Are the Lib Dems broken.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

Tubgirl gonna tub

[Loz]

thomastillingthe3rd Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you think that your seeming grasp of sentence

> structure leads people to believe that you are

> endowed with some kind of intelligence, then you

> are sadly mistaken? It just shows your potential

> to be a narrow minded snob of sorts, are you from

> the village ward?

>

> To talk about how the president swept into town

> and discussed the marvel of 16%, at a time when

> the vast majority of the country are seething

> about Nick Clegg, and disgusted with the moral

> u-turns the liberals have taken to gain some

> power, is frankly, utterly delusional.

>

>

Well, your sentence structure may have improved (did mummy help you?) and you have lost the silly text-speak, but unfortunately your reading needs work. I didn't talk about "how the president swept into town and discussed the marvel of 16%".

[thomastillingthe3rd]

no loz you did not , well done.

If you want to discuss the burning embers of liberal morals then wonderful, if not then try to at least carve a witticism that works. Now put the gin down dear and get yourself to bed, if you have come home alone again don't vent here.

[Marmora Man]

To talk about how the president swept into town and discussed the marvel of 16%, at a time when the vast majority of the country are seething about Nick Clegg, and disgusted with the moral u-turns the liberals have taken to gain some power, is frankly, utterly delusional.

I think you confuse your small group of like minded friends for the "vast majority"

[James Barber]

TTT3,

Which Liberal morals do you think we've burnt?

Just a smidgen of context but the Lib Dems have 70% of our promises in the coalition agreement - the tories 60% of theri promises in the coalition agreement.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

I think you confuse your small group of like minded friends for the "vast majority" ??? Er look at the bottom of the BBC news clip where it says 500,000. If your then going to say the 'vast' majority relates to the fact that the Conservatives won the election then again that's nonsense. You may have noticed the utter silence that greeted Theresa May at the police federation speech the other day, not sure they all voted labour, are you ?

Hi Jeremy, thanks for the response and for keeping the discussion going, hands up i did say that , so i am going away to have a think why I said it and what I think I mean.

[Marmora Man]

TT3

"vast majority of the country" - your logic remains flawed. Even if you are speaking for that 500,000, which I doubt, that figure represents less 1% of the entire country, albeit a slightly larger majority of the voting population.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

Err not flawed, the majority of the country pretty much thinks that the way cuts are being handled, the depth and speed, are wrong. The March represents a fraction of those who feel the same. Its the same way that complaints to your MP work, they can roughly work out from the number of objections what depth of feeling there is, you know like 70,000 wrote complaining about the BSKYB proposed take over, the government of the day have gone of to chew it over, how does the negative backlash stack up against giving Murdoch what he wants. So not sure its wrong, maybe all your friends think shutting childrens libraries and sure start centres is ok?

lets say that the ED library was under threat, can you imagine?

No doubt you would be outside dressed up as a book; you would probably even lob a little smoke bomb if I handed you one! Blue or Yellow your choice.

[Loz]

"Vast majority" is over-egging it somewhat. Let's do something weird and instead of grabbing wild, unrelated figures off YouTube videos, we'll introduce some actual survey results. The latest YouGov from last week says:

Thinking about the way the government is cutting spending to reduce the government's deficit: Good or bad for the economy?

Good: 38%

Bad: 47%

Don't Know: 15%

Being done fairly or unfairly?

Fair: 30

Unfair: 58

Don't Know: 12

Necessary or Unnecessary?

Necessary: 59%

Unnecessary: 31%

Don't Know: 10%

Too deep, too shallow or at about the right level?

Too deep: 47%

Too shallow: 7%

About Right: 31%

Don't Know: 15%

Being done too quickly, too slowly, or at about the right pace?

Too Quickly: 53%

Too Slowly: 7%

About Right: 30%

Don't know: 10%

And who do you think is most to blame for the current spending cuts?

