Sign E-Petition against withdrawl of Support for Friends of Park Groups

[amazon]

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 .

[Duke Fame]

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.

[Dave]

The only thing I would take issue with is that they haven't withdrawn funding (or at least they can't tell us how much funding they are saving) they have withdrawn support for Friends of Group Task Days.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.   

[Mr Marple]

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.

[Chris78]

Check out "Gardening Against The Odds" www.gardeningagainsttheodds.com which might put a positive spin on it.

[Duke Fame]

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

[Duke Fame]

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.

[admin]

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!

[Dave]

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?

[wheels]

And it is you who is driving it round in circles Wheels  

I tend not to drive if I can avoid it.

[admin]

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?

[wheels]

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.

[wheels]

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.

[admin]

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?

 

[wheels]

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.