tax increases.
-
The point I really make is that this sort of petition divides communities and sets people against each other. Its not a way forward in a democracy
-
I think organisers of this sort of thing have a responsibility to say which other area of activity should bear the savings instead.
If the council cannot define how much they are saving (as it says in the petition and as The Greenspace Forum has recorded in their minutes of meetings with the council) then how on earth can anyone from outside the council suggest what other areas might bear that "saving" instead? In my own view, the council are not saving money by withdrawing support for Friends Groups, they are loosing money by loss of efficiency and if this results in a Friends Group giving up then they are loosing much more. They are not being asked to work extra hours - until recently Friends of Marple Memorial Park had support on all our task days from the council with the support worker having time off during the week to cover the hours spent on Saturday with us. So what is more efficient use of an operative's time? 4 to 6 hours working on your own or 4 to 6 hours supporting and guiding the efforts of 12 volunteers for 4 to 6 hours each. To me the maths is simple - there is no saving by this action.
The point I really make is that this sort of petition divides communities and sets people against each other. Its not a way forward in a democracy
Who is this petition setting against each other? It is pulling the community together to tell the council how they feel.
-
The point I really make is that this sort of petition divides communities and sets people against each other.
No, it's not setting people against each other, it's setting people against a stupid proposal by the council. I've signed it, and I hope lots of others do. We all know the financial pressure which local authorities are under, but this is not a sensible way of dealing with it. If ever there was a time when councils needed the support of volunteers, it's now!
-
I think organisers of this sort of thing have a responsibility to say which other area of activity should bear the savings instead.
local councillor's expenses ;-)
-
amazing isnt it, no mention of this in all the lib dem paraphenalia through our doors in the run up to the recent local elections.
maybe though next time candler, bispham, abell etc... want a photo opportunity in memorial park you will tell them where to go.
how about barring the lib dems from using the scout hut for their regular jumble sales, just a thought.
-
local councillor's expenses ;-)
They are determined by an outside body Duke. THe decision on them is removed from members. So no room for movement there old chap
-
If the council cannot define how much they are saving (as it says in the petition and as The Greenspace Forum has recorded in their minutes of meetings with the council) then how on earth can anyone from outside the council suggest what other areas might bear that "saving" instead? In my own view, the council are not saving money by withdrawing support for Friends Groups, they are loosing money by loss of efficiency and if this results in a Friends Group giving up then they are loosing much more. They are not being asked to work extra hours - until recently Friends of Marple Memorial Park had support on all our task days from the council with the support worker having time off during the week to cover the hours spent on Saturday with us. So what is more efficient use of an operatives time? 4 to 6 hours working on your own or 4 to 6 hours supporting and guiding the efforts of 12 volunteers for 4 to 6 hours each. To me the maths is simple - there is no saving by this action.
Who is this petition setting against each other? It is pulling the community together to tell the council how they feel.
If you were honest you would be saying I expect this funding to come from say Adult Social Care. Anything else is dishonest and intellectually lazy. So tell me which service should bear the burdon of these savings. Given 70% of the Councils spending is on statutory service you limited to the other 30% for the savings. I am not even saying I don't support this petition but before I sign it I need to know the effect on other services, some of which might be more valuable.
-
If you were honest you would be saying I expect this funding to come from say Adult Social Care. Anything else is dishonest and intellectually lazy. So tell me which service should bear the burdon of these savings. Given 70% of the Councils spending is on statutory service you limited to the other 30% for the savings. I am not even saying I don't support this petition but before I sign it I need to know the effect on other services, some of which might be more valuable.
Are you accusing me of being dishonest? How can I advise where the savings should come from when the council cannot define what the savings are, or even if there are any savings made by cutting this service? As I have already explained, I believe that supporting Friends Groups is a more efficient way of spending money than not supporting them. So you are completely out of order suggesting that I am "dishonest and intellectually lazy". If anyone is that it is you because you have deliberately ignored the points that I've already made, and not for the first time either. You behave like a typical politician and answer the question you want to answer, not the one you've been asked.