Coalition: 26%

Labour: 41%

Both: 23%

Neither: 6%

Don't Know: 5%

So... no 'vast majority' there. In essence, yes, a small majority think they are too deep, too fast and unfair. Bizarrely, people think the cuts are necessary, but somehow also bad for the economy (one wonders what they think are needed for, then). But it's all Labour's fault, anyway.

People are strange.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

sheesh did I say vast, what i meant to say was...

" The first point to make is that Labour's criticisms of the cuts have largely struck home. In terms of whether they are fair, a solid majority now perceive the cuts as unfair....This includes 25% of Conservative supporters and over half (53%) of remaining Liberal Democrat voters.....50% of British people also think the cuts are too deep, compared to only 27% who think they are about right " YouGov (source)..........back at you!

So not grabbing wild figures of youtube, just showing BBC news clip where half a million people went on the March for Alternative......note use of word Alternative. It shows the largest mass protest since the anti-iraq war demo in 2003 and the largest trade union organised rally since the end of the 2nd world war. At the time of the anti-iraq war demo

opinion was somewhat divided.....but as below polls show it now seems a 'large' majority disagree.

YouGov poll - March 20 Start of war

53% For

39% Against

8% Dont know

YouGov poll - June 5-7 2007

30% For

55% Against

15% Dont Know

All I am saying is that you can not really overlook a March of this size. And as the ED hero Vince 'vinny' Cable or Uncle Vin 'the hat' stated recently, relating to the depth of the cuts.

" you aint seen nothin yet " (Source TTilling - OverEgg.Gov)

And if the 'dam' Gordon constructed around interest rate rises is finally breached by the tory right, just watch ED mobilise and swell those marching numbers!

[James Barber]

Alastair Darling said he was going to introduce 20% cuts and increase VAT.

The coalition have introduced 19% cuts.

I presume the reference to children;s libraris and surestart were aimed at me? Bit hard to tell.

No Lib Dem run council has cut libraries or sure starts. Local govt still have sufficient money to keep them IF they choose.

Our own Labour run Southwark Council is choosing to stash away an extra ?9M every year for the next 3 years into reservs and contingency funds. Therefore needing to make much more cuts than actually required. This is a Labour trend across the country.

[Townleygreen]

Thank God TT3 seems to have calmed down a tad.

He was getting very tedious.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

And so are you watercolors TG !

[thomastillingthe3rd]

James you are very very naughty... you know the lib dems only run 4.64% of councils around the country, remember you

just lost 747 councillors. So not sure how many libraries you could close anyway? Such a politician?s answer from you I am shocked.

As for children?s sure start and libraries, not sure that was aimed at you? But know you have reminded me , can I remind you that before the con/dem cuts began, it was your Liberal run council that shut the Children?s Museum on the Old Kent Road.

Remember voting on that? along with the walking undead with eyebrows X council leader Nick Stanton. Funny ?.Nick must have started the cuts early, before the conservatives stole his thunder. As an aside, forget about limiting it to a gym upgrade and a foyer make over, your X Liberal run council managed to find the funds to build a whole new wing for the East Dulwich gym at the same time, very nice.

Oh well rob from the poor and give to the....?? Maybe that was the moral question I was chewing over the other day.

And don?t get naughty again by talking about different funding pots!

[DJKillaQueen]

So tell us James why southwark lib dems are opposing Southwark Labour's proposals that cut councillors allowances by ?100k?

And 9 million is just 2.8 per cent is of the total annual budget for Southwark......and it seems sensible to have some contingency money to me (after all it is not money that is disappearing into some black hole never to be seen again)...but seeing as you seem to think it's such a big deal I'll ask my labour councilliors for the reasoning behind it.

Whereas 100 million spent on a call centre that only handles around 20% of calls to the council and it services was never a waste of public money was it James? ;)

[James Barber]

Hi TTT3,

Livesey Children's Museum - sadly we did need at that time to save ?168k of revenue costs. Labour's manifesto pledge last year was that they would reopen it....

