I WROTE in April 2011 about the rent bombshell which detonated across local Scout groups, and this morning leaders woke up to the grim realisation that their 9-month campaign to reverse the rent hike was over.
The saga, culminating in the submission of a 2,400 signature petition in support of Discretionary Rate Relief for the Scout Association and a 20-minute debate in full council on the 18th of January 2012, saw the Conservative Party vote in support of the petition yet Blackpool Labour vote against, and in doing so they rubber stamped the increase in rent. This brings the total number of petition signatories ignored by the Residents’ Party so far to almost 9,000 following the rejections of the petition for Lauderdale Avenue’s tram crossing and the petition against the illegal mosque on Waterloo Road.
Most people cringe when their gas and electricity rises by 15% each year, but the hike which has walloped the Scout Association sees their peppercorn rent of £10 suddenly rocket by 13,900% to £1,400. This isn’t exclusive to Blackpool’s Scout Association; the same kind of rent increases have been hammering groups all over the UK as councils scrape the barrell looking for cash to fund their legions of pen pushers.
The issue of the rent was apparently raised last time Labour were in power, but nothing happened; no deals were sorted out. Then, before the local election in 2011, council desk jockeys decided to drop the Conservatives in the doo-doo by announcing this blockbuster rent hike. Labour and it’s footsoldiers were very sympathetic to the cause at this time with well known Gazette Labour supporter ‘cardy’ saying;
“This shows that our Tory council have no consideration for the youth’s of today who do not wish to hang around street corners causing trouble.”
I hope those words that you’re eating taste good, cardy!
You would have thought the fact that across the UK Scout Leaders give 37,620,000 hours of their time, for free, towards running their groups and that this equates to around £380m of paid young peoples’ services would tickle Labour’s third sector fancy, but this doesn’t appear to be the case.
Another point that should be raised is that the council surely have more important ways of generating revenue, for instance chasing up unpaid business rates and council tax, totalling millions of pounds. Instead, they are in hot pursuit of worthwhile community groups that don’t do it for the money, putting their futures in doubt simply because they are law abiding and an easy target who they think will just pay up.
Hold fast, don’t pay, then see what they do.
You get what you vote for…
The party of the working crass.
*PHILTHEONE READERS TO THE RESCUE*
I (as a scout) have fond memories of my time in the scouts.
Even though the council should back the association from community funds.
I pledge one weeks rent – twenty six pounds and ninety four pence.
Oh sod it
Thirty quid
Just another 51 supporters now.
Anybody got there contact details ?
I have, yeah. I’ll dig them out and post them up.
I’ll pledge the same amount.
Just another 50 supporters now.
Well done Shoggy, Count me in although, I was in the boys brigade and the army cadets and have some good time memory’s from my childhood, its worth while groups like this that should be getting support from the council to help give kids something to do rather than roaming the street’s. If you post the details on here Phil we can send the contribution direct or we could fill in a Gift Aid declaration form if they have one so that they can claim the tax back on our donations. Bet them getting it than the Government.
It’s all very well you being noble and all that, and i am sorry if I sound like Blackburn, but what about all the other groups, like guides, cadets, boys/girls brigade etc who is going to help them pay their council taxes because theirs will surely have increased by the same amount as well.
In this case Jimmy, the guides, brownies, rainbows, beavers, etc share the facilities, so all are harmed by the rent and rates hike.
Last year we saw millions of pounds being spent on repairing shop windows,paying for police overtime and taking young people to court. Surely our managers and politicians can think of other ways the scouting; guides and other uniform youth organisations can contribute to council savings, After all; even the council acknowledge “in kind” contributions when submitting funding applications.
If only one young person defected from the scouting ethos and became a burden to society; the cost to the town could be ten fold per month; let alone per year.
Besides; If we got rid of the historic “White elephant” Ghost train; we would not be penny pinching from these valuable organisations. Perhaps we should ask the scouts to take on the management and maintenance of such historical attributes; especially in bob a job week, it could save us a fortune.
I still disagree with the rise however unlike you, I have stated labour are wrong for doing this isnt it strange how as you stated rather hypocritically’
“It was something that council officers did unbeknownst to the elected councillors. Most Tories kicked up a fuss behind the scenes about it at the time.”
So they either did or did not know about it?
Strange how they kick a fuss up behind the scenes (when they do not know about this issue) and not in the Gazette or any other public medium. Strange how they failed the scouts by not acting when the issue was highlighted in the local newspaper.
Forget scoring political points Phil, both parties have let these groups of youngsters down.
I feel this is not really a political issue, irrespective of who is in the seat of power. As stated above in other posts why should the community suffer and suffer it will if the youth organisations are penalised in this way.