-
Are you accusing me of being dishonest? How can I advise where the savings should come from when the council cannot define what the savings are, or even if there are any savings made by cutting this service? As I have already explained, I believe that supporting Friends Groups is a more efficient way of spending money than not supporting them. So you are completely out of order suggesting that I am "dishonest and intellectually lazy". If anyone is that it is you because you have deliberately ignored the points that I've already made, and not for the first time either. You behave like a typical politician and answer the question you want to answer, not the one you've been asked.
Of course I wasn't calling you dishonest. I was saying it is dishonest in my view of the organisers not to say what area of council activity the saving should come from instead. I am not even suggesting that they have to identify particular saving but I would expect them to say for example and the saving should be found within Highways maintenance, or out of the Markets budget. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. Otherwise everyone just shouts for their particular interest and the loudest shouters bully everyone else until they get what they want.
-
Of course I wasn't calling you dishonest. I was saying it is dishonest in my view of the organisers not to say what area of council activity the saving should come from instead. I am not even suggesting that they have to identify particular saving but I would expect them to say for example and the saving should be found within Highways maintenance, or out of the Markets budget. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. Otherwise everyone just shouts for their particular interest and the loudest shouters bully everyone else until they get what they want.
Well I'm pleased you answered the first part of my question. Now please address the points that I have made - the council cannot define the savings made by this change, so how can the organisers suggest where that "saving" should come from instead? Perhaps, as I suggest, there is no "real saving" because it is more efficient to work with volunteers than to work on your own? If the council can't define a saving as an amount of money saved, how do they know that they are making a saving at all? Address these points and while you are at it, give me an answer to this too:
Picking up on this earlier comment by wheels:
Marple and Mellor have had public toilets closed at Rose Hill, Derby Way, Marple Recreation Ground and Mellor Recreation Ground.
The only public toilet to remain open is in Marple Memorial Park and that is thanks to the campaign by Friends of Marple Memorial Park and Marple Civic Society to keep it open.
When the proposals to close all these toilets were first aired there was a undertaking not to do so until partners had been found to provide three "Community Toilets" for each public toilet to be closed.
So please substantiate the statement that "this Council have massively increased the toilet provision across the town"
Where are the 12 new "Community Toilets" that should have replaced the public toilets closed at Rose Hill, Derby Way, Marple Rec and Mellor Rec?
And if there are any at all, how does anyone know? Where are the Community Toilet signs making the public aware of their existence?
Also, as an aside, which of those public toilets closed in Marple and Mellor were Victorian?
-
Well I'm pleased you answered the first part of my question. Now please address the points that I have made - the council cannot define the savings made by this change, so how can the organisers suggest where that "saving" should come from instead? Perhaps, as I suggest, there is no "real saving" because it is more efficient to work with volunteers than to work on your own? If the council can't define a saving as an amount of money saved, how do they know that they are making a saving at all? Address these points and while you are at it, give me an answer to this too:
It seems to me we are going round in circles. I don't think you need to know the level of savings to be made what you do need to do however is say that I know saving have to be made but I would rather xx face the cuts than my Friends Group you need to say I would like the savings whatever they are to come from lets say again Adult social care or out of the cycling budget or whatever. I would not sign the petition if for example that resulted in pressure being put on the cycling budget so tell me where you think the saving should come from instead.
-
amazing isnt it, no mention of this in all the lib dem paraphenalia through our doors in the run up to the recent local elections.
maybe though next time candler, bispham, abell etc... want a photo opportunity in memorial park you will tell them where to go.
how about barring the lib dems from using the scout hut for their regular jumble sales, just a thought.
Seems to me you only know about the various saving options because this Local Authority puts alternatives out there for the public to discuss and have been noted for that transparency. Are you suggesting that should top.
-
It seems to me we are going round in circles. I don't think you need to know the level of savings to be made what you do need to do however is say that I know saving have to be made but I would rather xx face the cuts than my Friends Group you need to say I would like the savings whatever they are to come from lets say again Adult social care or out of the cycling budget or whatever. I would not sign the petition if for example that resulted in pressure being put on the cycling budget so tell me where you think the saving should come from instead.
