This week, my local council has announced they are seeking the views of the public on how to minimise the impact of the cuts they have already decided. This request for our views has been rather poorly advertised but in spite of that, enough local people have successfully found where to air their views. By sharing that information with their friends and neighbours, the local council will hopefully receive the views of more people than they were perhaps expecting.
Where do I start? Living in a modern democracy (as we are assured we do), I would have expected the council to first discuss the available options for cuts with the public through a proper consultation exercise. It is evident they have chosen not to do this. Instead, they have taken it upon themselves to decide who gets their funding taken away and who doesn't. Thus, it seems that our stated views will have little or no effect anyway. The council has already decided and in their eyes that is the end of the matter.
The need to make savings of £17 million over the next two years is not being debated. Everybody is well aware of the amount and the time period. What is open to debate is exactly how they should go about it.
Even putting the injustice of their approach to one side, I would have thought that the starting point for any such decisions would been to ensure the safeguarding of the most vulnerable in our society. But who are the most vulnerable in our society? I would have thought the most vulnerable are our children, the disabled, the frail elderly and the mentally ill (in no specific order). I also acknowledge that there would be other groups within that but I believe most people would agree that it would be doing the right thing to seek to put the interests of these vulnerable groups first. This week, I have been sadly proved wrong because it is clear from decisions which have already been agreed by our council that they have not prioritised the safeguarding of these groups.
Clearly, such an approach is undemocratic, immoral, arrogant and shameful. It also displays a frightening ignorance of the needs of those who can't help themselves. But even putting that assessment aside for a minute, there is one obvious question which needs to be answered by those charged with making these decisions: On whose authority and by which mandate do they make these decisions?
Next May, we will have a General Election in the UK and after the event, we will all know where we stand for the next five years irrespective of our own political leanings - if indeed we have any. Whether or not we choose to exercise our right to vote is entirely a matter for ourselves because the final result will stand regardless. But at least we will have had an opportunity to express our preference based on the information given to us by the prospective candidates. While this is not ideal, it is a million miles closer to democracy than what we currently have in Denbighshire.
In the national press, the Tory party is frequently portrayed as the nasty party by certain newspapers. If their readers agree with that assertion, they will have the opportunity to act upon it next May by voting for a change of Government. In Denbighshire, we have just seen a raft of announcements which all seem overtly nasty when we stop to consider who will be directly affected.
So what are the alternatives? Put simply, we the public don't even know because we have not even been consulted. Undoubtedly, there were other areas in which these savings could have been made. I say this not least for the fact that some of the cuts being applied will affect front line services. If that wasn't bad enough, that same council has recently announced their intention to spend £4.2 million on the Nova leisure centre in Prestatyn. Just behind the Nova, is a leisure resource which should be free at the point of access for every man, woman and child (just like the NHS!). Behind the Nova centre is the sea with a wonderful sandy beach.
The logo for Denbighshire features a castle and the sea. The castle in Denbigh must rank as one of the least advertised in the UK. It should be known to every car, lorry, caravan and bus travelling along the A55 toward the North Wales coast. It is truly scandalous that the council does so little to highlight those resources which are already there. But back to the Nova centre and the sea. This county is blessed with miles of coast line which is the envy of many counties in the UK. For a start, there are a great many counties which don't even have a coastline. Denbighshire is positively spoilt - not that you'd know it.
The towns of Rhyl and Prestatyn have effectively and systematically had the sea removed from view from tourists and locals alike over the years. The reason people bemoan the current state of Rhyl is that many of our residents can remember the time when Rhyl was the main tourist destination of the county. Fifty years ago, the Beatles played Rhyl! The reason why so many people came to Rhyl in yesteryear was because of the sea, the beach and the climate. Neither of those basic attributes has gone away but the local council have made poor planning decisions to allow a series of misguided buildings separate the tourists from the sea and the beach. Playing on a beach and paddling in the sea are part of the core elements of play for children everywhere and yet our children are denied.