The town on a whole is in a sorry state with regard to youth recreation.
Once again the idea of building a centralised youth project (palatine) rather than spreading the budget is single minded.
No matter who is in charge.
Youth clubs give something useful to the community and at least they gave a little respectful attitude from the members for all the effort organisers put into running the clubs.
Scouts/Guides/Brownies etc: are a very important part of giving young children some form of attitude guidance and that is also down to parenting to co-operate with the organisations.
I think there is a missed generation when youth clubs were closed down. That lost out on this part of growing up.
Most of which I think is down to the nanny state of health and safety and fear of claims against the organisers.
We have to protect what great community services are still available and encourage young children to be part of their activities.
Here ! Here ! Lord Robert Baden-Powell – He had a vision lacking in most of our population today.
They kicked up a fuss about it when they found out about it. I thought it was obvious that that was what I meant!
The news about the rent hike was announced in the Gazette on the 25th April 2011, which was less than two weeks before the election and therefore during purdah. As such, it would have been impossible for the Conservatives to do anything about it.
Yes, they should have negotiated a deal with the Scouts during their term in office, but then so should Labour in the term before, and so on. That said, Simon Blackburn could quite easily have rejected the rent and rates rise, but he didn’t.
I am of the belief that scouts save the council money as per what Fred Barnes has said above. Further to this, I think the offering of a Scout (guides, brownies, etc) group is vastly superior to the crap that local authorities offer. Rather than having a bunch of kids running riot whilst some disinterested 19 year old with her health and social care diploma ‘supervises’, Scout groups are hands-on, stimulating and also instil a level of discipline and camaraderie.
Good point Phil. Scouting was suppressed and banned in almost all of the socialist states and replaced with “Pioniri” (Pioneers), the party’s youth movement, for the dissemination and indoctrination of party propaganda and dogma amongst the youth of a country.
The view by the socialist states and also much of the labour party 1960s-1980s was that the scouts were a reactionary paramilitary formation bordering on the fascist.
Maybe if the local scouts rebranded themselves as pioneers then Our Dear All-Knowing and Glorious Comrade Leader would reverse the rent rise.
Cheers TT, never knew that; way before my time and beyond my subject knowledge, but it doesn’t come as much of a shock!
They kicked up a fuss about it !!!!
How did they kick up a fuss about it when they didnt know about it?
Most Tories kicked up a fuss behind the scenes about it at the time!!!
why do this behind the scenes? No bottle to stand up for what they believe in perhaps.
The news about the rent hike was announced in the Gazette on the 25th April 2011!!
Is this how the Tory council found out what was going on in the town?
Rather than trying to turn this into a political point scoring issue you should have stuck to facts.I did post that in the Gazette and stand by it I also stand by saying labour are wrong to introduce this charge perhaps that is the difference between myself and the Tory councillors of the time. I also do not recall any labour councillors opposing this charge at the time either so perhaps they have not changed their opinion that this rise in their opinion is correct.Your constructive view of the scouts,brownies etc I agree with fully you may not like all my opinions Phil but I do stand up for what I believe in and on this issue our labour council ARE WRONG
As I said Cardy, they kicked up a fuss when they found out about it. You can’t kick up a fuss if you don’t know about something.
During purdah councillors are only allowed to perform day-to-day, business as usual tasks. Perhaps this was why council officers excluded councillors from this rent plan, or perhaps there was some other reason. Perhaps it wasn’t significant enough to be raised with councillors as, I guess, setting rents on council owned properties (regardless of who uses them) is handled wholly by the Estates department.
It would be nice if the Tories came out and said exactly what they would do, I agree with that, but then you could say ‘what’s the point?’
I dont mind your opinions Cardy, in fact I enjoy the debates in most cases.
This article shows just what a TORY HYPOCRITE you are you moan when a scout group which has a sizable bank account are forced to pay their way yet you are more than happy for people to possibly die when you argue that longer waiting lists are acceptable. Puts it all into perspective really. Again this speaks volumes about your morality.Having said that your a Tory at heart and they are all self indulgent without a care for anyone else,unless its relevent to them
What a load of crap Cardy!
Do you or do you not accept that scout groups (and other community groups providing activities for kids) save the council money? If you don’t, then you’re off your rocker.
The scout group has money because a generous lady gifted her property to them when she died. Many charities obtain funding in this way, such as the RSPCA, Donna’s Dream House, Cancer Research, and so on. The money was donated to completely rebuild the scout premises on Devonshire Road, it’s not a working float and it has not been achieved by ‘saving up’ profits.
