Press release: Conservatives enhance centres for community with membership scheme

At the Council Meeting on Thursday (1 October), the Conservative Group voted to confirm the decision already taken by the Conservative Executive to introduce a Key Card membership scheme for users of Community Centre services at a cost of just £8 a year, reduced to £4 for those entitled to concessionary benefits.

The enhanced scheme will give members continued access to services such as lunches, hairdressing, special events and priority bookings for outings, all at subsidised costs. Bathability and Chiropody services will still be open to all. 

Consultation has been carried out between the Council and centre managers, users and ‘friends of groups’ who agree with the principles behind the membership scheme.  Contrary to incorrect information released by the Liberal Democrats, the membership fee will not apply to volunteers or carers who give their time to help at the centres, unless they choose to access the services when they are not in a volunteering or caring role.

Leader of the Executive, Councillor John Kingsbury said: “I believe this Centre Key Card scheme, which will be incorporated immediately into the existing Key Card scheme in support of promoting and developing the Council’s health and well-being agenda, represents excellent value-for-money.

“It will give Day Centre Members the opportunity to enjoy a range of other Council venues and services as well as access to discounts with around 30 retail partners.

“In these challenging economic times, our aim must be to use Council funds to provide sustainable services that we can justify to all council tax taxpayers.  A similar Community Centre membership scheme operates across almost all Surrey Boroughs.”

It is intended to introduce the new Community Centre Key Card on 1 January, 2010.

The blog of Olly Wells

I did promise that I wouldn’t be blogging on individual Lib Dems unless they blogged on individual Conservatives or executive decisions in a new spirit of shared common purpose. So imagine my delight when Olly Wells mentioned my name in his latest offering on the parking charges in Woking.

Despite my lack of imagination, I felt the best thing to do was to leave a comment for him underneath. So now I’ve exhausted my mind for this afternoon, I’m off to lie down.

Update 26/9: To his credit, Olly Wells allowed my comment to stand and replied to it but I’m not even slightly convinced. For those who don’t wish to read  it on his website, here it is in full:

Thank you for your comments. To answer your questions I am in favour of reducing parking prices and charging hours to ensure parking in Woking is competitively priced to ensure as many people as possible are able to visit Woking. This will be good for local businesses. I favour reducing the number of cars on the road by increasing the amount of public transport available, making it easier for local people to come to Woking town centre. I would spend the profit from parking (reduced by reduced charging) on improved sustainable public transport. I do not accept that the council’s present flawed financial model is the best or only model available. I believe that this model can be changed to improve revenue and reduce costs. Your next likely comment might be to ask me to tell you how. For this I suggest you vote Liberal Democrat at the next local election, after reading our literature of course. The Liberal Democrats propose real change and real change will not come from simply looking to make small changes within the current boundaries such as reducing staffing levels or increasing council tax. The boundaries need to be changed, this will require our imagination and innovation.

So Cllr Wells is in favour of reducing the car parking charges and times that are charged for. Result – more cars in the car parks and on the roads and good news for business. He’s also in favour of reducing the number of cars on the road through better public transport. Result – fewer people using the car parks and impaired revenue from them. Alongside this, his idea is to spend the “profit” from the car parks on the public transport and that Woking Borough Council should run this transport system (or at least fund it). Result – a great big hole in the budget.

So we have more cars in the car parks and fewer. We have income to boost public transport generated by users that we are trying to drive away. And we have the council’s accounts being meaninglessly broken down so we can state for political purposes than one section makes a “profit“. What about all the other sections of the council that make a “loss”? How does he think that corporate management and member services are paid for?

Cllr Wells avoided answering my question about how you re-organise the council’s accounts to make this work. Instead he told me to read Lib Dem literature (sorry, I’m reading the new Dan Brown book at the moment, at least that’s partially based on fact and it’s a good deal more interesting) and vote Lib Dem in 2010 to find out.

If the Lib Dems have a plan to revolutionise Woking Borough Council, why didn’t they deploy it in 2006/7 when they were in control, instead of ducking the difficult decisions that had to be made by the Conservatives in 2007/8 and are still ongoing? Isn’t this the party that criticises DC for not stating his policies? And I’m supposed to believe that if I vote Lib Dem next year, they’ve got a cunning plan that will allow endless investment in services that are supposed to be provided at other tiers of government?

The only other option is borrowing. And that’s a subject that I’ll be returning to before long.