And it is you who is driving it round in circles Wheels ::)
If there is no actual saving being made - and in my book if you can't define a saving in terms of "£££'s saved" then there isn't one - then there is no point in defining where else it might come from. Let's say it should be Adult Care or whatever - how do you define to Adult Care how much they have to save because we are going to support Friends of Group's Task Day? You can't can you?
-
And it is you who is driving it round in circles Wheels ::)
I tend not to drive if I can avoid it.
-
Members of this forum might be interested to read this statement, issued this week by Cllr Iain Roberts. http://iainroberts.mycouncillor.org.uk/2014/07/07/lib-dems-launch-stockport-budget-plans-for-201516/
It includes this key section 'we are asking “How can we spend the money we have most effectively to achieve the best outcomes?" ....... It could be pooling budgets with our public sector partners in Stockport, or working more closely and collaboratively with voluntary and charity organisations. It may be more locality working – passing control down from the Council to communities.
So the Council says it wants to 'work more closely and collaboratively with voluntary and charity organisations', so, would you believe it, they closely and collaboratively withdraw the funding for the Friends of Parks groups! It makes no sense.
Meanwhile, wheels writes: this Local Authority puts alternatives out there for the public to discuss
Does it? Where can we see them?
-
they closely and collaboratively withdraw the funding for the Friends of Parks groups! It makes no sense.
Very ironic Dave, I agree. The only thing I would take issue with is that they haven't withdrawn funding (or at least they can't tell us how much funding they are saving) they have withdrawn support for Friends of Group Task Days. It's only semantics I know and still totally ridiculous in the light of the statement that you've highlighted!
-
If you were honest you would be saying I expect this funding to come from say Adult Social Care. Anything else is dishonest and intellectually lazy. So tell me which service should bear the burdon of these savings. Given 70% of the Councils spending is on statutory service you limited to the other 30% for the savings. I am not even saying I don't support this petition but before I sign it I need to know the effect on other services, some of which might be more valuable.
The conservation team at the council has loads of staff, seemingly just getting in the way of progress, I suggest you sak that department.
-
I think organisers of this sort of thing have a responsibility to say which other area of activity should bear the savings instead.
How about the ridiculous assurance acreditiation for tradesman? duplication and wasteful
-
Check out "Gardening Against The Odds" www.gardeningagainsttheodds.com which might put a positive spin on it.
-
And it is you who is driving it round in circles Wheels ::)
If there is no actual saving being made - and in my book if you can't define a saving in terms of "£££'s saved" then there isn't one - then there is no point in defining where else it might come from. Let's say it should be Adult Care or whatever - how do you define to Adult Care how much they have to save because we are going to support Friends of Group's Task Day? You can't can you?
It might just be me but it seems that clarity in spending isn't clear and is even evaded, due to the lack of info available. Is there a clear way to get this info or is it about jumping hoops until someone is satisfied?
On average, when someone or a group are unclear about financial aspects then it usually implies something negative. It is made even worse or more suspicious when a person or a group of people can't even define savings made! Very professional indeed.
-
The only thing I would take issue with is that they haven't withdrawn funding (or at least they can't tell us how much funding they are saving) they have withdrawn support for Friends of Group Task Days.
OK, I think I get it - the council doesn't provide actual cash for the task days, but resources in the form of staff time, machinery, materials, plants etc? But in the end, of course, it's still about saving money, so the council should be able to quantify the saving in staff costs (number of park staff to be made redundant), savings in the repair and replacement of tools and machinery, and reductions in spending on plants and hard landscaping materials.
But when you spell it out like that, you realise that unless the council intends to allow the parks to become overgrown jungles, then they will still need tools, plants and materials, and they will need more staff, not fewer, to replace the volunteers who have been lost. So there may not be a saving at all. ::)
-
OK, I think I get it - the council doesn't provide actual cash for the task days, but resources in the form of staff time, machinery, materials, plants etc? But in the end, of course, it's still about saving money, so the council should be able to quantify the saving in staff costs (number of park staff to be made redundant), savings in the repair and replacement of tools and machinery, and reductions in spending on plants and hard landscaping materials.
But when you spell it out like that, you realise that unless the council intends to allow the parks to become overgrown jungles, then they will still need tools, plants and materials, and they will need more staff, not fewer, to replace the volunteers who have been lost. So there may not be a saving at all. ::)
I'd have thought they should pass over all the maintenance to the 'friends of' group and the parks will be all the better for it.
