Eric Pickles! Save our libraries, not our bins!
Suddenly the government has found £250,000,000.00 to spend on weekly bin collections while our services are cut!
Instead save our jobs, libraries, universities, soldiers + sailors + pilots, leisure centres, social services, coastguards, Policemen, youth centres, lollipop people, pothole repairs and road gritting
Started 114 weeks 3 days ago
I have weekly bin collections - one week it is household rubbish, the next it is recycable... works very well too!! Since this system recycling has gone up and landfill has gone down because people sort their rubbish. going weekly for household rubbish will only encourage people not to sort it and there will be more land fill.
Eric has a lot of opinions and little knowledge he should retire.
Personally I found it ironic that this story broke on the same day we had a report on young people believing inaccurate facts on the internet. Yet libraries are closing throughout the country with the argument it's all on line. Not only do libraries have books but we are aware of which websites are reliable.
We are all used to the new type bin collections, I don't want to get used to a world without public libraries.
I believe there's another act of 1972 which the politicians would be breaking by not providing a "comprehensive and efficient library service."Here in Ealing borough,the council proposed closing 6 branches.Our esteemed leader thought Costa coffee would be a suitable alternative,or a Pentecostalist church to share one building.Fortunately this has a restrictive covenant ,and after petitions and lobbying,a reprieve has been granted for a year to all but the mobile service.However 19 staff face redundancy;reference librarians have already been sacked,and the very word "librarian" removed .Their view is that anyone can come in off the street and run one.So those who've studied and gained professional qualifications and expertise are no longer valued .
What an appalling state of affairs!
Is it significant that most of the services suffering cuts such as mentioned (ie - our jobs, libraries, universities, soldiers + sailors + pilots, leisure centres, social services, coastguards, Policemen, youth centres, lollipop people, pothole repairs and road gritting) employ workers directly, those such as bin collections and many others not being cut are in most cases sub-out and we then subsides the companies other interest as they are then in a position where they can just keep demanding bigger and bigger subsides or cut standards and jobs. It's like subbing out your arms industry to your worst enemy. Only a fool or a corrupt idiot would even dream of it, such action would stress out even the best con-man.
To be fair however what should we expect from the over educated upper middle class, silver spoon feeds, gutless twits we are forced elect and work for? I say forced because selection committees have already seen off any one with enough courage not to suck up to them.
One step forward for waste and two steps back for localism
Posted by Daria Kuznetsova on October 7th, 2011
The decision to grant local government 250 million pounds for weekly bin collections has become the subject of a lot of a debate. Although waste is an evocative topic among residents and one of the most visible functions of local councils, are weekly collections really necessary to improve waste management? As local government is seeing more than a 17% cut in spending power, would receiving extra money to collect waste the best use of it? Even though local authorities would all have different views of what to spend 250 million pounds on, the true meaning of localism is letting them decide for themselves.
To illustrate how far 250 million pounds could go, below is a sample list of all the services that money could buy:
1524 2 bedroom affordable homes
2.8 million kindles – equivalent to 619 kindles for every public library in the UK
125,000 roof mounted microwind systems for social houses
10,400 mast mounted wind turbines
Treatment of 186,000 drug addicts
9,4 mln meals for the elderly
33,500 elderly individuals receiving home care for a year
892,251 after school sessions of an after school club
5,528 nurses trained
364,325 primary school children fed for a year
57 cycle superhighways built
1,5 mln residential broadband connections for a year
3945 learning disabled individuals in residential and nursing care
194, 799 activity holidays for disabled children
As this list demonstrates, choices about how to spend public money can be considered subjective unless they are rooted to genuine priorities. Some councils may need more affordable housing, others may need more sustainable energy. It follows therefore, that those who will witness the impact of spending should hold the decision of how it is spent. So whether local areas would choose to provide treatment for drug addicts or on increasing the number of free meals offered in schools, they should be given that option. By paying councils that reintroduce weekly collections 250 million pounds, not only is DCLG reducing recycling and increasing waste going to landfill, it is also taking a step back in its localism agenda.