Due to the appalling run 2001 census that 'lost' many ten of thousands of residents Southwark Council for some time hasn't received the correct grant for its actual population. So since 2008/09 yearly savings have had to be made. Virtually all of those savings have been from closing multiple council offices and concentrating back office functions in one place on Tooley Street. This saved ?35M of revenue savings AFTER paying Tooley Street rent of 35M pa. It also avoided significant capital to bring a multitude of council offices up to a half decent standard.

Another painful cut we had to make was the the criteria for social care. We were one of the last to do this.

Disappiontingly Labour have just run another disastrous census this year.

As for Lib Dems only running 4. whatever it was of councils. We still have thousands of Lib Dem councillors. And where those councillors run councils they are keeping all libraries and sure starts open. Looknig at the finances for Southwark we would do the same here.

Hi DJKilla Queen,

As for reserves and contingencies. Southwark already has the London average reserves. Over the next 3 years Labout Southwark will add ?27M to them. when the Laboue leader and the cross party delegation went to see the relevant minister Grant Shapps HE SAID you have decent reserves so you don't need more money. Next time he'll be able to say we're giving you too much money because you've increased your reserves andcontingencies.

Weridly this increasisng of reserves has only be occuring in Labour held councils across the country. A cynic might suggest they've been told to do it from Labour HQ.

?100k from councillor allowances. Speical Responsibility Allowances did go up in line with the Standards Committe recommendations and accoridng to external London Council guidance. Those increases were across the board for all councillors with extra responsibility both in and outside the administration. Labour has cut allowances but almost universally from scrutiny posts mostly held by opposition councillors while ring fencing expensive Cabinet posts which in fact has seen a 1% increase in allowances. So the Lib Dems are quite clear cuts needed to be made but not almost exclusively on councillors leading the scurtiny of a the administration - ironically you need better and more scrutiny at a time of greater economy and cuts.

The sad departure of Cllr John Friary was also a great chance to reduce allowances. Instead its being used as a fig leaf to introduce 8 new deputy cabinet postseach with a close to ?3K SRA. We now have the situation of 27/35 labour councillors with SRA's, 8 of them non jobs.

[thomastillingthe3rd]

Hi JB

The thing is back at the same time I am sure I could have said "looking at the finances I could have kept it open". The message it sent shutting it down was appalling, especially in relation to that particular area. Cuts to the Arts, need to be resisted for many reasons.

?Livesey Children's Museum - sadly we did need at that time to save ?168k of revenue costs?

To me, and know I know its 168k it kind of makes it worse.

From a residents perspective, you would have to ask how much did the council spend on that bloody fence running across goose green, to put in and then to remove ? What ever potsthis stuff comes out of it looked really bad.

Surely you could have put the same amount of effort raising funds for the Livesey, turning it into a wonderful space, as has been done on the ED gym/pool project. It can not all be about shoring up votes. You were never going to lose ED, no way. Why could your party not have been more altruistic their approach? that?s the kind of politics I want to see; striking a balance between professional politics and politics for the community as a whole.

That in a way is the problem with what Nick Clegg has done, he has gone to far one way and not managed to strike a balance. I fear there is no way back for him.

I am certainly not saying that Labour gets it right all the time either. Cuts to the scrutiny of the administration seems more than fishy indeed, obviously its political manouvering. But this is the cycle that at some point some one has to be big enough, take the risk, to stop. Otherwise we will always be destined for more of the same. FTP , AV , PR or pin the tail on the donkey.

[DJKillaQueen]

Well the Lib Dems wasted 100 million on a call centre.....so there ya go.

Where is your evidence that labour have run a disastrous census James? They did a lot of work to get the message out beforehand to residents of the importance of the census and to liase with community leaders to reinforce that message. Their follow up on households that have not completed a census form has also been intense, with census staff every few days visiting addresses until a census form is returned. I think it can be said that they are doing everything humanly possible to maximise the number of forms returned.