-
I'd have thought they should pass over all the maintenance to the 'friends of' group and the parks will be all the better for it.
Does that include machinery . If so that's a expensive item to maintain servicing etc .petrol parts .insurance .
Don't think friends of the park could aford that and look after the park as well .
-
I'd have thought they should pass over all the maintenance to the 'friends of' group and the parks will be all the better for it.
I'm tempted to agree with Duke, but on reflection I think it would be a mistake, partly for the reasons put forward by amazon, but mainly because it would leave park maintenance as a lottery. If the Stockport parks (and there are a lot of them, some quite big) were to be handed over to independent community organisations such as the Friends of Marple Memorial Park, some would probably respond well to the challenge, raise additional funds, set themselves up with charitable status to maximise their income (e.g. through collecting gift aid on donations), and generally make a success of it. Others would be less successful, and their parks could fall into disrepair and disuse.
Parks are a vital and valuable community asset. We should treasure them and look after them for future generations, and we should be prepared to pay for them through general taxation.
-
Does that include machinery . If so that's a expensive item to maintain servicing etc .petrol parts .insurance .
Don't think friends of the park could aford that and look after the park as well .
Sell it to a hire company who can have it running 24/7
'Friends can hire it out of their budget.
-
Sell it to a hire company who can have it running 24/7
'Friends can hire it out of their budget.
I think the machinery that stockport MBC use is hired anyway ..
-
Watch very hard for any hints of the closure and sale or development of any area of park owned by Stockport MBC. The parks often contain useful footpath links from one place to another (a good local example is the Midshires Way route on the western bank of the River Goyt all the way from the Jim Fearnley Footbridge north of Holiday Lane all the way past Woodlands and Woodbank Park to the Vernon Park entrance at Stockport Road West - none of this route has a legal status of public right of way). When the legal maps and lists of public rights of way were drawn up in the early 1950s these Definitive Maps and Definitive Statements never contained routes through open land owned by the Council because it was believed at the time that the paths across council parkland would remain remain in public ownership as parks in perpetuity. I am aware of the sale of an area of park in Cheadle with a very well used footpath along Poise Brook, the land was sold, the land search carried out for the purchasers did not (correctly) show the existence of a right of way and the locals went to walk their dogs one morning to find the whole area blocked by eight foot high barriers. This path was saved and the obstructions removed only because the Ramblers Association immediately liaised with the regular users and made a successful legal claim that the route should have a legal status of a public right of way. An applicant has to provide user statement proving twenty years continuous usage of the route during which the route has been used in good faith by users who believed that they had a right to walk there without being challenged by a landowner/tenant or the existence of a 'private - do not enter' sign. NB. this legislation applies to the specific line of a path/bridleway which is a route which crosses a piece of land, it does not apply to wandering around an area of open space walking a dog. If you do have a problem on an area which was a park let me know and I will bring the matter to the attention of the Footpaths Officer of Stockport Ramblers Association.
-
The point I really make is that this sort of petition divides communities and sets people against each other. Its not a way forward in a democracy
Ermm - exactly HOW does it do this? Surely in a democracy everyone has the right to express his or her opinion.opinion.
-
If you were honest you would be saying I expect this funding to come from say Adult Social Care. Anything else is dishonest and intellectually lazy. So tell me which service should bear the burdon of these savings. Given 70% of the Councils spending is on statutory service you limited to the other 30% for the savings. I am not even saying I don't support this petition but before I sign it I need to know the effect on other services, some of which might be more valuable.
Instead of asking this question on here perhaps it would be more useful to ask it of the people who deal with it.
-
I don't get it. In the Local Events section there is a photograph of the Friends of Marple Park in May. Fifteen people and I see four or five of the six Marple councillors (and who knows, maybe some of the others come from the group who put the LibDem leaflets through the letterboxes). I would not be so cynical as to say that they just turned up for the photo. I feel sure that most contributed a few hours voluntary work not only to practice the Big Society to replace council staff politics they are preaching but also because they are prepared to get their hands dirty as volunteers because they may not like the massive cuts any more than the rest of us but is it really true that the LibDems of Marple are pressing for withdrawal of this local initiative plus no public toilets, no Stockport in Bloom, no more carnivals, no trimming of the verges on Cross Lane/Woodville Drive, Triffids growing through and destroying the pavement of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores ? Is this just Marple Park, is it attempt to cut the 'Friends of' initiatives in Stockport or is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?
