The Cuts Debate: Cllr Graham Longley’s View
Last Thursday, the Council’s meeting was dominated by the recent cuts from central Government, which left Southend Borough Council with £1.4 million less funding than planned at the start of the financial year. Here, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group Cllr Graham Longley gives Councilbust.com his view of what might be this year’s most important Council debate.
Cllr Holdcroft may say that we are left with no choice when it comes to cuts of £1.4 million required by the Coalition Government but how and where those cuts or reductions come are within the council’s decision.
Yes, the government is firm in directing local Councils towards certain budget items but there is still room for maneuver as the Council found last week when discussing the proposals put forward by Cllr Holdcroft and his portfolio holders at Thursday’s Council meeting.
Working with officers during the day of the Council meeting and Conservative portfolio holders, I managed to persuade them to reduce budgets from areas better placed to take the cuts, and with that money to re-instate a youth project worker £11,750, provide some additional financial resources (£8,000) for two detached youth workers, re-instate some of the budget (£50,000) for the Youth Opportunities Fund which had been removed completely and, finally, keep the free swimming available (£45,000) until the end of the school holidays.
Clearly there is room for changes and different approaches, small though they maybe, to where the cuts come but unlike the Coalition government where the parties are working together for the benefit of the country, in Southend the Conservatives are still failing to work with other parties. These small changes will be important to the young members of the community but we should not forget they are our future and we cut budgets where they are concerned, particularly in the current climate, at out peril.
The Tories are prepared to invite others in after they have decided what they want to do and in effect defy other parties to challenge them but as was displayed last week, Liberal Democrats are prepared to offer suggestions and make alternative proposals for overcoming the current financial problems. However Liberal Democrats want to be part of the process not offered a few scraps once the Tories have set the main course.
It is far more difficult to persuade people – officers and politicians – to change their decisions and offer alternatives after they have set their minds than it is to do before. We are happy to play a full part in the process and we are pleased that we have been able to help some of the younger members of our society where help is needed no matter how small the changes are. We look forward to playing a greater role as time goes by and invite Cllr Holdcroft to invite us in at the beginning of any process with an open mind and a clean sheet to work with as the two parties are doing nationally.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by RCharman, Councilbust. Councilbust said: The Cuts Debate: Cllr Graham Longley’s View http://bit.ly/9aPeYq [...]
Might I re-iterate David Cameron’s views on NON-JOBS as a starting point for cuts???? (something I am not often prone to doing) “Area Locality co-ordinator”. That’s a job title apparently and there are 3 posts called this. Work out what it is and your prize is the sum of the extra allowances the Tory group have voted for.
I hope Cllr Longley has persueded the cuts to be made in the field of SURVEYS and CONSULTANTS. Where exactly has he purloined this money from??? (incidently, Shiny new Youth Centres do not function terribly well if un-staffed-bit of a no-brainer that one!!!)
If Cllr Longley believes there is still room for manoeuvre, how about making a £10,000 saving on axing the extra executive councillor that the conservatives wanted? That would be a good start. All the money wasted in this town over the last decade and beyond has been with a Conservative council ,for example as a tax payer I don’t appreciate £74,000 being spent on signs to tell me that works to upgrade the area/roads are being undertaken. I have perfectly good eyes -that money could have been spent in a much more worthwhile way like on youth activities.
The cost of £74000 is reletively small. The roadsigns are not for joe publics benefit as such, but to show business and potential investment in the area following better road links.
The cost ’should’ be minute compared to the potential extra business and efficiency of existing business due to the improved road network.
well I’m sure that’ potential’ business is important but if it is a higher priority than ‘real’ childrens’ services we’re in a sorry state. joe public still pays .