Council get something right!! - Page 7

Acrylic-bob · 07-03-2005, 12:36

And why are they so Fixated on such bland and meaningless works? As far as I am aware Chris Beard, the designer, has never carried a project through to completion yet. And yet they seem to regard him as the only person to deal with. It makes no sense.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 15:59

Now its getting into the realms of I dont know. It also touches on another major issue. The reponsibilities of quangos. It has been adn still is vogue to have these non political bodies. The thinking being politicians make a balls of things. The reality is quangos make a bigger balls. As churchill once said Democracy may be crap but theres no better alternative. The biggest quango builder was Nigel Rix who then IMHO [better put that in for legal reasons, he has threatened to use me once before] who then didn't have to answer to no-one and could do as he liked. East Lancs Partnership are not an organisation I or we the Council ever see.

I have never met anyone from there and they are housed in the Globe Centre with a lot of staff. The Councils troubles are never ending and ELP seems to be 'fogotten about' as far as scrutiny. Anyhow the ruling Tories set the Scrutiny programme so its up to them to pull these organiastions in. I cant understand why ELP have not been pulled in before. Well I can. Conservative = useless in Hyndburn.

The Panopticons decison in before cabinet [April meeting] and the Tory chair of scutiny can decide within the next 6 days whether to scruitize the process. Typical corrupt Hyndburn politics. Only the ruling Conservatives are allowed to decide what Conservative decisions can be scrutinized. Its all bent if you ask me. Your not allowed to ask thorny questions. The press dont bother turning up these days either.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 16:01

another typo should read..

better put that in for legal reasons, he has threatened to SUE me once before]

park381 · 07-03-2005, 16:16

Graham, why did the panopticon project go before full council, was it not a planning matter? and as such gone before the planning committee, or do I read between the lines on that one.PB not trusting the committee, to come up with the right answer.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 17:06

The Panopticons is a Cabinet decision but Britcliffe knew he might be able to pull a double political scoop. Or treble.

He forced the issue on the agenda for 'open debate' and intended to request a show of hands 'to gage the feeling for cabinet' he said. When has ever asked Labour councillors what they thought other than for his own political gain?

He summed up the debate and and said No No No and asked for show of hands. We decided not to vote on the issue because there was no proper debate, just an anti panopticon lynch mob. Some of our members came late to Council and unaware voted how they felt and several others decided to commit themselves to yes. 17 Tories voted against [2 abstained one was Tony Dobson] and 12 Labour voted for, 1 against [Malcolm Pritchard] 2 abstained [Me & Pam Barton].

It was a win win for Britcliffe. If the show of hands went against him he had his cabinet excuse ready made, whilst playing the popular card of No No No and looking strong. But not of course when you have to rely on passing the decision making buck as he did.

His 2nd win of course was to draw a party political divide. Labour wastes money, Tories don't. Bit rich coming from 'Mr HBC Debt' himself.

Thirdly he anticipated Labours budget that night would get big press headlines so he altered the Council agenda moving the Panopticons from last item to first, before the budget. Now whats more important I ask?

What that boiled down to is Labour was going to highlight that Area Councils cost £150 per person per person who attends and that we would scrap them and have 24 wardens instead. Britcliffe is frighttened stiff about this idea but knows he is on a sticky wicket. Last week leaders column talked up how good Area Councils are as part of his defence.

So he cleverly let the press feed early on the Panopticons issues, blowing out the press coverage on the budget, or Labours alternate budget proposals and leaving no time to talk about them at the end of a busy meeting.

Press print Panopticon story front page, Councils finances are ignored, the opposition is effectively silenced and bingo - how many Joe public know what the alternative budget is when they come to voting next time.

What they do know is that big bad nasty Labour Party wants to waste [if he successfully makes that connection he will stop saying it is external monies] monies putting silly artwork on rural land and thats a vote winner. Sadly the Panopticons should be low on HBC priorities but hey, thats good politics if thats your thing.

