Renfrewshire Council Budget Day; the protagonists and spectators assemble for the meeting at 9.30 a.m. the first surprise takes place before the meeting starts; the SNP offer a 10 minute recess to allow both sides to examine each other’s budget proposals. This cheers us up on the Labour side, we have always allowed this courtesy when in power but the SNP refused to offer it last time, they are clearly nervous, the reason becomes obvious when we see their proposals.
Bombshell number two then takes place as SNP leader Mackay decides to publicly humiliate his finance spokesman Cllr. Noon by delivering the budget speech himself, can you imagine Chancellor Gordon Brown sitting in the House of Commons on budget day and watching Tony Blair deliver Brown’s speech? This is not just a humiliation for the hapless Cllr. Noon but, it is a glaring example of poor leadership by Mackay, to treat one of your conveners in this way at one of the years biggest public meetings is quite intolerable.
He has shown this complete lack of confidence in his colleagues before, most notably if understandably in the case of Cllr. Cameron the Education Convener who must rank as the worst appointment since Berti Vogts, she has been sidelined often because he has no confidence in her, its poor leadership to treat a colleague in this way but, more importantly; it’s unpardonable folly to appoint her in the first place.
The SNP proposals are cuts and more cuts; amounting to closures and job losses, speaker after speaker from Labour and Tory savaged them, the Tories of course have a bark which is much worse than their bite and they; true to form; voted with the SNP, it’s absorbing watching them as the genial and eloquent Cllr. Langlands disdainfully attacks them and makes them squirm while all the time everyone in the chamber knows that he will side with them on the vote, likewise his young apprentice Cllr. Clews, it was ever thus, genial and good natured they may be but, in the final analysis they are still Tories; and they know a right wing budget when they see one.
I said in my contribution that they (the SNP) set out by saying that they would improve Social Work, how? by cutting it’s budget by £1m that’s how, they would improve education, how? by cutting its budget by £2.5m. that’s a cut of “6.5m. in two years, that’s how. I reminded Cllr. Mackay to his embarrassment that he seems to have turned around a “bankrupt council” a council which was “in the red” a year and three quarters ago into one which was now “financially stable” ( Cllr. Mackay) I suggested he replace “Fred the Shred Goodwin” - if looks could kill.
Mike Holmes (Labour) then produced a fierce forensic attack aimed at the 'loosely wrapped' Cllr. McCartin who had made a speech in praise of the budget, he baited her mercilessly and she was shaking her head one minute and nodding the next and sometimes a mixture of both as Mike ran rings round her. This had the chamber roaring with laughter which as usual didn’t bother her, she has been over this kind of humiliation many times and once again she was the only one in the chamber who was not aware she was being made a fool of, she is impervious to everything but blows.
Cuts are on their way in Arts & Museums, Primary & Secondary teaching jobs, School Admin Support jobs, Social Work and more, this is the reality of electing an inexperienced and incompetent administration, the people of Renfrewshire are paying the price for them and it will get worse. This dire administration continues to cling to the comfort in the chamber of pathetic false laughter and transparently orchestrated cheering and desk banging but I think the people of Renfrewshire will be seeing through them.
Did I mention that the last vestige of competence and trust in the SNP went west at Holyrood the day before the meeting; with the abandonment of their ‘Loco Income Tax’ their “flag ship policy” do any voters feel betrayed? I suggested; again to pitiless laughter from some of the rougher elements present that the shambles of the Scottish Govt. is a result of their cruel treatment of Renfrewshire SNP’s finest; big Brucie McFee the SNP at Holyrood were beastly to him and him such a nice man as well, everyone calls it Holyrood while big Brucie refers to it as “The Bermuda Triangle” what can he mean? Some rather unpleasant types reckon that it’s because he went missing there without trace for 4 years; still he’s back now and that’s what matters right?
In the old council chamber Cllr. Mackay sometimes sat with Cllrs. McFee, Mitchell, & Nicolson behind him, not something we will see again I fear.
“ Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown “ (Henry IV. W Shakespeare) still Derek what did he know? He wasn’t even Scottish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
Could have almost wrote this myself. Councillor Cameron is only in her position as a reward for helping to stab her fellow councillors Bill Martin and Richard Vassie in the back on behalf of Derek MacKay and Jim Mitchell. Other SNP councillors took part in this in order to get their wee positions. So Derek has surrounded himself with a load of numpties so that he can play at being leader. Numpties being led by a donkey!
Councillor,
What the hell is going on within the SNP Administration, convention dictates that the Finance spokesperson always presents the budget, Cllr Noon being side lined, never saw that coming!
We have now witnessed Cameron side-lined; we did see that coming, now High Noon for Cllr Noon. Cuts and more cuts, that was not why many of us voted for the SNP, I have some sympathy for Cllr Bruce McPhee, clearly the most gifted of this group, I hear that he remains tacitly on McKay’s side, one must ask for how much longer.
As an ordinary member of the public looking in, I and many in the business community are not well impressed so far, McKay promised much and has delivered very little. Derek displays all of the qualities of a one man band, unable or unwilling to rely on others; this is a castle, unfortunately built of sand.
Regarding some of your other participants who have added to your site, I read a very personal description of Derek and his colleagues and a reference to one of my 4 ward Councillor's and house purchases, I can comment on this, it appears that a rumour or suggestion is doing the rounds in Glenburn that a certain female Cllr has purchased her own home, her Mother -in -law's home and her own Mother's Glenburn Home. Some locals are a little cheesed off as they can't or appear to be still on the Council waiting this for say their own front & back-door, the female Cllr that was spoken off gives the impression, rightly or wrongly to have somehow, let's keep this legal, maybe benefited from High Public Office, or enjoyed certain benefits, I am sure Cllr Kelly, this paragraph should pass your legal checks and balances.
For the first time in my life, my family and I will be voting Labour at the next Council Elections. Sorry SNP but we have had it! With your cuts, cuts and more cuts.
Rob Scott.
Terry,
Did the Labour opposition budget include money to save South Primary School? If not, why not?
(Ryan Connolly) 10:23
It didn’t because the damage already done to South School has made it’s position so much worse, children have already left and the remaining children have already begun to prepare for the transfer, as well as staff.
Once that decision is made it’s difficult to reverse, it would be easy to put in our budget, no doubt the SNP would do that but we are not in the business of conning parents, you are suggesting we put money up to save the school and then revisit the issue again in three years when we win control again.
Meanwhile the school could be a factory or houses by then, you are being disingenuous Ryan and I think you know it.
Our budget though did not have one penny of cuts from education, the SNP have now cut £4m last year and £2.5m this year; £6.5m SNP cuts in education in 2 years; the SNP are a disgrace.
(Anonymous) 13/02/09
I have no knowledge of political assassinations in the SNP and no wish to know.
To be fair to Derek Mackay appointing numpties, he had no choice.
Talking about numpties. What position/spokesperson or responsibility has the Labour group bestowed upon you Terry? You obviously are a man who prefers to fulminate at every turn on every issue, (the SNP in particular) yet does not appear to be working a particular remit or brief ie Education.
Rob Scott.
Mackay showed poor leadership by humiliating Noon who is perfectly capable (without setting the heather on fire) of making a budget speech; Mackay read the speech out and so would Noon have done, everyone does for a speech like that. He was afraid to delegate, he is clearly very fragile.
“McFee tacitly on Mackay’s side” he would dance on Derek’s grave given the chance, Bruce remains as ever on Bruce’s side.
With reference to your remarks about house purchases, what you have outlined is certainly unusual but I don’t think there is any reason why someone can’t buy as many council houses as they wish, however it probably would as you say cause some resentment.
Rob Scott.
Mackay showed poor leadership by humiliating Noon who is perfectly capable (without setting the heather on fire) of making a budget speech; Mackay read the speech out and so would Noon have done, everyone does for a speech like that. He was afraid to delegate, he is clearly very fragile.
“McFee tacitly on Mackay’s side” he would dance on Derek’s grave given the chance, Bruce remains as ever on Bruce’s side.
With reference to your remarks about house purchases, what you have outlined is certainly unusual but I don’t think there is any reason why someone can’t buy as many council houses as they wish, however it probably would as you say cause some resentment.
