Shabby, Sham Consultation Quiz Launched

Posted on by

So, here we go again. A virtually leaderless Council trying to convince residents that their ideas are important rather than admit they have no ideas themselves!

The Council’s press statement released this morning states: “Residents are to be asked what they would like Stoke-on-Trent City Council to prioritise its spending on for the next financial year, on the back of stiff government cuts. The authority, which has a budget of £209 million, needs to save approximately £30 million next year ““ a 14 per cent reduction. The consultation which starts today and continues until 20th August will include:

â— Face-to-face surveys carried out in local centres, shopping centres, markets, libraries, museums and bus stations
â— An on-line survey via stoke.gov.uk/letstalk
â— Billboard advertising to inform people about the consultation
â— A dedicated phone line ““ 01782 235104 ““ where people can give their views in person.
It appears all very democratic and proof that we have a “listening” council. But wait a minute, just look at what people will be asked to “say what is important to them”:

â— Encouraging more jobs and businesses
â— Reducing anti-social behaviour and fear of crime
â— Looking after the environment and tackling climate change
â— Improving health and well-being
â— Repairing and maintaining roads and pavements
â— Keeping streets clean
â— Improving educational achievement
â— Supporting and protecting vulnerable adults and children
â— Increasing recycling
â— Providing sport and leisure facilities
â— Providing decent and affordable housing

This is the same list used six months ago. It was heavilly criticised then and the criticisms remain. Who would say no to any of the 11 areas? And, from the Councillor who has always maintained that redundancies and cut backs would not adversely affect front line services finally admits the truth:

“Councillor Kieran Clarke, cabinet member for finance, performance and governance, said: ‘Residents views are always important to us, but are even more so given the cuts that need to be made. Saving £30 million is a very hard task and will simply mean that we will not be able to deliver some of the services that we have been doing.

‘The government’s emergency budget made it clear that we will not be allowed to raise council tax next year to help pay for services, so it is crucial to know what services are important to residents to help identify where the savings must be made.

‘I urge as many residents as possible to respond to the consultation. By getting a good range of views from across the city, we will be able to take their views into account when setting the budget.’

Cllr Clarke should be ashamed of himself for uttering such platitudinous rubbish. Why doesn’t he, along with his Cabinet colleagues and his near-invisible Council Leader, set out a policy framework clearly showing potential, if not already decided actual, service CUTS? They don’t because they lack the capacity and backbone to provide political leadership.

This is a shabby, sham exercise. How can anyone sensibly respond to such questions without the answers to scores of questions each of those areas raise? If I say yes to jobs, will that necessarily mean no to swimming pools? What has rasiing educational standards got to do with money? Do I know that the government expects the Council to recycle more not less so that is not an area for cuts? Who doesn’t want clean streets? What is the cost of improving health and well being?

I hope Cllr Clarke is flooded with questions demanding to know the cost of each of these areas and how the Cabinet propose to provide them more efficiently and effectively without cutting any of them. People may also like to know how responses to the questions will remotely affect the outcome of next year’s budget.

Have Your Say

  • http://markbrereton.co.uk markbrereton

    I firstly think that if S-O-T Council are asking for advice and ideas from the public, then they should pay a fee into a pot, and treat it as if they are hiring a consultant. This will then show that the council do respect what the local population have to say and that the local comments are just as important, if not more important as expensive consultants. The money in the pot could then be used for social enterprises working across the city.

  • Designation WWCW

    An article in the Sentinel asking “How S-o-T can save money – (answers on a postcard please )would probably be more useful.
    Or suggestions boxes in the Local offices.
    But there again – they don’t really want ideas from the common people do they ?

  • Leaf Trombone

    Peter

    I agree entirely.

    Alex

  • Kenneth

    If Councillor Clarke were to examine the Council’s budget predictions, he would realise that there is absolutely no need for the Council to save £30,000,000. I wouldn’t say that the Council had been exactly prudent, but by no means has it been as wanton as the Government at squandering other people’s money.
    I have previously stated many ways in which the Council could quickly eliminate any fiscal anxieties, including, for example, abolishing the “Local Strategic Partnership” for which the City Council bears 92% of the costs.
    It is also a fact that the Council has actually returned a surplus this year, has added to the reserve fund, and has also laid aside a considerable sum to allow for the non-existant pay rise for the employees over the next three years.
    There is no doubt that this “consultation” excercise is a sham to soften up the people for the forthcoming attacks on the “social” wage. It is disgraceful that so-called “opposition” Parties on the Council should be taken in by this charade.