In the meantime, Cllr Wells may think I’m stunted in this area but I recognise the difference between imagination and fantasy. I’ve also asked enough questions of politicians in my time to know a question dodge when I see one.

The Mar-jury is still out…

Last night, Conservatives gave a second chance to the Marjorie Richardson Centre by funding it another £10,000 and accepting the excellent business plan that the centre had put together. Mary Painter, a Horseller and Lib Dem activist was very instrumental in that and she deserves praise for the document she helped produce.

Unfortunately, the decision hasn’t stopped sanctimonious sour grapes from Cllr Denzil Coulson, who is trying to claim credit for the Lib Dems for”saving” the centre. Rubbish.

“It is most unfair that community services such as the Marjorie Richardson
Centre have to pay the price for Tory financial mismanagement of the Council to
“plug the £1 million + hole” in council finances.”

he says. That would be the financial black hole that first emerged under the Lib Dems in 2006 /7, then, wouldn’t it? And the one that has been excerbated not by mismanagement but by a lack of funding from government and the effects of the recession?

“Residents and community organisations have already started paying
the price of Tory cuts being applied to fill their financial hole in the council
accounts.”

he continues. Wrong – the finances will be balanced in 2010/11 without recourse to any cuts in front-line services. The community organisations are not services run by the council and don’t receive continuous funding from WBC in most cases. Rejected applications happen every single year and the organisations should be quite capable of finding funds elsewhere – these are not cuts, they are simply a decision not to give a discretionary contribution.

To paint them as cuts is a typical distortion of the truth from the Lib Dems. Although the Lib Dem ranks contain people who are financial professionals, they are clearly choosing to ignore the basic business facts behind the MRC issue.

1) The centre was spending more on management costs than it was earning in sales
2) The centre was relying on Woking Borough Council solely to plug that gap
3) There was no proper business plan in place
4) The number of users is small and declining

Mary Painter and others have produced a good business plan seeking to address all the points above. I have given her credit for that – maybe the LDs would be gracious enough to give the Conservative Executive credit for keeping faith in the centre against the odds listed above.

No? I thought not.

An unholy row

Further to my previous post, the executive has made its decision – to refuse the URC, to pass St Mary’s over to county councillor Geoff Marlow for consideration out of his Surrey members’ allowance and to give St Paul’s, Maybury, £30,000.

The executive members I think have made a sensible decision – the URC bid was just nonsense and the St Mary’s one, while worthy, is something the church should be doing anyway and has had 10 years to plan for. St Paul’s is a truly good scheme with great community benefit and probably deserved £50,000.

But some of the scenes in the chamber were a bit unsavoury. The Lib Dems tutting about grants refused and people getting tribal about churches in “their” ward – or even their churches. There is no place in the council chamber for this kind of contemptuous attitude or religious persuasion.

My own feeling is that the council should put a stop to all applications from churches as part of the community grants scheme. All the churches are wealthy enough to be able to fund their own business and the agrandisement of their own facilities.

If we are to consider exceptional schemes that clearly have an overwhelming and valuable community benefit, they should be brought forward separately – with no obligation for them to get to council – as part of delivering the council’s community strategy.

We shouldn’t be in the business of subsidising church efforts to secure future generations of worshippers. That isn’t what the council tax should be used for.

Update 4/4/09: I find myself in agreement with Cllr Denzil Coulson. Just fancy that!

Marjorie Richardson dilemma

The News and Mail leads this week with a “fears are growing for the…” story on the Marjorie Richardson centre, which has understandably caused alarm. There is a paper on this going to the executive on September 3 that asks members to consider whether to re-instate funding to the centre on the basis of its current grant, £15,285 rather than the £20,000 it wanted.

There are, it has to be said, a couple of things that the story omitted, which is understandable because the newspaper needs to focus on the people rather than the background.

At Horsell Village Hall, we don’t rely on the council for funding, although it’s nice when it comes along. We have to do our own fundraising, balance our lettings books and seek grant funding from elsewhere. There is nothing preventing the centre from doing the same thing, so by turning down funding, the council is not “closing” the centre, it is merely saying that it cannot provide the funds it has done in the past.

The centre has now submitted a business plan – and not before time. Any operating model that relied so heavily on one source of income (WBC) is clearly in need of review. The plan shows that the centre is making £20k a year on sales as well as a £15k WBC grant but is spending more than £25k on management! This I would suggest, not WBC’s meanness, is the real problem – it’s a pity no-one at the News and Mail bothered to look it up.