(Anonymous) 15:03
I’m sure you can find this out for yourself but; I can assure you that I am happy with my lot.
If you knew how these things work or took the trouble to find out you might grasp why.
"I can assure you that I am happy with my lot"
You dont appear to have any 'lot' as someone with a very opinionated view about everyone elses talents, you dont appear to have been charged with any brief.
If you were a spokesperson for something you would have more validity regarding your constant sniping at others for doing what must be a difficult job.
As a long serving councillor I am surprised you have no official position why is that? I cannot find you listed as spokesperson for anything.
(Anonymous) 14/02/09
I suspected you didn’t know what you were talking about. After an election the labour cllrs. are issued with a form which lists all the committees and possible interests; they are asked to submit this list with their interests ticked off, jobs and responsibilities are then issued.
I was offered what I asked for, I have since accepted a position on Planning.
Before making any assumptions you should consider that in the last administrations I was among other positions chair of the Scrutiny Board for seven years.
The idea that being a spokesperson would give someone more validity could only come from a position of ignorance.
Terry,
I see that you chose not to print my last comment. Lets see if that was deliberate.
As I said, the Labour opposition budget is essentially meaningless because it cannot be implemented.
It is, however, a statement of what Labour would have done had they been in power.
As they have made no finacial allowance to save South Primary in their budget then they would have had to close it.
This is a total betrayal to all the parents and children that they have used for political posturing purposes during the campaign to keep South Primary open.
The school is not yet closed and children have not yet left although parents are naturally making provisions for next term.
It seems that Labour can see no further political gain and therefore have chosen to drop them like a stone.
I am sure that the parents will now see you for what you are!
In addition to my last comment Terry, can I ask you why Labour did not make any provision to reinstate the warden service in sheltered housing!
It seemed that you tried to milk that situation politically when the SNP changed it, however, now when you are putting your own budget figures together you have made no allowance to put the service back.
You obviously must agree with this now!
(Ryan Connolly) 09:57
What last comment?
You are hiding behind a tissue of lies here we are not, repeat not; going to lie to the parents and the facts are that the South School will have been closed, demolished, or built over by the time we regain power; you and the SNP might think it’s OK to deceive parents in that way but we don’t.
Officers of the council approached the last Labour administration with proposals to close South Primary, we said no, they then went to the present SNP administration and they said yes, that’s a pretty obvious difference which I’m sure the parents will spot.
(Ryan Connolly) 10:02
Again you are lying, we avoided getting rid of the Wardens despite the COSLA instruction to raise charges and we would have done our best to find a way round the instruction again, the SNP didn’t even try.
There is a huge difference between maintaining the warden service and reintroducing it but you don’t want to mention that do you? For us to restore the service to pre. May 19 07 we would have to find the money to repair 4/5 years of damage caused by the SNP we would for instance have to find money to give wardens tied accommodation etc. I know that you and the SNP will lie to people, Police No’s, Student debt, housing start up money, PPP, and now Local Income Tax, all SNP lies, but we will continue to tell people the truth.
You really are completely missing the point.
Whilst you are not in power you have still presented a budget saying what you would do if you were.
That budget would not save South Primary and would not reinstate the warden service.
These were 2 political issues that you were beating your drum about and now they are conveniently forgotten as you can see no political gain any more.
You have used the parents and children of South Primary as political pawns and dumped them when you had no further use for them.
This is the true Labour party.
Did you include money in you budget to keep the Apex Centre open?
(Ryan Connolly) 13:10
You are deliberately lying about this, let me try again.
Imagine Labour build a big tower for some reason, that big tower is knocked down by the SNP despite a Labour campaign to save it; you seem to be saying that labour should promise money to rebuild the tower as well as the money to ‘run and maintain it’ which was our campaign, you see the situation has changed by it’s demolition.
Let me try to make it more obvious for you, it costs more to rebuild and run something than it does to just maintain and run it, that’s what is called telling people the truth, I’m not surprised you won’t admit that, you should be called “Lyan” Connolly.
At this point in time (the time of your budget), what has been knocked down?