Unless they stopped going on camps and other trips, the group cannot, with its day-to-day funding, meet the rent that the greedy Labour council want. As such they will have to push up costs and pass them on to the parents as a stealth tax.
I wonder why I have to explain this simple economics, but then, you support the party that bailed out RBS with £45billion of taxpayers money only to see it plummet by tens of billions, so you obviously don’t have a clue!
NO, crap is justifying people having to wait to see a doctor to recieve treatment possibly to save their life whilst arguing that a scout group should not have to pay its way.As I said hypocricy. I dont agree with this hike however I also dont like people having to wait for treatment.You on the otherhand have tried to justify waiting times whilst on another thread arguing the scouts case.If the scout group goes under so what the council will lose its council tax ( rent?) payment I dont see how else they will lose financially they are not compelled to put on holidays and trips for children,if a patient isnt treated quickly enough they may well die. You are totally missing the point here, should you as a “caring person” be more worried about peoples health rather than some kids not going on a trip?.What you are saying is we should be subsidizing parents who want to send their kids away on trips and outings,I would rather see waiting lists falling and people treated for their ailments after all you understand economics and there isnt an endless stream of money. As I said self-interest again typical Tory attitude lets hope none of your scouts hurt themselves on their trip as ther NHS waiting lists are growing.Perhaps you could explain how the council will lose financially and dont start me off with these wonderful charities if you only knew the truth you wouldnt be singing their praises.If you like cover ups look into some of the local ones.If you dig deep you will find out ive left a clue on the gazette.
Of course its not crap after all you are interested in the scouts and are ok with growing waiting list. I do not feel that scout groups save the council money as the council are under NO obligation to supply these children with “trips and camps”.The council may lose its council tax (and rent?) for this property but financially wont be any worse off.
Perhaps the council should fund holidays and trips for all children in the town?
“I wonder why I have to explain this simple economics” You argue that cuts to the NHS which are seeing front line staff losing their jobs (I could use army,police,navy, airforce and many more services) and growing waiting times as acceptable this I believe is due to the fact we cannot afford these services. The same senario applies to the scouts,the difference is I am not selective with my morality BOTH these situations are totally wrong and the money should be found for these worthy causes.
Im sure if you did a poll longer waiting for the nhs or saving a scout group only an idiot would vote for the scout group.
I trust you would not be voting for the scout group in that senario , but fear you may as I have said vested interest something Tory voters are keen to uphold
That’s totally delusional Cardy.
First of all the only reason anything needs to be cut is because your Labour hero Gordon Brown created unsustainable jobs in the public sector, gave the public sector unsustainable pay rises, ran out of money to buy votes but then managed to find another £45billion to bail out RBS and £21billion to bail out Lloyds after it had saved HBOS. Labour then appointed a Chief Exec of RBS and allowed for a million pound bankers bonus as part of that.
Now, on topic. You may be aware that the council are spending £5m on a “youth hub” on St. Annes Road. The reason, which you can read here, they cite for building this is because South Shore is…
“an area where there is a shortage of safe places to go and things to do.”
A bit like, y’know, scouts, guides, cubs, rainbows, beavers, brownies, etc, except they don’t cost £5million of taxpayers money.
Scouts are saving the council money in providing out of school activities for large numbers of kids at no cost to the council; these activities instil friendship, discipline, a work ethic and teach new skills. The council’s approach to “youth services” involves building a strange looking building for 5 million quid, filling it up with pool tables and computers, and providing hands-off ‘supervision’ combined with pointless courses in circus skills.
As you may not be aware, children develop better if they have responsible adults to look up to and respect. They don’t get this at these council youth centres: the council has adopted the wrong approach in buying lots of expensive equipment and leaving kids alone to play around with it. This only delays the problem such that when the kid gets bored of it, they go back and cause trouble on the streets, or sit at home, bored, not fulfilling their potential.
A table tennis table or a set of DJ turntables does not replace one-to-one interaction with an interested adult/role model, yet ironically buying a table tennis table probably costs more than a year’s rent for the scout group. You cannot buy a child’s development, it requires adult participation. This is why parents send their kids to fee paying schools if they can afford it, because the relationship between students and teachers is far more close, resulting in a better transfer of knowledge and teaching of subjects, not just teaching to pass exams. And before you go on an anti-Tory rant, just ask Blackpool Labour how many councillors have got their kids in private school.
I digress.
Scout and guide groups stimulate the minds of the kids and enable them to do things they otherwise would not be able to do. They don’t have expensive equipment; instead they create, they learn, they participate. Scout groups broaden the horizons of the kids.