In recent days, many local people have been up in arms about many of these proposed cuts but I fear that they won't get beyond gnashing their teeth because there is currently no vehicle through which to make the council reconsider. I have thought at great length in recent days about the various options which might be open to local people. On a recent forum, one contributor wrote "That's part of the problem..of letting the public decide where the axe falls in cuts". I don't know the first thing about the person who wrote those words but it does highlight the root of the problem.
The reason why local people are so angry is principally because they haven't even been deemed worthy of having their say. These are people who pay their council tax so by inference, they are all stakeholders in the running of the county where they live. If they were consulted, it would achieve a great deal. It would address the growing gulf of "them and us" which currently divides the public from their council. It would also produce a far more democratic outcome which would reflect more fairly the views and opinions of the people who actually live here.
But back to solutions. In Plas Madoc in Wrexham, they recently had their leisure centre closed by their local council which was seeking to make similar cuts to this one. The local people in Plas Madoc were thus faced with two options; roll over and take it on the chin or stand up and fight for something which was important to them as a community. Thankfully, they chose the latter and against all odds, they have now taken ownership of their leisure centre free of local council involvement. I witnessed the same reaction at the local high school St. Brigid's. Here, the council announced their decision to close the school. The parents, children and governors had other ideas and once again the council was defeated by people power.
By November 28th, the cuts announced by my local council will be out of our control. By my reckoning, we now have 28 days in which to stand up for the vulnerable in our communities. I would welcome all suggestions as a matter of real urgency as to how we do this. Petitions? Survey Monkey? Legal advice? Demonstrations? Local media involvement? Please, let me know your thoughts and suggestions because time is not on our side and it is the most vulnerable who will feel the real impact of this.
Where do I start? Living in a modern democracy (as we are assured we do), I would have expected the council to first discuss the available options for cuts with the public through a proper consultation exercise. It is evident they have chosen not to do this. Instead, they have taken it upon themselves to decide who gets their funding taken away and who doesn't. Thus, it seems that our stated views will have little or no effect anyway. The council has already decided and in their eyes that is the end of the matter.
The need to make savings of £17 million over the next two years is not being debated. Everybody is well aware of the amount and the time period. What is open to debate is exactly how they should go about it.
Even putting the injustice of their approach to one side, I would have thought that the starting point for any such decisions would been to ensure the safeguarding of the most vulnerable in our society. But who are the most vulnerable in our society? I would have thought the most vulnerable are our children, the disabled, the frail elderly and the mentally ill (in no specific order). I also acknowledge that there would be other groups within that but I believe most people would agree that it would be doing the right thing to seek to put the interests of these vulnerable groups first. This week, I have been sadly proved wrong because it is clear from decisions which have already been agreed by our council that they have not prioritised the safeguarding of these groups.
Clearly, such an approach is undemocratic, immoral, arrogant and shameful. It also displays a frightening ignorance of the needs of those who can't help themselves. But even putting that assessment aside for a minute, there is one obvious question which needs to be answered by those charged with making these decisions: On whose authority and by which mandate do they make these decisions?
Next May, we will have a General Election in the UK and after the event, we will all know where we stand for the next five years irrespective of our own political leanings - if indeed we have any. Whether or not we choose to exercise our right to vote is entirely a matter for ourselves because the final result will stand regardless. But at least we will have had an opportunity to express our preference based on the information given to us by the prospective candidates. While this is not ideal, it is a million miles closer to democracy than what we currently have in Denbighshire.
In the national press, the Tory party is frequently portrayed as the nasty party by certain newspapers. If their readers agree with that assertion, they will have the opportunity to act upon it next May by voting for a change of Government. In Denbighshire, we have just seen a raft of announcements which all seem overtly nasty when we stop to consider who will be directly affected.
So what are the alternatives? Put simply, we the public don't even know because we have not even been consulted. Undoubtedly, there were other areas in which these savings could have been made. I say this not least for the fact that some of the cuts being applied will affect front line services. If that wasn't bad enough, that same council has recently announced their intention to spend £4.2 million on the Nova leisure centre in Prestatyn. Just behind the Nova, is a leisure resource which should be free at the point of access for every man, woman and child (just like the NHS!). Behind the Nova centre is the sea with a wonderful sandy beach.