The Apex centre is still standing and South Primary School is still open and operational.
The warden service could be reinstated if you allow the correct amount of money in your budget.
These are all things that you called foul for but you no longer wish to support.
The fact is that you no longer see any political gain from these issues and have decided to abandon your support.
If you really did support the parents and children of South Primary (and make no mistake you milked the Paisley Express publicity as far as you could) then your current budget would have had the finance to keep it open. (yes Terry - keep it open, not rebuild it brick by brick as you seem to suggest). You have failed to do that!
You have to be able to make a distinction between someone who holds a different viewpoint and someone who is telling lies.
It seems that you call "liar" anytime someone disagrees with you.
There is nothing untruthful to my knowledge in anything that I have said here.
The shameless way that Labour councillors manipulated and used the parents and children at this school has now been exposed.
(Ryan Connolly) 16:19
“Lyan”
I knew it was useless trying to explain because you are quite willing to ignore the facts, that’s what makes you and the SNP liars It’s not this point in time that matters as far as budget promises are concerned.
We all know to our costs what lies you are prepared to tell to win votes; read the papers, if you promise people that you will do something in 3 years time when you are re-elected without a/ knowing the cost and B/ not knowing how much money you will have you are an opportunistic liar.
“The Apex Centre, The South School and the Warden Service can be saved if we put the right amount of money in our budget”
How much is that likely to be in 3 years time? Will the Apex and the South School still be here? what condition will they be in if they are still here? how much will it cost in 3 years time to re-house the wardens on the premises of the elderly complexes? Will it be the same cost as right now? If not how much? care to have a guess? Imagine it’s your budget how do you cost it?
The truth is that you can’t and that is why we would not do that. You obviously would; just as you did with your Holyrood promises.
“It seems that you call "liar" anytime someone disagrees with you” no I don’t, but the cap fits you and the SNP alright.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about and are not fit for the office you hold.
Your budget is an opposition budget for one year - not three years.
It is there only to demonstrate what you would have done if you were not impotent.
Also, your automatic assumption that I am SNP shows your real colours.
"We all know to our costs what lies you are prepared to tell to win votes"
"just as you did with your Holyrood promises."
I am a Conservative supporter Terry and have been for almost 25 years.
You chose not to select South Primary, the Apex and the warden service as things that you would have rectified if you were in power.
You are shameless.
End of story!
As the person who made the first comment on this post I have to laugh at Ryan Connolly's comments.
Maybe the Labour party are being disingenious or not with regard to their budget and South School but it is you that is being hypocritical Mr Connolly in slagging them off when the SNP locally never presented a budget when they were in opposition and had the cheek to slag off Labour and not say what they would have
done.
The SNP councillors have been just as shameless in using and manipulating the electorate, say one thing in opposition and do the opposite once you get power. As I said above we have numpties led by a donkey.
Your budget is for this year. Not 3 years time.
Don't you actually understand that.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Terry,
Paisley Ice Rink was closed during the period when Labour were in power in Renfrewshire.
How much money did you allow in your opposition budget this year to reinstate the ice at the lagoon?
I believe you have been calling for the current administration to do this!
"We all know to our costs what lies you are prepared to tell to win votes; read the papers, if you promise people that you will do something in 3 years time when you are re-elected without a/ knowing the cost and B/ not knowing how much money you will have you are an opportunistic liar."
Arf! Too right. Making wild promises just to get elected does indeed make you a mendacious scrote! So what's to be done about it?
(Ryan Connolly) 16/02/09
So, you are a Tory, you will understand why I accused you of being SNP then.
What is shameless is to promise to fund things which you don’t know the cost of and you don’t know how much money you have got to fund them with.
This is what your high flying capitalist friends in the banking world have been up to; Tory crooks, thieves and spivs the lot of you, you are clearly shameless and arrogant to accuse anyone of being shameless.
A Tory capitalist telling us how to budget, you couldn’t make it up could you?
(Anonymous) 16/02/09
I agree with most of your comments but I would like Mr. Connolly to tell me what to say to a parent that has been told by me that we would save South School, when they ask me in 3 years time why I am not going to do it.
