|
www.cornard.info |
The Great Cornard Information Website |
|
|
Cornard News - Editorials - 2 |
|
Page updated - 25 February 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cornard News - This Editorial, below, was previously published in Cornard News |
|
|
PAYING FOR NOTHING - COULD THIS BE DERELICTION OF DUTY? You will all have heard of the New Strategic Direction (NSD). This must be true as a document from Suffolk County Council (SCC) dated 28 October 2010 states ‘We believe that the term NSD is now widely known across Suffolk (and indeed nationally)’. For those who have not, seemingly a high percentage of the residents of Great Cornard, here is a quick summary and some comments.
To compensate for a 28% reduction in Government Funding over the next four years, the NSD was created by SCC Officers & adopted at a meeting of County Councillors on 23 September 2010 to satisfy a need to reduce the cost of supplying services by around £110 million. The NSD idea is that SCC ‘divest’ themselves of ALL services they feel can be delivered by voluntary groups & the private sector as service suppliers. Changes to be implemented through Democracy, Divestment and Community Capacity supported by the local County Councillor working closely with the Community & the Service Suppliers. Their idea, not mine.
SCC claim ‘the change renews the existing drive to cut out waste and bureaucracy’, ‘It will give the people of Suffolk a stronger say on how services are delivered and it introduces different ways of providing services’ and all communications should use ‘Plain English and No Jargon.’ Sadly, having read through many pages of self-backslapping, buzzword-laden verbosity about NSD, I am not convinced by any of these statements. There has been an Equality Impact Assessment but where is the Vulnerability Assessment & a complete list of services to be ‘divested’. Also, to date, no information about NSD has been sent to me as a Householder; so much for Democracy. I fear that the whole process is a great disservice to us in Great Cornard.
As I compile this text I am sure there is someone honing the blade of another machete ready for use in the process of divestment. In Great Cornard the Canhams Road School Crossing Patrol has a 'stay of execution' until Easter 2012 but our local Library, Youth Services, Fire & Police Service are under threat, sorry I mean consultation. The 'list' goes on! I have been told that 'It's all about priorities'. No it isn't, it will be survival of the fittest or the most wealthy who can pay for services. Without trying to be emotive or overly dramatic, vulnerable minority groups will suffer and in extreme cases people will die.
In June 2010, as a contribution to the £1.165 billion National Debt, the Coalition Government required SCC to reduce their budget by £1.1 million. For comparison, the total payment to our elected County Councillors for 2009/2010 was over £1.1 million. Could this be a possible source of saving and statement of support? If savings were made by paying less for these part-time 'roles', what savings could be made by some SCC staff? Perhaps all who support the NSD ideal, or are responsible for this situation, should have the ‘courage of their convictions’, take a pay-cut and lead by example. Government called for reducing bureaucracy and raising efficiency, not cutting frontline services. Perhaps this message has not yet reached Suffolk?
It may be a nice idea to ‘divest services’ and have them run locally but there will be limited experience in running some services with a lack of specialist skills and any experts will be overloaded. There is a limit to numbers of volunteers available and usually those volunteers are already busy. The private sector will ‘cherry pick’ (sorry about the jargon) services they wish to supply. The current SCC services providers seem to be the most likely to be the first to lose their jobs and, in reality, the last ones that we should lose.
Here is an analogy. The ‘Good News’ is that the electricity you use in 2011 will still be charged at the same rate as in 2010. The ‘Bad News’ is that you will be generating it or paying someone else to generate it.
If, and it seems as if there is a hell-bent determination to do so, the so-called divestment changes go ahead then those paying Council Tax will still be paying the same Council Tax, losing services AND having to support those who have lost their jobs and are being paid to do nothing. Can someone either explain where I have misunderstood the concept of reducing services whilst still having to pay same level of Council Tax or how Council Tax payers have been engineered into this unacceptable position?
I believed the function of SCC, both Officers & Councillors, is to serve ALL residents of Suffolk. Surely failure to do this could be considered a dereliction of duty. Perhaps in light of the seeming lack of information, effective consultation and responsible implementation, NSD now stands for Numpty Style Democracy.
Tony Harman - Cornard News - Editor Issue 45 - Spring 2011 - 25 February 2003
|
|
|
|
|