-
is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?
Of course it is, but SMBC should have been capable of finding a more sensible way of making the necessary savings from from the 30% of their budget which is discretionary. At times like this, the council needs all the volunteers it can get!
-
I don't get it. In the Local Events section there is a photograph of the Friends of Marple Park in May. Fifteen people and I see four or five of the six Marple councillors (and who knows, maybe some of the others come from the group who put the LibDem leaflets through the letterboxes). I would not be so cynical as to say that they just turned up for the photo. I feel sure that most contributed a few hours voluntary work not only to practice the Big Society to replace council staff politics they are preaching but also because they are prepared to get their hands dirty as volunteers because they may not like the massive cuts any more than the rest of us but is it really true that the LibDems of Marple are pressing for withdrawal of this local initiative plus no public toilets, no Stockport in Bloom, no more carnivals, no trimming of the verges on Cross Lane/Woodville Drive, Triffids growing through and destroying the pavement of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores ? Is this just Marple Park, is it attempt to cut the 'Friends of' initiatives in Stockport or is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?
To address a couple of point in this ramble:
Marple's councillors were invited to join Friends of Marple Memorial Park for the raising of our flag to commemorate 10 Years in the Park because they have been very supportive of the Friends of the Park's activities since the group was formed. There are 5 of Marple's 6 councillors in the photo - Kevin Dowling had another engagement and sent his apologies. The rest of the people in the photo are Friends of the Park volunteers, non of whom distribute leaflets for the LibDems. It is not my place or intent to defend local councillors on all the other issues you mention but without our local councillors support Friends of Marple Memorial Park would have achieved much less than we have over the last 10 years.
The original subject of this thread is not about an "initiative" to withdraw support - support for friends of park group Task Days HAS been withdrawn in all parks across the borough. The petitioners are seeking to have support for Task Days reinstated.
I'd have thought they should pass over all the maintenance to the 'friends of' group and the parks will be all the better for it.
There have been a number of comments / suggestions about Friends of Memorial Park taking over management of the park. This is not a viable or practical proposition, not least because despite its success the group is too small and does not have enough volunteers to undertake a management role or to take on the responsibility of running the park on a day to day basis.
-
I don't get it. In the Local Events section there is a photograph of the Friends of Marple Park in May. Fifteen people and I see four or five of the six Marple councillors (and who knows, maybe some of the others come from the group who put the LibDem leaflets through the letterboxes). I would not be so cynical as to say that they just turned up for the photo. I feel sure that most contributed a few hours voluntary work not only to practice the Big Society to replace council staff politics they are preaching but also because they are prepared to get their hands dirty as volunteers because they may not like the massive cuts any more than the rest of us but is it really true that the LibDems of Marple are pressing for withdrawal of this local initiative plus no public toilets, no Stockport in Bloom, no more carnivals, no trimming of the verges on Cross Lane/Woodville Drive, Triffids growing through and destroying the pavement of Windlehurst Road near Doodfield Stores ? Is this just Marple Park, is it attempt to cut the 'Friends of' initiatives in Stockport or is this a ConDem national initiative to make Britain a less green and less pleasant land just to put an extra few bob in the pockets of the extremely wealthy?
It's hardly a coalition problem, the coalition are very much in favour of big society stuff.
It's the council being unable to work efficiently.
-
It's hardly a coalition problem, the coalition are very much in favour of big society stuff.
They used to be, but not any more. When was the last time we heard any government minister use the phrase? Months ago, if not years!
It's the council being unable to work efficiently.
Indeed.
-
It's hardly a coalition problem, the coalition are very much in favour of big society stuff.