Scout masters, guide leaders, and so on do not get paid for their time and most are real-world people with real-world jobs. Previously, all of the subscription money paid by parents to send their kids to these groups went towards activities and trips, but now greedy tax-and-spend Labour, with supporters like you crawling behind, want to grab it.
The council isn’t losing anything, because the rent has always been £10. You cannot just declare that the rent should actually be £1500 and then plead that you’re ‘losing money’. Maybe this council agrees with you and does not recognise the importance of scouting groups; after all, not all councils are hammering scout groups for knee-jerk rent hikes.
It appears that Simon Blackburn is following what Tangerine Terrorist indicated above; trying to get rid of scouting groups by the back door and replace them with his own ‘youth services’ like the soviets did.
I agree with all your points Phil however
“It appears that Simon Blackburn is following what Tangerine Terrorist indicated above; trying to get rid of scouting groups by the back door and replace them with his own ‘youth services’ like the soviets did”
Im sure you realize that this building was piloted under Callows regime which disproves that theory on Blackburn.Perhaps it was Callow who ignored the issue in the first place instead of dealing with this hike in rent. Im sure you dont know exactly when Callow found out about these proposals
The council isn’t losing anything, because the rent has always been £10. You cannot just declare that the rent should actually be £1500 and then plead that you’re ‘losing money’
The council could well be losing substantial amounts on the scout hut now and in the past, If a shop has sold a product for £5 for 10 years and the cost of that product is £6 they have been losing money on it.How much has it cost the council to maintain the property and grounds? Perhaps the council have been offered more money from another organisation for this property?
Maybe this council agrees with you and does not recognise the importance of scouting groups;
I fully recognise the value of scout groups as I have stated this hike is wrong ,you stated this would cost the council it wont. I also fully understand the benefit of the NHS and argue pationately for the protection of that service I do the same with the armed forces,police and other groups like surestart. I also am realistic I argued that because of the cuts the closure of Layton surestart was not a good move but in light of the cuts and the proximity of grange park surestart this was not as bad as it could have been and the closure in my opinion was justifiable.
The point I am making is quite clear you are arguing that longer waiting lists are acceptable whilst this hike in rent is not. Clearly you are influenced by the scouting movement and are in your own words not understanding simple economics. I am playing devils advocate here because I disagree with both the cuts to the NHS and the hike and whilst you argue that the hike in rent is unjust and defend this government on its NHS policies it weakens your argument on the NHS and smacks of self interest as I stated which is more important the NHS or the scouting movement? You failed to answer that one?
Simple economics means we cannot have everything we would like.Simple economics means the council needs revenue,simple economics means these scouts cannot have their holidays.Simple economics also can mean the NHS is protected with more spending and that the scouts can have their holidays by spending the countries revenue correctly.
As for the bankers just what have the Tory government done?Where is that bucket of sand? Labour should have put clauses on the bank the Tory government still can but will they?
Your analogues are irrelevant, the fact is that the rent has been £10 since as far back as anyone can remember. The council has not been subsidising it.
They then decided to increase it by 13900% during purdah, which meant Callow was unable to do anything. I’ve already explained this. Judging by the reaction from Tory councillors at the time, they were not happy about what the council had done, after all, the scouting premises targeted are all in Tory wards. But they could not at that point do anything.
Gordon Marsden and many other Labour MPs supported a motion in the House of Commons to “support the campaign and work with groups to protect scout and guide groups to convince councils that using such voluntary organisations for raising revenue is detrimental to young people and the communities they serve.”
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-12/1569
Seems like you and Blackpool’s Labour executive are the only ones who support the hike.
scouting movements are ideologically opposite to Labour. and yet Gordon Marsden and many labour MPS voted to help this group?
They then decided to increase it by 13900% during purdah
Was this labour who decided that? No as it was as you stated in purdah
As for Callow and his bunch its easy to say after the fact that they knew nothing about it similar to Crystal road
Scouting movements are ideologically opposed to Labour, but Marsden clearly is not a slave to ideology and can see the benefits of the organisation. He peddles a more modern, newer Labour than Blackburn though; perhaps his privileged upbringing opened his mind a bit.
Never said it was Labour who proposed the rent hike, but they did rubber stamp it. Tories didn’t, they have opposed it at every opportunity.
Pakistan is actively helping the Taliban retake control of Afghanistan, a leaked Nato report has concluded
David Cameron has said he intends to withdraw all British combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. While France has decided to leave the country a year earlier than planned in 2013.
On Monday Afghan president Hamid Karzai visited London and signed an agreement that will see Britain build an officer training college in Afghanistan, modelled on the British Army’s Sandhurst Academy.
Scout group or building the Afghans an officer training acadamy?