The logo for Denbighshire features a castle and the sea. The castle in Denbigh must rank as one of the least advertised in the UK. It should be known to every car, lorry, caravan and bus travelling along the A55 toward the North Wales coast. It is truly scandalous that the council does so little to highlight those resources which are already there. But back to the Nova centre and the sea. This county is blessed with miles of coast line which is the envy of many counties in the UK. For a start, there are a great many counties which don't even have a coastline. Denbighshire is positively spoilt - not that you'd know it.
The towns of Rhyl and Prestatyn have effectively and systematically had the sea removed from view from tourists and locals alike over the years. The reason people bemoan the current state of Rhyl is that many of our residents can remember the time when Rhyl was the main tourist destination of the county. Fifty years ago, the Beatles played Rhyl! The reason why so many people came to Rhyl in yesteryear was because of the sea, the beach and the climate. Neither of those basic attributes has gone away but the local council have made poor planning decisions to allow a series of misguided buildings separate the tourists from the sea and the beach. Playing on a beach and paddling in the sea are part of the core elements of play for children everywhere and yet our children are denied.
In recent days, many local people have been up in arms about many of these proposed cuts but I fear that they won't get beyond gnashing their teeth because there is currently no vehicle through which to make the council reconsider. I have thought at great length in recent days about the various options which might be open to local people. On a recent forum, one contributor wrote "That's part of the problem..of letting the public decide where the axe falls in cuts". I don't know the first thing about the person who wrote those words but it does highlight the root of the problem.
The reason why local people are so angry is principally because they haven't even been deemed worthy of having their say. These are people who pay their council tax so by inference, they are all stakeholders in the running of the county where they live. If they were consulted, it would achieve a great deal. It would address the growing gulf of "them and us" which currently divides the public from their council. It would also produce a far more democratic outcome which would reflect more fairly the views and opinions of the people who actually live here.
But back to solutions. In Plas Madoc in Wrexham, they recently had their leisure centre closed by their local council which was seeking to make similar cuts to this one. The local people in Plas Madoc were thus faced with two options; roll over and take it on the chin or stand up and fight for something which was important to them as a community. Thankfully, they chose the latter and against all odds, they have now taken ownership of their leisure centre free of local council involvement. I witnessed the same reaction at the local high school St. Brigid's. Here, the council announced their decision to close the school. The parents, children and governors had other ideas and once again the council was defeated by people power.
By November 28th, the cuts announced by my local council will be out of our control. By my reckoning, we now have 28 days in which to stand up for the vulnerable in our communities. I would welcome all suggestions as a matter of real urgency as to how we do this. Petitions? Survey Monkey? Legal advice? Demonstrations? Local media involvement? Please, let me know your thoughts and suggestions because time is not on our side and it is the most vulnerable who will feel the real impact of this.
I truly hope the people of Denbighshire stand up & fight for what's right.
ReplyDeleteMe too Lesley. Otherwise the Gulag will win and I can't sit back and let that happen!
ReplyDeletesuch a waste of the public purse - where are their consciences - he who shouts loudest...................
ReplyDeleteThey may choose to ditch their consciences but we still have ours - all the more reason to hold them to account every inch of the way.
ReplyDeleteIt has been very interesting to read this background to your call to action at https://www.facebook.com/groups/741737152583271/
ReplyDeleteThe FB page has clearly shown the appetite for your ideas. The question is how the break through the protective barriers.
Simon, there is a meeting at my home in Denbigh this evening at 7.30pm. So far, there are about 10 people attending. The aim of the meeting is to formulate a clear strategy ahead of a public meeting. Since the Council Leader has refused to attend such a public meeting, we will establish the need for facts not in the domain of our locally elected town and county councillors. That will necessitate the presence of those who are privy to such information. Because there is a clear public interest here and because I will have members of the press at the first public meeting, the decision of the council leader to not attend will become untenable. Eventually, we will establish who proposed these measures and why. As things stand, we have no idea and that is unacceptable.
ReplyDelete