Daria Kuznetsova (NLGN)
Eric Pickles... he is joking, right? Its not like there is any major reason for a weekly household rubbish collection, is it? I mean, I haven't heard of mass rat attacks, or anything of the like. I'm going out on a limb here, but in my mind there hasn't been a time in modern England (well, I'm 30) where more has been recycled, and the amount of rubbish in the landfill bin has been so low. It's not perfect, but its moving forward... there just wouldn't be any point in weekly collections anymore!
A better use of the money would be to;
1. Invest in a better 'rubbish ideas' section of the con-dems
2. Physically burn the money in front of us, showing us what you think of public opinion
Use the money to create a new political party, who listen to the people, are not 'in power', do not start but only peacefully end wars, do not pander to the loudest or wealthiest, have objectives with the environment -our only resource which can, if we coexist with it properly, sustain us indefinitely- in mind, do not tell people what to do but provide a secure base on which to fall if it all goes arse over tit, actually cares about the individual their health, wellbeing, education, future - whether they are a voter for them or not- and doe's not use labels to describe them, and fulfills simple realistic goals which they are voted into office to try to make happen
4. Use it to find a loophole in the law somewhere to gradually encourage Pickles to retire from politics
In my opinion, of the listed alternatives you'd suggest spending it on only the armed forces and emergency services are more important to the average household than ensuring waste is handled properly. As a driver i also value road improvements, but that should be an issue for road tax spending, not council tax.
Libraries, universities, leisure centres, youth centres, and lollipop people are not compulsory spending. Most homes have internet access making libraries unnecessary (You may like them, but they are more expensive than they're worth nowadays.)
Universities are already covered in other spending policies, and are definitely not a place to spend council tax.
Leisure centres are another extravagance as almost every activity offered at a leisure centre is available commercially. Youth centres can be replaced by youth clubs which require support but little to no funding, I know this as I used to help run one. Lollypop people are a useful position, but can just as easily be made unnecessary by parents keeping their kids under control near roads.
I know I'm likely to get flamed for my views here, but I dislike that it has become a general assumption that everyone is happy to pay for these services even if it's to the detriment of their own housing service provisions.
At the moment, road tax spending covers repairs to trunk roads and also provides for some major capital schemes delivered by Councils. All general maintenance is covered by Councils - plus winter salting, clearance etc.
Bosch, the point here is that the government have said that they have no money to spend so all these things have to suffer - then suddenly conjure millions out of knowwhere.
Bosch - Whilst internet take up has been good across the UK there are still many of the poorest households who do not have access. This figure is likely to increase when out of work householders realise they can no longer afford to pay for this luxury. You state that Libraries are more expensive than they are worth nowadays, do you have any evidence to support this? Everytime I visit a library there is considerable evidence that people are using them. The campaign to keep them open also suggests that they are valued beyond the emotive.
In your opinion leisure centres ( I presume by this you mean sports centres) youth clubs and school crossing patrols should not be publically funded as it is either a parental responsibility or private sector should be involved.
Certainly private sector has provided us with many high class sporting facilities which are likely to be beyond the cost of those on a low income, but how many of those include Olympic standard facilities for instance? I think we would find that the majority of private sector facilities cater for those who wish to use machines and not much beyond.
I have yet to encounter a privately funded youth club, do such things exist? There may well be companies who donate to existing facilities but I can't imagine any beyond charities who would start such an enterprise, unless it offered a substantial return.
If only small children weren't so ...childish and irrational then maybe we would have no need to try to protect them against accidents. School crossings are but a tiny speck in their education, but how many lives are saved due to little Johnny having the mantra of wait and listen reinforced? I'd certainly not want to be the one having to tell a parent that their child had been killed as a result of their negligence in teaching him/her how to cross the road.
In a year when mass public disorder has been associated with (amongst many other factors) the withdrawal of youth facilities and the London Evening Standard is campaigning heavily to improve literacy I find your views somewhat naive and offensive to the public good.
Post your message