Camercon is misleading us once again, all those soldiers lost lives and those who were injured are for nothing. Lets spare the cost of doing the job correctly similar to the nhs.
Simple economics again we cannot afford to be in Afghan so we pull out,what about Syria why bother? What about the NHS we cannot afford it why bother?
The scouts cannot afford to go on trips and holidays,solution according to the theory of simple economics DONT GO ON THE TRIPS AND HOLIDAYS.
Simple economics is so easy to understand I dont know why I didnt get it in the first place.Perhaps I am missing something though PHIL!!!! simple economics means these scouts cannot go on their trips and holidays yet you are arguing that they should be able to go on trips and holidays or not pay their bills Simple economics for the council is they need revenue.
.I would love a holiday under your theory perhaps the council could waver my tax and as the NHS isnt viable and I havent used it have a return on my Nhs contributions.I havent called the police either perhaps a reduction in my tax banding?
I wonder why I have to explain this simple economics, but then, you support the party that bailed out RBS with £45billion of taxpayers money only to see it plummet by tens of billions, so you obviously don’t have a clue!
Perhaps if the banks had gone underand and everyone had lost their savings,had their homes repossessed and recieved demands to repay all outstanding credit agreements this would have helped our economy or can you possibly give us another solution that wouldnt have sent this country under?
Let me clarify my point simple economics, DOESNT MATTER WHEN ITS A CAUSE CLOSE TO YOUR HEART. Can you now see why I stated you were being hypocritical?
Nope, you’re being stupid. The army and all that stuff is nothing to do with it. Cameron hasn’t taxed the scouts, Blackpool Labour has.
The scout rent was £10 since, well, a long time ago. Labour, on a whim, decided to increase it to £1500. No different to Simon Blackburn’s landlord increasing his rent because he’s now on twice as much money as he was this time last year.
The council were not subsidising the scouts; the land returns no money when empty. Labour just increased rent by a silly amount because they can, and scouting movements are ideologically opposite to Labour. On the other hand they are spending 5 million on something in South Shore which is not as good but Labour control it.
The trips and holidays were paid for by parents, the council are now taxing them. The holidays were not free or paid for by taxpayers. As with any charity, scouts pay for their cause through fundraising activities and donations.
And on RBS, they should have let it go bust and nationalised it. We cannot have banks holding such power that they are too big to fail. If HSBC were to announce problems tomorrow, would we print out another ton of money to bail that out as well? Where does it end?
the land returns no money when empty,but if it was sold to a developer it would!!!
Nope, you’re being stupid. The army and all that stuff is nothing to do with it. Cameron hasn’t taxed the scouts, Blackpool Labour has.
Which party cut Blackpools budget forcing the labour administration to look for different ways of finding money(simple economics)So perhaps im not being stupid perhaps you are, just where is that bucket of sand?
The council were not subsidising the scouts; the land returns no money when empty. Labour just increased rent by a silly amount because they can, and scouting movements are ideologically opposite to Labour. On the other hand they are spending 5 million on something in South Shore which is not as good but Labour control it.
This was a Tory scheme as they were in power when it was commissioned although Im sure the funding came from the last labour Government.So the labour administration are now left with a service which you describe as not as good because of the last Tory council?
I can just see all the labour voters and councillors getting together to force the closure of the scout movement, do you realize how pathetic that sounds in a modern day society which is what you are suggesting?
The trips and holidays were paid for by parents, the council are now taxing them. The holidays were not free or paid for by taxpayers.
If the trips are paid for by parents then they will still be able to go on the trips as it doesnt cost the scouts and the council are taxing holidays?
I dont want to argue about the banks but if HSBC did go under tommorow I can assure you this Tory Government would do just the same as labour
Every council received cuts, some have decided to target voluntary groups like scouts and some haven’t.
Trips are paid for through weekly subscription fees to the scout group and through payments from parents. The subs reduce the payments, but it all goes into the same pot, of which 100% goes on childrens’ activities and there is zero money at the end. With the rent hike, a large chunk of will go to Blackpool Council, so the groups will have to increase their charges.
I thought Southpoint was a shit scheme when it first appeared on the horizon. I think this kind of provision for children is crap, and is the wrong way about doing it if the agenda is to reform kids who might behave in an antisocial manner. Do a search on this site for Southpoint and you will find an x-rated rant from me about it from 2009.
Rather than spending 5 million on one stupid building, they could have built 10 smaller youth clubs across the town for 500k each. You’re a tradesman so you will be aware how far half a million quid can go. They could have built one on the scouts’ site off Devonshire Road, even, and rented space to the scout group.