Britcliffe moves Joe public around the board with clever simplicity. You have to admire how he can cover up more and more bad decisions. And to be honest, the trouble with the current Hyndburn Labour Party is it is to plain honest. [Though I wouldn't wish that to change - just the public to be more informed]

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 17:13

It will go to planning if one is submitted, but the cabinet may turn the scheme down in April first. Britcliffe has made his bed and as a political monster I would be surprised if he changed tack. However because of external funding a lot of officers think it is a stupid decision so I suspect the advice from within 'dont look a gift horse in the mouth'. Thats where a change of decision will come now if one occurs.

park381 · 07-03-2005, 17:21

Quote:

What that boiled down to is Labour was going to highlight that Area Councils cost £150 per person per person who attends and that we would scrap them and have 24 wardens instead. Britcliffe is frighttened stiff about this idea but knows he is on a sticky wicket. Last week leaders column talked up how good Area Councils are as part of his defence.

Would that be in Cllr's expenses, or in payment to HBC employees attending the meetings. cause from the one's I have attended, there seems to be a few HBC employees present.

Acrylic-bob · 07-03-2005, 17:24

I knew that HBC was a shambolic mess and I often characterise Britcliffe as a bumbling fool who can barely sting a coherent sentence together. but I had no idea that the situation was as out of control as you seem to suggest. It seems clear to me that the public should be made more aware of the situation. Would the Observer be likley to print some of your observations via their letters page or do you think that you would be censored or censured?

park381 · 07-03-2005, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham Jones

It will go to planning if one is submitted, but the cabinet may turn the scheme down in April first. Britcliffe has made his bed and as a political monster I would be surprised if he changed tack. However because of external funding a lot of officers think it is a stupid decision so I suspect the advice from within 'dont look a gift horse in the mouth'. Thats where a change of decision will come now if one occurs.

So what you are saying here is that if there was a planning application for the Panopticon, it would be a fairly safe bet that the "Officers" of HBC would advise a yes because of the external funding, then it would be up to the Planning Committee to say ya or na, irrespective of public opinion?

Acrylic-bob · 07-03-2005, 17:31

Probably more to the point, what can board members do to help improve the situation?

park381 · 07-03-2005, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Probably more to the point, what can board members do to help improve the situation?

a-b, I think we need to think seriously about that

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 17:39

No the Area Councils figure is the total budget of £145,000 staffing £180,000 grants [though last year they were cut so many times it ended up at about £45,000 in total - about half the £180k though is controlled by the cabinet - another Britcliffism] divided by the number of people who turn up. It comes to about £7,000 per meeting, or if you consider just the admin £3,500 thereabouts. There are 27-30 Area Councils in total a year. Average attendance in about 20-30. Its about 7% of our Council Tax.

Wardens are after all costs £19,000 each so thats 16 wardens. What the Labour Party was trying to say was there is a credible alternative on the table. Britcliffe hates this for another reason. His total election strategy revolves around blaming the government for EVERYTHING [ie hiding HBC affairs and playing to the anti Blair swing voters]. This includes Wardens, in his strategy is the icing on the cake of central government pulling funding. And he cant afford to lose that argument or else his whole blame game strategy collapses like a house of cards.

The government gave a fixed amount for a fixed period with the intention that the Council will take over the wardens. Which is what we are proposing. The Panopticons arrived at just the right time to once again move the people of Hyndburn round the board cleverly so they are facing the wrong way at an important time.

Acrylic-bob · 07-03-2005, 17:39

You said it brother!

Tealeaf · 07-03-2005, 17:42

I'm not fully following your argument, Terry. My understanding - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that the Panopticons are the brainchild of MPAA and that they would provide the initial capital funding. Further silver would come the NWDA although as to what purpose was never clearly identified.

Like most good people of Accy/Hyndburn, one look at the proposed designs is all that was needed to convince one that this was not only a colossal waste of money but a desecration of that lovely landscape, namely the coppice.

Irrespective of Britcliffes' posterings, are you telling us that you abstained on the vote on this? Could you tell us why? Councillors are elected - irrespective of their party - to make decisions on our behalf. We are not interested in empire building or grand titles, but simple and effective decision making. If you can't do it, then I suggest you don't stand next time round.

Graham Jones · 07-03-2005, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

So what you are saying here is that if there was a planning application for the Panopticon, it would be a fairly safe bet that the "Officers" of HBC would advise a yes because of the external funding, then it would be up to the Planning Committee to say ya or na, irrespective of public opinion?

Planning lawe is very strict and non flexible.[because an appeal in court can be costly to HBC]. Its about ticking boxes. Health and Safety, access, use, character. very few decisions fall in the grey area and if so, they go to the Planning Committee.

This would go the planning committee but not based on personal views, but strict planning law and regualtions criteria.