Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error
5 Pages«<345
THE BIG CONVERSATION
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
redimanager
#93 Posted : 05 August 2008 16:12:50(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,025
Further comment from Eddie Gibb, Head of Marketing and Communications

As we've said, leaflets were already printed and distributed. The content in libraries was in ringbinders and individual sheets were easily changed

regards
Redimanager
Back to top
dopeyf
#94 Posted : 05 August 2008 16:43:33(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
Thank you Mr Gibb, could I have answer to the first part of the question please, about why the difference was not explained in Redbridge Life?
Back to top
dopeyf
#95 Posted : 12 August 2008 19:28:39(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
Can we now know the quantity of returns for

The online version

the uncorrected paper versions

the corrected paper versions

the Schools version (as these are to be kept separate)
Back to top
annesevant
#96 Posted : 13 August 2008 09:30:44(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
dopeyf wrote:
Can we now know the quantity of returns for

The online version

the uncorrected paper versions

the corrected paper versions

the Schools version (as these are to be kept separate)


Do we think that the members of the CPCP panel would already have this information?
Perhaps one of the helpful, internet-savvy, councillors on the CPCP could tell us?
Please!:d
Another question: who is moderating sorting out the paper results, because I think this is going to be a horrendous task?:(
annesevant
Back to top
redimanager
#98 Posted : 13 August 2008 10:06:05(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,025
Dear all,
We are not publishing these details at the moment. However, we do have a timetable for the next steps of the Conversation published on here: Redbridge Conversation timetable.

We have also published headline results and findings from the online version of you You Choose on the Conversation site.

Regards
Redimanager
Back to top
dopeyf
#100 Posted : 13 August 2008 11:03:35(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
WHY NOT?

If you can publish the findings so far then you can publish the quantities, you cannot publish the %'s
without knowing the base number.Therefore, once again, please tell us the quantities.
Or is it that you are not going to bother to seperate the altered and unaltered paper versions, and despite assurances from Cabinet Members you are not going to separate the Schools returns?
Back to top
cllrbond
#103 Posted : 13 August 2008 12:00:01(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
I understand we have at least 3,200 on-line replies and at least 1,900 leaflets returned
Back to top
annesevant
#99 Posted : 13 August 2008 12:04:32(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
redimanager wrote:
Dear all,
We are not publishing these details at the moment. However, we do have a timetable for the next steps of the Conversation published on here: Redbridge Conversation timetable.

We have also published headline results and findings from the online version of you You Choose on the Conversation site.

Regards
Redimanager

Dear Redimanager, this reply is very weak indeed. Whoever is making decisions is picking and choosing what suits them to tell us. Not transparent at all.
At least we won't accuse anybody of fibbing!
annesevant
Back to top
Edward Oliver
#104 Posted : 13 August 2008 14:27:37(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 31/08/2007(UTC)
Posts: 75
From the headline results, can I assume that 62% of on-line respondents are NOT in favour of allotment sales? That would be a massive majority by local or general election standards.
Back to top
dopeyf
#101 Posted : 19 August 2008 22:35:03(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
dopeyf wrote:
WHY NOT?

If you can publish the findings so far then you can publish the quantities, you cannot publish the %'s
without knowing the base number.Therefore, once again, please tell us the quantities.
Or is it that you are not going to bother to seperate the altered and unaltered paper versions, and despite assurances from Cabinet Members you are not going to separate the Schools returns?


And I am still awaiting answer

Who owns the local authority? It should be the public. It should be their descriptions of their localities. We should be able to say to them, “this belongs to you, and you don’t need to go to another website to make us do something”.’
Roger Hampson, Chief Executive
Back to top
dopeyf
#92 Posted : 19 August 2008 22:43:25(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
dopeyf wrote:
I wait with interest a reply from Marketing and Communications as to why the missing £70 million was not explained in the current Redbridge Life, are Councillors and Council Officers so ashamed of their errors
firstly in the error itself and secondly for allowing it to go out to the public, that they could not face the opprobrium of admitting the error publicly. And then continuing the error with unaltered copies being distributed at meetings in the Town Hall itself, If Libraries could change them why not the Town Hall?


And I am still waiting for an explanation why the errors on the paper version were not in Redbridge Life


"Questions posed on the forums are sent to the relevant Councillors and Chief Officers so that they know what has been raised by forum users. Often the questions are answered by forum users before Councillors or Officers get an opportunity to respond. This sharing of community knowledge is one of the main objects of Redbridge i. In other cases, web managers provide links to other parts of Redbridge i where the information is available. But I agree that we need to make sure that responses from the Council, particularly officers, are more rapid and detailed.

As chief executive I receive regular and frequent synopses of the forums, as well as detailed technical reports about the operation of the whole site. Most of all, I read the forums on a daily basis, and take careful note of what people are saying. There are now over 10,500 registered users of the site; in an average week there are 30,000 visitors. This is a dramatic change in local democracy and in the management of public services. It will inevitably take the organisation real time to come to terms with its implications, and change behaviours to match.

Roger Hampson

Chief Executive"
Back to top
dopeyf
#97 Posted : 04 September 2008 21:02:25(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
dopeyf wrote:
Can we now know the quantity of returns for

The online version

the uncorrected paper versions

the corrected paper versions

the Schools version (as these are to be kept separate)


At the risk of having yet another post rejected for repeating this question I am still awaiting an answer

I will remind you of the Chief Executive's answer to me

"The web team do pick up on posts on the forum where questions have been posed to the council and they have chased up Officers for answers. We usually have success in getting answers from Officers and we post these accordingly.

Depending on the nature of the case, Officers will reply to all requests for information from the Redbridge Conversation, that can legally be replied to.