Would he put up his hands and say “I lied; I had no idea what it would cost when I lied to you 3 years ago to get your vote”
I reckon he would come out with more lies rather than admit the truth.
(Ryan Connolly)
The budget we put forward was for this year, do you understand, or are you so corrupt that you do not understand that you have an obligation not to lie to the electorate; is this what 25 years of being a Tory turns you into?
Making promises which you have no idea how to fund, you want locking up.
Your budget is not for 3 years time.
It is what you would have done now at this point in time if you could.
Your limited intelligence does not seem to allow you to grasp this.
Yes it is meaningless as you are impotent and cannot action anything in it, but it does show that you have dropped support for all of the things that I have mentioned in favour of other agendas that you have included for in your budget.
You didn't answer my last question regarding the ice rink.
The lagoon ice rink closed under the Labour administration but you have made lots of noise regarding the new administration not reinstating it.
How much money did you allow in your budget to do this?
(Ryan Connolly) 17/02/09
Going in to the last election Labour were actively seeking ways to put ice back down at the lagoon, the new administration abandoned it.
As an opposition we are entitled to make demands of the administration; it is them who control the spending, we are entitled to challenge their priorities, and ours would be to find money to do this.
Again it would be dishonest for Labour to promise this in a budget when it is likely to be 7 years without ice by the time we get back in power, the lagoon could be being used or something completely different by then, it would have to be done now.
The current administration found £4m. To fund what was (admitted by officers) a risky bid for Arnotts, that’s the approx. Cost of relaying the ice so they can do it if they have the political will. .
(Hemmerfru) 17/02/09
“So what's to be done about it?”
Don’t vote for them.
(Ryan Connolly) 10:18
The budget we put forward was for this year, I think I’ve repeated this enough, we will not make promises based on events which will be outwith our control for a period of 3 years; that would be buying votes by lying, something you seem to find acceptable.
I spent 2 hrs. Last nigh and only answered 4 comments so I gave up on the malfunctioning computer and answered the other two today.
“Your limited intelligence does not seem to allow you to grasp this”
A sophisticated debating point.
(Ryan Connolly) 10:18
The budget we put forward was for this year, I think I’ve repeated this enough, we will not make promises based on events which will be outwith our control for a period of 3 years; that would be buying votes by lying, something you seem to find acceptable.
I spent 2 hrs. Last nigh and only answered 4 comments so I gave up on the malfunctioning computer and answered the other two today.
“Your limited intelligence does not seem to allow you to grasp this”
A sophisticated debating point.
"“So what's to be done about it?”
Don’t vote for them."
That doesn't really work, as you only find out they've lied about it after the event, when it's all gone pear-shaped. I suppose you can not vote for them at the next election, but that's still four or five years of consequence-free financial mismanagement if you believe the promises made at a general election.
Then there's funding schemes like PFI and PPP that as voters we don't really get a say on - if in 1997 you liked Gordon Brown's social principles, you had to accept his accounting techniques, whatever you thought of them.
Chuck in the state's usual performance as a 'simple shopper' and you've got a real recipe for disaster! Cf. The 2012 Olympics pitch: what a budget cock-up that was. Or the Millenium Dome. Or any number of public IT projects... All promised at a lower budget than they can be delivered on.
So how do I, as a numerate but not accountancy-trained voter, analyse proposals and pick the good from the bad? What should politicians do to help us understand their pitches? And should they be more accountable than the ballot box allows?
So please explain to me oh wise one.
What is the point of providing your opposition budget for this year.
(Ryan Connolly) 13:49
"explain to you" I'm beginning to doubt if that's possible.
The budget outlined what we would do if in power – we did that and did not give people false hopes about what we could do in power with costs which we couldn’t predict and no way of knowing what resources would be available, it’s called telling the truth.
You would presumably promise parents that you would save their school knowing full well that it would likely be demolished by the time you were in a position to do anything, how do you look someone in the eye?
(Hemmerfru) 13:41
You can refuse to vote for them again, vote for someone else, join their party and try to change it, join someone else’s party and campaign against them, create your own political party, organise large demonstrations, write to the press, accost people in the street and tell them what you think, wear a sandwich board,set fire to yourself as a protest, even more extreme;become a journalist, etc. etc.
