|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,025
|
Join the Redbridge Conversation and help decide on how to make Redbridge a better place. We need your help to make these important decisions about improving public services and how they could be paid for. Tell us what's important to you with the interactive You Choose tool . Regards Redimanager :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 18/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1
|
Is it possible to know the priority area which have been indetified?
And which are the area of Redbridge has been idetified for conversation?
Sam
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
Like Sameert, I have still no idea what the Big Conversation is about. Although I have appreciated every minute of the many CPCP meetings, at no point were we allowed to ask the questions that Sameert is asking. I doubt if anybody (bar the Chief Executive, Roger Hampson) has a clear idea of what the exercise is all about.
However, just now, on BBC1, Kate Hoey, the recently appointed sport advisor to the new Mayor of London, was expressing dismay at the fact that swimming pools are being closed down in inner and outer boroughs.
Redbridge needs cash, lots of it, now, to replace the Ilford baths which are on their last flippers. Will the Mayor of London, provide that cash? Quickly?
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 27/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 42
|
Well, I clicked on the above link and almost lost the will to live!
It's far too complicated to bother with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
|
Rainbow Eyes wrote:Well, I clicked on the above link and almost lost the will to live!
It's far too complicated to bother with.
That's probably what they want - poor response and then impose decisions on us to flog off assets to pay for their pet schemes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
I was watching, completely bemused, when council officials were explaining that it would be like doing catalogue shopping! What do I want?, people would say and happily make their choices.
The council officials completely put out of their mind the fact that once they had spent our assets, we would be broke. This, despite many strong, eloquent, intelligent comments made by visiting councillors and members of the public. What outcomes was expected out of this Big Conversation? What type of impertinent question is that? They genuinely think that the system they devised is so clever that even children will be keen to register their interest.
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
|
Anne - if, having had a good look at the site, you think it's too complicated, then people need to let us know. We have worked hard on the Panel - as you know - to try and make sure the Conversation does include some real choices, and not just present the programme the Cabinet (or anyone else) first thought of.
For example, the on-line options now include the chance for the full Leisure project, a scaled-down project, or none at all. Similarly people have the chance to support or reject the Ilford Town Centre 'regeneration' project, as well as the priority of investments into Libraries, Highways, street lights and CCTV, etc. Similarly on the 'funding' side there's a choice of options including land sales (large and small), raising money from tax, higher charges, etc.
Whilst I agree there aren't any "easy" options (which is a key reason why we're doing the exercise in the first place), I think it's possible to 'balance the books' in a number of significantly different ways. The idea of the on-line tool is to get an idea how a variety of our residents might do the job. I hope it's worth people spending a little time working through, but if you disagree any feedback at this early stage would be very welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 20/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 3
|
Sirs
I received the "Big Conversation" letter in my pigeonhole at work and logged in. I cannot fathom who would make funding into a cross between a shopping catalogue and a machiavellian bingo where you win prizes for deciding to increase charges for the elderly or underfund schools or people with disabilities. The whole idea is morally bankrupt. These are important decisions which we elect councillors to make - or is this being done so that they can wash their hands when things go wrong and blame the electorate? The whole idea is divisive and works against 'social cohesion'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
Good news for some because, as quite a few contributors to the forums, after trying to get information from the web-site of the Big Conversation, going forward and backward, hitting the wrong 'back' button and starting all again, I, too, have lost the will to live. (Not even the hope of winning a Nintendo or an apple i pod will tempt me to go through the process!)
Now, since I am not quite dead yet, can I say that I hope the Nintendo and i-pods were gifted as commercial advertising and not purchased!
Is it ok to give incentives (directed to a narrow band of the population) to fill in such an important survey?
Was this discussed at a CPCP public meeting?