Roger Hampson - Chief Executive"
Back to top
dopeyf
#106 Posted : 08 October 2008 02:10:20(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
What was the final cost of "The Conversation" - from whichever budgets it was taken as well as the cpcp budget of £52000 to £58000 I cant remember which.
Back to top
annesevant
#107 Posted : 08 October 2008 13:41:13(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
Dopeyf, according to some high ranking officer, the conversation is still on: at the allotment forum on 14th October 2008, we will be advised to use the big conversation, if we want to discuss disposal of allotments.
Allotment forum: do not mention the proposed disposals.
Cabinet: go to the Allotment forum.
CPCP: ? complete and utter silence.
Help!
annesevant
Back to top
dopeyf
#108 Posted : 18 November 2008 01:08:53(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
well at last we know the final cost of "You Choose" thanks to the good offices of the Freedom of Information officer

£64,000 plus £17,000 for the YouGov analysis, although some of this £17,000 was for advice as to how future consultations should be conducted.

So it cost in excess of £70,000 against a budget of £50,000, but worse, is that this question was asked at the cpcp meeting of 13th October, and but for the FoI enquiry, may never have been answered.
An astute Finance Director would have anticipated this obvious question (he was present at the cpcp meeting, but could not (or would not) answer, although this was a separate budget and easily identified , however he is not alone in avoiding the question, Cllor Chan at the last Cabinet Meeting also abrogated his responsibility by saying it was subject to an FoI enquiry.

This sort of information should have been available at the cpcp meeting not subject to a Freedom of Information enquiry.This is all part of the conspiracy of secrecy that continues to prevail.

"Open Governnment" - only when it suits the councils purpose.

Budgetary control is very good in controlling the biscuits, but apparently non existent when it comes to the thousands - at least 40% over budget, and the blame for this can only be laid at the door of officers.
And all this money for a consultation which was flawed from the outset, whether the decision to release the paper version, although it was known several days before is was due to be distributed in Redbridge Life that there was a £70 million error was a Political or Officer decision, I dont suppose we will ever know, secrecy will prevail.Everybody passing the buck, there never seems to be a Town Hall desk for the responsibility to end up on.
Back to top
cllrbond
#109 Posted : 18 November 2008 11:55:43(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
Certainly this information should have been made available at the Panel meeting - but I am surprised that the cost of the consultation exercise is of any significant continuing concern? As a direct consequence of involving the public through the Converation, some of the worst (and indeed probably futile) aspects of the Cabinet's previous approach have been defeated. A whole swathe of local allotments and car parks have - sensibly and very hopefully (because we have yet to see the Cabinet's proposed budget) - been given a reprieve, and the suggestion that funding for capital investment be raised from higher service charges including parking charges has also been rejected. That's a pretty good outcome from a relatively modest investment!

Whereas, during the eighteen months prior to the Consultation a significant amount of Council and officer time and work will have been spent developing and trying to push through the original land sale proposals - including the entire series of "Land Sales Advisory Committee" meetings - most of which expenditure is now wasted. And had the Council continued to try and progress the various allotment and car park sales through the necessary formal and statutory processes this would undoubtedly have incurred a lot more expense. Similarly the Cabinet has already paid £1.3 million to consultants to develop the proposals for the 50m swimming pool development - money paid long before they had any idea how this could be afforded (and indeed in my view this still remains unclear).

Against this background I'd say the Conversation expenditure represents money well spent!
Back to top
annesevant
#110 Posted : 18 November 2008 12:25:16(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
Do we know this advice about future consultations?
This, because we were told that the Big Conversation was so highly praised by the professionals whilst us, ordinary folks, were moaning like mad!
annesevant
Back to top
jawal1
#111 Posted : 13 February 2009 09:49:24(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 22/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 32
The BIG CONVERSATION contained slanted questions. Voters were asked to tick a box against a large number but the consequences were not explained. The only way to obtain £100 million for land is to sell it to a developer. What if voters had been asked to vote to have 10,000 new homes built on Borough's green spaces?
Back to top
eileenmutanhu1
#113 Posted : 16 March 2009 09:25:47(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 16/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 2


We need the green land and the allotments to decarbonize the borough. What makes LB of redbridge is those patches of green land. I understand the need for more homes but when you use green land to build houses we should consider parking areas, schools to accommodate children from the young families and retirement homes for the elderly. There are BIG ISSUES to be considered in the BIG CONVERSATION. There is a need to use discretion and consider the long-term benefits because climate change and the associated risks are not rhetoric but real.

Eileen
Back to top
BryanDicker
#114 Posted : 16 March 2009 19:00:41(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 16/09/2007(UTC)
Posts: 874
eileenmutanhu1 wrote:


We need the green land and the allotments to decarbonize the borough. What makes LB of redbridge is those patches of green land. I understand the need for more homes but when you use green land to build houses we should consider parking areas, schools to accommodate children from the young families and retirement homes for the elderly. There are BIG ISSUES to be considered in the BIG CONVERSATION. There is a need to use discretion and consider the long-term benefits because climate change and the associated risks are not rhetoric but real.

Eileen


I completely agree with you. However, when I became involved in the fight to save the allotments in September 07, we were told that the arguments have given (plus noise pollution etc) and legislation did not matter. Apparently Ken Livingstone and the Government were the sole people to blame. Fortunately the Big Con versation arose, and despite its many flaws (for example the quantity was supposed to represent the voice of the "silent majority", the many errors on both hard copy and e version, lack of information detailing the pro's and cons of flogging off the "jewels" etc etc), the results worked in the favour of the allotments. However, already the Big Con versation has caused problems!!
Back to top
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages«<345
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET

All areas