In addition, the story tells us that 45-55 people each day use the centre – which is slightly at odds with the 433 a week in the grant application. However, if we multiply 50 by 5 and then 52 to get a rough yearly figure, it’s around 13,000. This seems to imply that with 15,500 visits for the year in 2007/8 (not people using the centre as the newspaper implies), we have roughly the same 50 people using the centre each day with a few extra here and there.

£20k, or for that matter £15k, is quite a bit of money to spend on – let’s be generous – 150-odd active individuals out of 92,000 residents in Woking. No-one likes to see the axe fall anywhere and taking funding away from community groups is not what Conservatism is about. But if you think that Horsell Village Hall received £3,500 for its 2,000 individual users, it does seem to introduce some perspective here.

My understanding is that the Marjorie Richardson Centre could be given time to make the new arrangements – ie a proper rather than pie-in-the-sky business plan – work. But users and staff blaming the council for the state it’s in, aiding by some unquestioning journalism, doesn’t paint it in the most favourable light.

The Thoughts of Chairman Wells (part 1)

If you are ever unfortunate enough to entertain Lib Dems to tea, make sure you bake two cakes – one for them to have and one to eat. Having moaned for ages that Woking parking charges were too high, they are now moaning that the action the Conservatives have taken to reduce charges at commercially sensitive times are inadequate.

His latest blog, imaginatively entitled Parking Charges seem to go up and up under the Tories, offers nothing new in the way of ideas about how to address this issue. Yes, charges have gone up. Yes, the council needs to increase its revenue to cover increasing costs.

“I wonder if in Woking parking charges should be linked to cost of providing
parking services and public transport and that the money raised should not be
spent on other things. In Woking this would probably mean a threat to
services that are paid for by the profit from parking.”

He muses. Profit from parking? Can Cllr Wells please explain what this profit is – the parking service is not run as an independently operating financial unit but as part of Woking Borough Council, which doesn’t make a “profit”.

“The money raised should not be spent on other things”- yes, he’d like that, wouldn’t he? Then the nasty old Tories would have no money to provide any other services, which he would then be able to crow about when they got cut. The Conservatives will not cut front-line services in Woking.

“What about restricting any additional income from rises in parking charges to be
ring fenced to only be spent on improvements in parking facilities and better
public transport.”

This gets funnier. Is Cllr Wells seriously saying that Woking should hand over part of its income to Surrey County Council for it to make improvements to public transport in other parts of the county? Are the Lib Dems saying that they would do that? And the parking facilities have only just undergone a multi-million pound capital overhaul. Where is he going to spend this ring-fenced revenue to any effect?

Car parking income is dropping because the recession means that fewer people are using their cars and they are not buying so many goods. The increased cost can never be a good thing – but it is not the primary factor for most people staying away. Woking Borough Council’s experience in the past is that dropping the charges has no effect on takeup.

Cllr Wells’s pie-in-the-sky nonsense shows a total lack of understanding about local government finance, the respective responsibilities of tiered authorities, not to mention a great deal of naivety about how to bring about increased revenues, a vibrant town centre and transport improvements.

God help us if this is the level of the Lib Dem thinking we can expect if they take control next year. But mark my words – if they do, car parking charges will increase in the same way that they have this year.

When the Lib Dems were last in charge, parking charges in Woking went up twice in the same year.

Laura and Order

It’s a pleasure to be able to report some good journalism at the BBC because it doesn’t happen very often these day. Laura Kuenssberg may lack Nick Robinson’s trademark glasses and gleaming pate but it hasn’t stopped her vastly outplaying him while he’s sunning himself abroad.

For a blog that is usually highly timid about criticising the government in any meaningful way, her story about the total shambles that is the MoD procurement report - and government attempts to not publish it – have been clear, candid and questioning in a way that the insider Robinson is not.

The details of the story itself are shocking but we should not be shocked. This kind of flaccid, complacent and obscene disregard for value is rife across all government departments (go and read Private Eye), where government appears to be run for the benefit of private sector contractors rather than the British taxpayer.

Ironically, few of the private contractors would survive with fiscal control as disastrous as the government’s. In this way, money from the UK government either goes to foreign contractors (notably within the EU) and leaves the country or to British contractors, only to be taken back through taxation.

As a nation, we need to break this cycle and start considering how we can bring in more money into the country than we hand out. We are a long, long way from that situation at the moment because we have not much to give the world.

But using what we have more effectively will help – hopefully Laura’s exposure of this dreadful, sickening wastefulness will help bring about an adequately rigorous approach to spending our scant resources.