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 20/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 1
|
The You Choose site is a sickening and divisive idea. Working with young people in Redbridge with special needs, it made me feel uncomfortable and angry to see their needs pitted against other candidates, in the context of a game. It certainly is no game for the parents who have to care for them, or for their teachers, faced with dwindling resources. It is appalling that even gifts are to be won for people who take part. How much money, I wonder, was wasted on consultants, website designers and PR people, to put together an idea that shows a horrendous lack of respect for community, human values and unity. Redbridge has lost the plot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
The only positive comment I can make on that topic is that all the councillors on the CPCP worked late at the many meetings of the CPCP and they asked relevant questions on behalf of the residents. We could not have asked for better representatives. This work they did was entirely voluntary: the Conversation being a new concept, is not part of the normal range of duties expected from a councillor.
To these councillors, a big thank you.
To the Big Conversation idea,...
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 20/02/2007(UTC)
Posts: 100
|
So, i finally found 5 minutes to go and complete a "you choose" and i'll give my 5 pence worth:
Its an interesting bit of kit really. Regardless of the reasons why this exercise has started, to me, it clearly shows "here's what we need" and "here's how to pay for it" - now make your own minds up.
Now, im not naïve enough to think that its all fun and games - and that everyone will have the same opinion of what is important to them. Reading through the forums we have seen people discuss the benefits and gripes and so on about allotment use, special needs provisions, swimming pools etc. No matter what happens from this, somebody will end up annoyed with the result - pleasing everyone is impossible i think!
My personal opinion is that the concept behind the you choose is good - even if some of the options themselves are surrounded in controversy.
I would like to see the you choose available as a consultation tool throughout the year - an ongoing opinion poll that can be changed depending on what resources/options/questions/whatever are needed at the time.
A 24/7 way to guage what people want is surely a good thing?
I dont have a lot of free time to go to meetings/consultations etc and it would be a lot easier to say what i think by clicking a few buttons online in my lunch break!
As for what i chose - i'll keep that to myself thanks as i like my head where it is 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
Either Gecko is a genius or he is having a laugh!:)
I have previously exchanged friendly PMs with Gecko and I don't want to offend him but he cannot possibly have given any options any thought.
I think his own admission of such speed will be a strong argument against the validity of this Big Conversation.
Multiple choice exam papers with no wrong answers. The level of education solved instantly! Everybody passes with flying colours. And, if you are lucky, you are awarded a distinction decided by a lottery.
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 20/02/2007(UTC)
Posts: 100
|
annesevant wrote:Either Gecko is a genius or he is having a laugh!:)
I have previously exchanged friendly PMs with Gecko and I don't want to offend him but he cannot possibly have given any options any thought.
I think his own admission of such speed will be a strong argument against the validity of this Big Conversation.
Multiple choice exam papers with no wrong answers. The level of education solved instantly! Everybody passes with flying colours. And, if you are lucky, you are awarded a distinction decided by a lottery.
annesevant
To be fair that raised a wry smile so thanks for that anne! :) It wasn't a literal 5 minutes hehehe - i did take some time to read about the options before even starting the you choose and felt that i was informed as i could ever be, maybe my response was just too casual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
|
Don't worry - obviously we'd like people to think about the issues when completing the questionnaire, but it's also valid to collect more impulsive views from people who don't have the time, or the interest. There are plenty of decisions in life where ideally people would spend ages working out the right thing to do, but real life isn't like that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 14/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 975
|
I don't know what to make of the statement by Cllr Bond that any answer is acceptable whether a judgement was made or not.
Could it be that only the number of responses will be of any interest and they never intended to do an analysis, which considering the complexity of the questionnaire, would be very difficult to interpret anyway?
Or is Cllr Bond testing us and our intelligence?
annesevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
|
No, we will be analysing the responses - I understand we can also analyse the amount of time each respondent spends on the site, if we wanted to - my point was simply that all responses are useful ; people shouldn't feel obliged to spend hours labouring over it if they don't want to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Joined: 04/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 4
|
Re the Redbridge Conversation and “You Choose” I believe the Council have not given enough information to “Choose”
I thought that this consultation was to be about special capital budget not the general maintenance budget (that should be in the normal yearly council budget that has been agreed).
Are our roads in such a state that we need to find £44.28 million in one hit? I think not!
How does this figure compare with the annual road maintenance budget along with the discretionary Area Committee funding?