Thankfully the "Big Society" has died a death many of us saw it I think as a self appointed busy bodies charter. It was well and truly dumped in 2010
-
Yes, I think its demise was about two years ago, and coincided with the sacking of this guy from Cameron's office: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Hilton
-
Thankfully the "Big Society" has died a death many of us saw it I think as a self appointed busy bodies charter. It was well and truly dumped in 2010
The whole "Big Society" thing was a joke, imo, and it clearly was a way of getting the people to mend the damage done by the government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/big-society-is-a-sham-thats-hurting-the-small-charities-sector-says-report-9571816.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/11/local-government-cuts-society
http://www.nationalheadlines.co.uk/big-society-is-a-sham-thats-hurting-the-small-charities-sector-says-report/381219/
In general, these links provide interesting reading about the "Big Society".
-
The whole "Big Society" thing was a joke, imo, and it clearly was a way of getting the people to mend the damage done by the government.
I agree Mr Marple except I would say "damage done by the PREVIOUS Government"
-
Wheels must be right, of course, if only because the Big Society was dreamed up well before the 2010 election. It was a major feature of the Tory election manifesto in 2010, and was set out in the manifesto as four key priorities:
Give communities more powers (localism and devolution)
Encourage people to take an active role in their communities (volunteerism)
Transfer power from central to local government
Support co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
Publish government data (open/transparent government)
So a promise to encourage people to take an active role in their communities is shortly followed by the withdrawal of support for Friends of Parks Groups. How times change!
-
Wheels must be right, of course, if only because the Big Society was dreamed up well before the 2010 election. It was a major feature of the Tory election manifesto in 2010, and was set out in the manifesto as four key priorities:
Give communities more powers (localism and devolution)
Encourage people to take an active role in their communities (volunteerism)
Transfer power from central to local government
Support co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
Publish government data (open/transparent government)
So a promise to encourage people to take an active role in their communities is shortly followed by the withdrawal of support for Friends of Parks Groups. How times change!
We don't have a Tory local authority, this may be a bad thing but it certainly makes your point irrtlevent.
-
The E-Petition is now closed and I look forward to seeing the council's response in due course.
I'm pleased to see that we've managed to raise the signatures from 56 to 145, making it the 5th best supported Stockport Council e-petition since they began in 2011.
It's interesting to see just how low the responses to most of the e-petitions on the council site are though - directly related to the level of awareness of them I would imagine (not to mention the technical difficulty some people told me they had when trying to sign it) - I only found out about this one from a set of Green Space Forum minutes I happened to read and had not seen any other attempt to publicise it until this thread.
-
I'm pleased to see that we've managed to raise the signatures from 56 to 145, making it the 5th best supported Stockport Council e-petition since they began in 2011.
That's good news, and testimony, in part at least, to the influence of this forum. It will be interesting to find out whether it makes any difference!
As for this....We don't have a Tory local authority, this may be a bad thing but it certainly makes your point irrtlevent.
The point is far from irrelevant - or even irrtlevent. ;) This is only happening because of the government's huge cuts to local authority funding. The Tories were elected on a promise to give communities more powers, and to transfer power from central to local government, and once they got into office they did the exact opposite and cut local authority funding by 43%! And they wonder why we don't trust politicians any more!
-
The E-Petition is now closed and I look forward to seeing the council's response in due course.
I'm pleased to see that we've managed to raise the signatures from 56 to 145, making it the 5th best supported Stockport Council e-petition since they began in 2011.
It's interesting to see just how low the responses to most of the e-petitions on the council site are though - directly related to the level of awareness of them I would imagine (not to mention the technical difficulty some people told me they had when trying to sign it) - I only found out about this one from a set of Green Space Forum minutes I happened to read and had not seen any other attempt to publicise it until this thread.
I'm afraid I didn't sign, i agree entirely with you but did not want to hand over my information to the council.
-
That's good news, and testimony, in part at least, to the influence of this forum. It will be interesting to find out whether it makes any difference!
As for this....
The point is far from irrelevant - or even irrtlevent. ;) This is only happening because of the government's huge cuts to local authority funding. The Tories were elected on a promise to give communities more powers, and to transfer power from central to local government, and once they got into office they did the exact opposite and cut local authority funding by 43%! And they wonder why we don't trust politicians any more!
i think you know my views on local authorities, hardly worth me biting.