[James Barber]

Hi TTT3,

The fence across Goose Green was a. Capital funding not revenue funding and b. Was allocated by the 9 Camberwell Community Council Labour Councillors from the devolve Cleaner, Greener, Safer capital budget.

The Dulwich Leisure centre rebuild/renovation - which made as part of a borough wide promise to save and modernise all Southwark leisure centres - was a 2006 manifesto pledge at a time when East Dulwich had had Labour Councillors to eons. So standing for may first time and going into that election it certainly didn't feel a sure thing.

Nb I'm against sure thing elections and safe seats it leads to complacency a d taking residents for granted which hopefully ill never succumb to.

Hi DJKilla queen,

?100m! How on earth on earth do you make that figure?

The call centre is designed to leave most officers concentrating on their work. It generally work ok and I don't get any casework complaining about it.

More people knocking on doors at different times would have helped with the census. More work via faith groupd

[DJKillaQueen]

It was generaly well publicised that the cost of the call centre incuding consultancy fees amounts to 100 million James....many councillors have verified that in person. Crikey I wonder if you know whats going on half the time. And said call centre only handles around 20% of call traffic anyway.

Would you like me to explore the diabilcal system of repairs that the Lib Dems created next?

Re: the census...workers HAVE been calling at various times. Again you don't seem to know what's going on.

[StraferJack]

even by the standards of this place, you are being astonishingly rude here DJKQ. If politics of any hue is broken, it's in no small part thanks to people lobbing numbers around and then going "na na you don't know what you are doing"

Tell us about the time you were a local councilor and how much better you were at it...

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It was generaly well publicised that the cost of

> the call centre incuding consultancy fees amounts

> to 100 million James....many councillors have

> verified that in person. Crikey I wonder if you

> know whats going on half the time. And said call

> centre only handles around 20% of call traffic

> anyway.

That may be the cost of the call centre, but

1) Over what period?

2) What savings were made (if any) by opening this call centre?

Just looking at the cost of something doesn't always show the whole picture.

[the-e-dealer]

Just watch the % vote as it drops through the floor.

[DJKillaQueen]

Just the kind of response I'd expect from someone feeling the need to change their username eh Strafer??? I don't need to be a councillor to expose misinformation by those already serving as councillors, many of whom by the way are not full time as councillors - and I have sepnt plenty of time in the company of councillors over the years to know exactly what their job involves and how difficult it can be at times.

James takes every opportunity he can to dig at the opposition....fine if they are genuinely at fault but not if all it amounts to is a kind of something out of nothing, that his misleadingly comments on the recent Census have been.

James has be left found wanting many times in what he says and claims by not just me but many other better informed posters. Part of being a councillor means having to deal with scrutiny...so defending his right to be rubbish by saying could you do better, is no defense.

The Lib Dem council did many things badly when they were in control. The debacle of Housing Repairs and contracts management is perhaps one of the worst areas, where contracters were being paid for work they hadn't done or twice in some cases....something the recent all party review is now set to deal with. So I find many of the criticisms James makes a bit rich tbh.

Regarding the call centre. ?100 million was the set up cost in 2004. The ongoing costs per year are 13.4 million (and included in that are the running of the three one stop shops). The council publishes it's accounts and budgets annually and anyone can view them including James :)

Oh and edited to add that the call centre takes around 2.4 million calls per annum...so what is the cost of taking a call then?

[StraferJack]

James does indeed indulge in cheap point-scoring

But being found wanting is a human trait - something we are all susceptible to. But of all the local councillors, here he is opening himself up every day. I take my hat off to him for that at least (even if I didn't vote for him, or his party)

As for the call centre, there isn't a wealth of info readily available online so if you could do the honours..

And I wonder if it's possible could your run me by the numbers as to what it would cost to provide a broadly similar service without the call-centre?

lastly I didn't "change" my name. Not that it's relevant to this debate. Not that that has ever stopped you