The School Improvements budget of £81m includes £8.2m as maintenance is this not included in the Councils annual budget? Is not the “School Improvement” and “School Places” budgets duplicating with one talking of “The Council has a legal duty to provide sufficient number of school places to meet local demand and the School Improvement budget stating “The Council has a legal duty to ensure that accommodation in each community school is adequate for the number of children in the school. This is usually described as sufficiency”. Is this duplication included in the finances?
With regard to the Capital Budget items did the Council have a problem funding the last two schools they had built recently? Was there not a large Government grant to do so? Have not the Council got a proven case to access Government grant for the number of school places that are predicted?
Leisure well there appears to be two options here one for £25m and one for £38m. The larger option includes the Olympic size swimming pool, if built will it ever be really needed as the Olympic site down the road at Stratford will still be the preferred Olympic size pool in the east London area. So it will become a white elephant expensive to run with low supporting income. If any of these developments goes ahead I hope that a realistic charge is made so that the burden does not fall on the non user council tax payer.
Is it in the Councils remit to become a property developer even if the homes are so called affordable? Surely this is the remit of the commercial sector. The Council should up their game and negotiate for increased affordable housing on each development!
Regeneration budget, is it appears mostly targeted on Ilford Town centre but surely Ilford missed the bus a long time a go to compete with the likes of Romford? Ilford will be second best no matter what is now planned for regeneration. So I must ask the question is it worth having a regeneration budget at all?
Community Safety, it appears that £10.4m of the £11m is aimed on replacement of street lighting and includes maintenance element for 5 years. Is this really a community safety issue? Or really an infrastructure issue? That should be addressed via the yearly council budget.
Library Modernisation appears to be about improving the attractiveness of the library not about improving the functionality so is it worth £5m ?
We now get to the Funding choices:-
Sale of Land, most of this land is Green Belt, Metropolitan open space and/or designated to be of Nature Conservation Importance. So it is protected from development under current designations! However this Council is willing to speculate by selling the land to potential developers who hope that the protection can be removed.
Allotments, a lot has been said about allotments hence the “Conversation” allotment holders care strongly about their sites. It is interesting that we now have all 23 allotment sites on the Councils hit list. One thing that has not been considered is that as part of the Redbridge’s Biodiversity Strategy includes allotments as a habitat type, still if this Council considers its Land holdings to only be ripe for picking what chance have any allotments got in the long term.
Parking income £40m, as an environmentalist anything that restricts the over use of the private car can’t be a bad thing. Don’t forget this is a yearly income
Council Tax Increase £33m yearly, this is the fairest way to raise revenue so that the burden falls across all council tax payers.
Sale of car parks £18.2m, if we want a car free zone in areas of Redbridge this and Parking income are the way to go. Though local trade will suffer and it may make a mockery of the so called Regeneration.
Sale of property £14.65m, this has the least impact on the people of Redbridge.
Council Services Saving £10m, here there is the risk that essential services will be cut.
Efficiency Savings £10m, should be possible without affecting essential services.
Charges £5.5m, as long as the elderly are exempt from this I see no reason why charges should not be increased
I would urge anyone undertaking this “You Choose” to take note of the above and set a minimal asset sale rejecting the sale of land and allotments outright.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2008(UTC)
Posts: 34
|
Shouldn't efficiency savings be "de facto" ?
It should not even be a choice. The council should be £10m more efficient (and thats probably an underestimate). Unbelievable.
EnviroChris makes some good points, but I think he is wrong in his basic assumption and taking the council word that this is the way to go ahead. A conversation where all the questions ("choices") and answers are supplied is not a conversation, it is a gimmick. Most of the things that are described as choices are part of the council's remit. What kind of management wakes up one morning and realises it has £ milions to spend on capital inprovements, with no money to back them up ?
When were those land valuations made by the way ? If it was even 6 months ago, I seriously doubt that they would be worth that much nowadays.
As for participating to this masquerade, it would simply mean that one agrees with the concept itself. I refuse to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 06/06/2008(UTC)
Posts: 34
|
Sorry, it is £1m efficiency that they "could" make.
It says that they have done £15m "efficiency" savings over the last 3 years. By their own calculation, it should be £150m capital expenditure available then...or have they been spent already ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
