Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Marmora Man wrote

Cuts to lollipop ladies and mobile libraries (tho' personally I'd cut fixed libraries and keep the mobiles) don't affect people's incomes.


They do affect the income of the people providing those services, who will now be either unemployed or on reduced hours/pay.

Hi sheppdog,

Have a look at the council budgets and supplemental agendas. It is absolutely clear Labour have chosen ten of millions of avoidable cuts and the Finance Director who has a legal duty to only sign of workable budgets has agreed also with the Lib Dem and Tory alternatives that this CHOICE isn't necessary.


I really never thought I'd see the day Labour locally would produce a more right wing budget that local tories.

Hi Manda,

Several speechs about needing more reserves just in case future cuts happen after the three year central government settlement.

When the cross party delegation went to talk to Minister Grant Shapps the high level of unallocated and allocated reserves was brought up by the minister and the cross party delegation were told to use some of their reserves.

I guess the national Labour logic is that they believe excessive cuts have been made. They've said they think this will lead to a double dip recession. That if that did happen the central government might decide it needs to make further cuts.

A lot of other Labour councils have also cut in similar way to Southwark so perhaps they're getting central Labour advice about a double dip recession?

Sorry Manda I can't be more specific it was a very heated meeting. Really frustrating I caught the mayors eye was never called to speak.

sunbob Wrote:

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

> Marmora Man wrote

> Cuts to lollipop ladies and mobile libraries (tho'

> personally I'd cut fixed libraries and keep the

> mobiles) don't affect people's incomes.

>

> They do affect the income of the people providing

> those services, who will now be either unemployed

> or on reduced hours/pay.


Of course you're right, but Southwark Council is not a charity. It is not the role of local government to overspend it's budget in order to keep people in employment.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...