The sale of the land is the elephant in the room. The scout group were told they could only have I think it was a 2 year rolling lease, so something may well have been on the agenda and perhaps the council were trying to force them out. Not sure what the status is now.
Southpoint was always going to be a wheeze that didn’t fulfil a particular need.
We all know that it’ll end up as an evening creche for delinquents, rather than fulfilling activities and needs that kids and teenagers from all strands of life can take part in (yes, I’m aware that the council will have come up with some bullshit or other that contradicts my point) – particularly those who don’t live in the southern end of the town (still, why break the habit of a lifetime of placing all the town’s trinkets where all the safe Labour wards are?).
I’m not keen on having charities and voluntary services suckle on the tit of the taxpayer because it makes them dependent, but similar to what Phil says, the money would have been better spent across the town (not that the money was in the bank – like everything, it was borrowed and will be paid back by some of those kids for whom the shiny, expensive building was built).
On the contrary, this particular scouting group wants to spend its own money (real money, not borrowed) on its own site and do its own thing. Money for Southpoints and other such buildings will be scarce so the council should embrace this potential development. The council can think of this as 100% inheritance tax; the £300k or is destined to be invested in youth provision.
The problem is that the council are basically saying that any construction must come with dynamite packed in the foundations and a detonator placed in Simon Blackburn’s office for the time he gets an offer of cash for the land. Or perhaps I’ve got the wrong end of the stick!
I wasn’t implying that the scouts should have a share (it’s really for the best that they don’t, as I said!), but that the money would have been better distributed to existing groups (whether they’re scouts, after school clubs, Boys Brigade… whatever) for their use, rather than just one site run by the council.
I’d have preferred that the money wasn’t spent at all – like I said, it will be kids in future paying off the debts run up by the extravagance of today’s amateur politicians – but if the money had to be spent, that’s what would be preferable to me.
It’s great to see self-sufficient voluntary groups like the scouts at Bispham – amazing how just one legacy can potentially benefit many others.
What was the outcome of the proposal to share facilities with the community centre? I understand that the idea was informally considered, but didn’t get anywhere.
Likewise, has anything been considered with TS Penelope?
They already use the cadets site to park their minibus, but other than that I’m unsure.
I imagine deals with the community centre didnt move forward because the group has this £300k sat in an account ready to rebuild thir current site as a multi-storey facility with bigger capacity and better facilities.
If I understand the situation, the community centre are in a similar position with ground rent – although as ever, that was third-hand ‘news’, so may not be entirely true.
I can see some logic in trying to consolidate the land ownership, with three groups within spitting distance performing similar functions (ie, community groups) on three different sites, not in use all the time. Four sites, if we count the now defunct library.
If consolidation is the motivating factor behind this, the council could have handled things a lot better, but that’s probably symptomatic of local government’s approach to having to deal with actual people who live in the real world.
If at least the scouts and community centre could work together to consolidate just one site and ensure that it’s open to wider use, that should be reason enough to let ground rent remain at a peppercorn rate.
Perhaps now is the time to blame the Tory Government.Its easy to blame the local council but when you see just how much money the town has had wiped off its budget you can understand why the council are looking for every penny.The Gazette has reported again today that people will again be losing their jobs.
Blackpool’s grant from Government has been cut by 6.3 per cent this year to £81m, a reduction of £5.4m.
It follows on from last year’s cuts of £27m which saw 750 jobs lost including around 350 compulsory redundancies.
Most Tory voters on the Gazette justify these job loses stating that there isnt the money to employ these people. There was under a labour Government, the scout hike in rent didnt come about until the Tory Government slashed the budget to this town massively last year.
Perhaps its time to put the same analogy to this rent hike as to the lose of jobs.
Phil you argue on a regular basis for the cuts, welcome to the real world because not only are the scouts losing so are neighbourhood services,and people with learning difficulties these people are also affected by the cuts.
I believe you stated that I do not understand simple economics well perhaps you should reconsider your version of simple economics the fact is there simply isnt enough money to subsidize the scouts (Im taking the Tory line here).We are all in this together!!
Questions:
NHS OR SCOUTS?
Jobs OR SCOUTS
LEARNING DIFFICULTY FUNDING OR SCOUTS
Why should this council prioritize the scouts? Simple economics Phil there isnt the money for the scouts no Labour plan to wipe out scouting just plain old simple economics. Im sure with your knowledge of simple economics we will now not hear another word about this issue.
Cuts to the budget have to filter down the line God I sound like a TORY.
Thank you David Camercon,now lets go build that military acadamy in Afghan for the taliban to control in future years.
I already knew the budget was £81m, as Simon told us that in his council meeting report about 3 weeks ago.