“And should they be more accountable than the ballot box allows?”
I think not but I get the feeling you might have some suggestions.
You can do all that, but given that general elections are decided by a handful of marginal seats it's hard to have a grassroots effect if you live in a safe seat.
Even if you do live in a marginal seat, the first-past-the-post system works to deny smaller parties their voice. Let's say I'm an independent candidate with no existing media profile, campaigning on a manifesto of moderate reforms rather than a flag-waving single issue. How could I match the marketing spend, visibility and influence of the big three to the extent that I could get my message to enough people to win an outright majority?
Also, none of that really answers the question of being sold a duffer in the first place. Five years is a long time to have to wait to deal with a party which reveals its pledges to have no basis once it's assumed power.
No, I don't really have any ideas. Maybe something which financially punishes parties who misrepresent themselves - with perhaps an independent SFO-type body to scrutinise budgetary claims based on fool's gold?
There just doesn't seem much to discourage the lack of ethics you discuss here and in your last post, and that's been displayed in recent scandals like the Lords who're flogging their influence or Jacqui Smith trousering didgy expenses. A ticking off for breaching parliamentary etiquette clearly isn't any sort of deterrant to bad behaviour.
(Hemmerfru) 16:00
“but given that general elections are decided by a handful of marginal seats” Thatcher and Blair would be surprised at that, and some others.
“how could you an independent candidate match the spending etc. of the large parties” with great difficulty.
P.R. is a sad farce; the Lib Dems in Renfrewshire had the lowest proportion of the popular vote behind Labour who were highest, SNP and Tory, and they are now in the administration, outrageous.
There is no other way of punishing parties who don’t implement their manifestos and I don’t think there should be; there can be a whole host of reasons for a manifesto commitment not being realised, the public have to decide whether the promise was genuine or not.
Bad behaviour would be found in any company which employed 650 employees and Parliament is no different, look at bankers, financiers, look at the hypocritical journalists who write about it.
Re: marginals. 1979 and 1997 were very unusual years in that the electorate was faced with administrations utterly befert of ideas or ability on both occasions. In the last two elections, very few seats have changed hands, and many have reverted to their usual voting patterns - hence the fall in Labour's majority.
"“how could you an independent candidate match the spending etc. of the large parties” with great difficulty."
Why even bother then? Grassroots activism not allied to the mainstream parties will be useless, but joining a mainstream party isn't an option if you don't agree with their policies or execution. That's quite demoralising.
I don't deny PR has its problems too though. Ah, democracy: it's the least bad political system.
"the public have to decide whether the promise was genuine or not"
Agreed. And that's fine for elections.
But say a party gets voted out as a result of some seriously shonky accounting. They lose power, but that's it. There's no comeback on the general party apparatus as a result of sharp dealing. Banks and whatnot can fail and industries can be forcibly restructured when they go bad. Parliament cannot.
(Hemmerfru) 18:04
“Re: marginals. 1979 and 1997 were very unusual years”
I don’t want to split hairs but there were others, Attlee springs to mind.
“Administrations utterly befert of ideas or ability on both occasions”
Highly subjective.
“In the last two elections, very few seats have changed hands”
You refer to Blair’s victories, the first was a massive change of seats and the second not far behind it, I recognise your point though about marginals in ‘normal times’
If being a single independent is demoralising; you have to join a bigger party and work within, they are bound to have some policies you like.
I recognise that some people with a particular grievance might want to see a greater punishment than loss of power but who would decide when the Govt. had transgressed enough to be fined, barred or imprisoned? that kind of thing can only be done democratically hence the ballot survives in it’s present form.
(Allan) 19/02/09
There will be a lot more bad news from the Renfrewshire Council Administration to come, education is about to be slaughtered.
(Allan) 19/02/09
SNP are steadily becoming the masters of making bad situations much much worse. Not a good budget, which is full of spin and missing money.
By the way, did I miss Renfrewshire council's announcement about curfew's on the movements of "private hire" taxis in and around Paisley town centre.
Post a Comment