-
It's interesting to see just how low the responses to most of the e-petitions on the council site are though. I only found out about this one from a set of Green Space Forum minutes I happened to read and had not seen any other attempt to publicise it until this thread.
your comment Admin is quite accurate/true. The very fact that these petitions are not made easily publically aware speaks volumes, in my mind alone at least, and implies several things which can also be a worry for the community.
What happened to clarity?
-
That's good news, and testimony, in part at least, to the influence of this forum. It will be interesting to find out whether it makes any difference!
As for this....
The point is far from irrelevant - or even irrtlevent. ;) This is only happening because of the government's huge cuts to local authority funding. The Tories were elected on a promise to give communities more powers, and to transfer power from central to local government, and once they got into office they did the exact opposite and cut local authority funding by 43%! And they wonder why we don't trust politicians any more!
Many, if not all, political groups were elected into power for whatever reason or intentions and when they got into the position of power they usually did the exact reverse. This has happened for years and I fully comprehend why you talk of lack of trust in politicians.
They have done more negative actions than good ones, as far as I'm aware, which is very much enough to verify the lack of trust. In my mind I keep thinking about double-standards, hypocrisy and contradiction.
-
Wheels must be right, of course, if only because the Big Society was dreamed up well before the 2010 election. It was a major feature of the Tory election manifesto in 2010, and was set out in the manifesto as four key priorities:
Give communities more powers (localism and devolution)
Encourage people to take an active role in their communities (volunteerism)
Transfer power from central to local government
Support co-ops, mutuals, charities and social enterprises
Publish government data (open/transparent government)
So a promise to encourage people to take an active role in their communities is shortly followed by the withdrawal of support for Friends of Parks Groups. How times change!
But there are no proposals to withdraw support from Friends Groups Dave!!!!
-
But there are no proposals to withdraw support from Friends Groups Dave!!!!
So the petition has worked already! :)
-
Well actually Dave other than this petition no one seems to have pointed to any actual council proposal.
Do we even trust or believe those behind the petition?
-
Well actually Dave other than this petition no one seems to have pointed to any actual council proposal.
Do we even trust or believe those behind the petition?
Are you saying that it is not true that the council has withdrawn support for Friends of the Park task days wheels? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters like a politician again?
-
Are you saying that it is not true that the council has withdrawn support for Friends of the Park task days wheels? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters like a politician again?
No I am asking you to point me to the council paper which proposes then. Have you actually seen it?
-
Have you actually seen it?
Of course I've seen it. Everyone's seen it - it was part of the proposed cuts in early 2013 that was consulted on up to end of May 2013, see page 3 (3rd item) of the attached document. As I keep on telling you, it is no longer a proposal it has been implemented!
I've also seen minutes of meetings from the Greenspace Forum from earlier this year referring to correspondence with the leader of the council about the issue. I've asked for copies and I'll share with you if I get them.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A response to this petition has been made by Cllr Martin Candler and recorded on the Council web site as follows:
The petition was submitted to the Executive Meeting on 12 August 2014 and in response the Executive Councillor (Communities & Sustainability) (Councillor Martin Candler) made the following statement:
"I have just taken over responsibility for this area of work and I would like to say that I am determined to bring about a new era of trust between volunteers and the Council. I find it very sad that relationships appear to have broken down in some places and that is most unfortunate for all who care about our parks and green spaces.
Firstly, as I said to the Greenspace Forum recently, whatever impression was gained before, for whatever reason, I on behalf of the Council, appreciate and value the contribution that volunteers make and I want them to know it.
I have taken steps to ensure that the Council will provide as soon as possible
- Risk assessment training for volunteers
- Employee liability insurance cover for task days and signpost financial support for event insurance
- A revised events application process
- A new task day application process
Also, the Council will through its Greenspace Team work closely with volunteer groups and help them access grants from third parties, support event applications and assist with the provision of materials and equipment for their task days.
I have asked officers to look into how we might further improve the offer to Friends of Groups in terms of Solutions SK staff supporting volunteers during the working week within the limits of existing resources.
I will, as promised, be coming back to a further meeting of the Greenspace Forum in September with worked up proposals to address some of the issues highlighted by them earlier.'