I do argue for cuts, particularly in the public sector, because Labour made it far too big, filled it with far too many staff on far too much money. It did this to buy votes and create an artificial boom. This is the underlying reason for all of it; it’s not Tories, because they are fixing the economy, it’s Labour.
You clearly cannot see that in hammering voluntary groups for (relatively insignificant sums of) extra cash, the council will cost itself more than it could potentially recoup in having to increase its childrens’ services provision.
You seem obsessed with the victim culture and seeing everything as black and white, when life isn’t like that. It’s not about NHS or scouts, or any of the other things, it’s about scouts or no scouts.
As someone who pretends to be a BNP supporter, I would have thought you would stand up for Britishness and traditional, 100-year-old groups like the scouts, and defend them from extinction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16847074
The difference between asane council that works with others and a shite one like Blackpool.
Important word – “plan” !
indeed Phil,just waht has happened to the snow dome???????
wha tplans does this council have besides the tatbotgateway?
As I have stated I am apposed to the hike however and this is the point you keep missing I also oppose many other cuts which are going to have a much more profound impact on peoples lives.As I stated earlier about the Layton surestart in the scheme of things this closure was not a disaster. The hike to the rent isnt a disaster an inconvinience yes.Longer waiting lists for the NHS could lead to people losing their lives the cuts to the public sector you argue for could resullt in people losing their homes so in the scheme of things this isnt as draconian as it is made to sound.
Could the scouts cut back on trips and holidays?Could they do more fund raisers? of course they can and guess what nobody loses their life or home.Simple economics something else you argue I do not understand.
It really sounds like you want your cake and to eat it. You defended the cuts, this is a direct result of those cuts,something had to give and unfortunatly many other grouops are affected just like the scouts.
Phil just to clarify a point which has been tested at the highest court in the land the now supreme court of justice the council DOES NOT have to increase its childrens service provision unless it chooses to do so.
As for victim culture is this something you are using to generate support for this cause?
Yes I do consider people who are losing their jobs,patients who are having to suffer through longer waiting lists I also feel for the scouts.I started this off to show you the importance of keeping waiting lists down in the NHS which YOU infered was acceptable.The point I keep making is which is more important to you people losing their lives or the scouts? What about people losing their jobs? just where in the scheme of things do these two groups of people fit into this debate above or below the scouts. Just for once perhaps you could clarify this and answer a question I wont hold my breath as you havent answerwed the questions so far but kept on about the poor scouts and tradition.
As for the Tory party fixing the economy their cuts are directly responsible for the hike in rent,high unemployment and low growth. Live with it you defend them, have a word with Maynard and see what he does
The government are only having to cut because of Labour and Gordon Brown’s banker cronies, like Fred Goodwin who Labour gave a knighthood to for casino banking.
Scouts being hit with rent hikes is not a direct result of the cuts, its a direct result of Blackpool Labour’s prioritisation. All councils have had cuts, but not all councils are scraping the voluntary sector barrel and hitting worthwhile groups with large charges, potentially forcing them to close.
Bizarrely, as you will have read in the Gasjet, the council forks out almost £400k to the voluntary sector (none of it to scouts etc though). Why didn’t they cut that instead, rather than targeting one particular voluntary group?
My argument isnt that the rent increase for scouts is unfair, it’s that the rent increase could result in the scout group having to put up its charges or cutting the activities they do and could result in them closing down. This would then cost the council more than the rent hike, because there would be a few hundred extra kids with nothing to do (remember this was the reason they spent £5m on Southpoint).
Not sure what you mean about the council not having to increase its childrens’ services provision, but if I understand correctly you’re saying that if the scouts all closed tomorrow, the council would not have to increase its spending to provide for these kids. Now think of childrens’ services as “the NHS” and children with nothing to do as “people on a waiting list”. Surely you would be urging the council to increase its spending in order to reduce that waiting list!
It’s most unfortunate that people have to lose jobs as part of austerity packages, but that is the great big BUST that Labour have given us, like Labour governments always do. The government was propping up the lives of millions using borrowed money, it’s totally unsustaintable.
It is you who wants your cake and wants to scoff it as well, you want no job cuts, no service cuts, and you think the government can borrow its way out of a recession. You can’t fix a broken system with the thing that broke it.
Heres one for you. Totally off topic but there you go.
Say there were two NHSs that were the same, with the same staff, same resources, etc. Do you believe that through change in management policy it is possible for one of these NHSs to outperform the other in terms of reducing waiting lists and improving patient care?
Not sure what you mean about the council not having to increase its childrens’ services provision, but if I understand correctly you’re saying that if the scouts all closed tomorrow, the council would not have to increase its spending to provide for these kids. Now think of childrens’ services as “the NHS” and children with nothing to do as “people on a waiting list”. Surely you would be urging the council to increase its spending in order to reduce that waiting list!
Legally the council are under NO obligation to supply childrens services if they do not feel they are required I do have the original case citation from a previous course but the judgment stated that the council do not have an endless stream of funds and that it has the power to spend its funding as it sees fit. Not the exact wording but you get the idea.
I am with you on many of your points Phil I dont want to see the scouts being forced into oblivion I just feel that perhaps you to should be arguing for shorter waiting times at the hospital an equally worthwhile course. My point was and still is how can you justify arguing that longer waiting times are acceptable which could cost someone their life and then be so passionate about saving a scout troop, and by the way there are MANY other scout troops still in Blackpool so if this troop does close there are still others and the movement will still go on.
It’s most unfortunate that people have to lose jobs as part of austerity packages, but that is the great big BUST that Labour have given us, like Labour governments always do
Thats not true is it. The last constvative government came to power with the UK the consevative government inherited a trade surplus of £246m. Inflation was down to single figures and unemployment was falling too, productivity was rising (even in the nationalised industries). North sea oil revenues were starting to transform the balance of payments. Britain’s standard of living rose by 6.4 per cent to reach its highest ever level. The mixed economy model didn’t fail.
Course it’s true, a couple of years before Thatcher, Labour had gone cap in hand to the IMF.
Once they did a deal with the IMF, things got better through good fortune with respect to new money from oil more than anything else.
SORRY for sounding like a TORY but simple economics means cuts to the budget have to filter down the line as an expert on economics Phil Im sure you can appreciate that.
Cardy as far as i was aware the council does not fund the NHS so any comparison between supporting youth groups or cutting waiting lists is irrelevant
Jimmy this debate came about because Phil justified NHS waiting times and argued they were not a bad thing. The relevance to this debate is if its ok to justify longer waiting lists then why should any group be protected hence the question I keep asking about what is more important longer waiting lists or scouts having to fund their own groups? This started when Phil quite mistakenly stated front line nurses were not losing their jobs when notice has been served already on some front line nurses. This then brought about Phil justifying longer waitinglists for NHS patients.I am appossed to the hike in rent but I wouldnt try to justify one of these two issues over the other however if push came to shove I would choose shorter waiting times for patients.
“Say there were two NHSs that were the same, with the same staff, same resources, etc. Do you believe that through change in management policy it is possible for one of these NHSs to outperform the other in terms of reducing waiting lists and improving patient care?”
This is Phil taking the Tory line, sadly waiting times are growing and nurses are losing their jobs.The notion that management can suddenly change their policies and save millions is a fallacy similar to the police cutting red tape it isnt happening and we now have the lowest number of officers on the streets for a decade.
If Phil had said we take on more doctors and nurses then yes waiting times would fall I believe certain bodies should be protected by this Government and sadly they arent.
Answer the question cardy
The government has announced a £1.5bn bailout for NHS trusts suffering serious financial problems.
Seven hospital trusts have been identified as the most likely to need extra cash to relieve major financial pressures.
Taxpayers could end up bailing out NHS hospitals identified by watchdog the National Audit Office as having “financial issues”.
A report released on Thursday reveals 20 hospital trusts have financial issues so severe that they are not “financially or clinically viable in their current form” and out of 113 trusts vying to become foundation hospitals, 80 per cent are facing “severe” financial issues.
Hospitals need an estimated £376m in loans to avoid financial catastrophe.
The news raises questions over whether the government will meet its target for all NHS trusts to become foundation hospitals by 2014.
I believe I did answer the question and here is the answer to your question.
Now where is the money coming from for this bailout PHIL we dont have it or do we?
All this proves is that labour were right too much too soon.
So I as again the NHS or the scouts? After all the local budget is set by the Tory Government and priorities need to be established. Just like the sure start these scouts can move to another troop. If one pack closes that isnt the end of the whole movement
Not relevant. Many trusts fucked themselves up the arse by entering PFI agreements they could not afford.
Money is being borrowed to bail them out, what else can the government do?
PFI agreements were encouraged by Labour – it was all a big part of the Boom and Bust credit culture that Labour created. Just pay for everything on the never never. Great. Your party, your kids’ debt.
That said, it’s not wholly any government’s fault that all these hospitals that are fucking up and can’t manage their finances. Governments set policy, they don’t run individual hospitals.
Maybe scout groups could merge, trouble is, Norbreck scouts have been hit with a massive hike as well, and so have a pack in south shore. Wont be any left if Labour get their way!
Out of interest, £374m is about 2 days interest on the massive deficit that Labour created.