SNP / Tories: More Waste in Irvine

12 September 2008

The SNP/Tory coalition is at it again, wasting money in Irvine and costing the council millions that could be better spent on delivering better services. We know that they voted to keep open half-empty schools at the cost of £600,000/year. 

Now they have combined forces to prevent the opening of a care centre which is designed to help children who have been in council care, and who now need help in integrating into the adult world of work, further education, housing etc. The centre is almost complete, the money has largely been spent and the opening date is a few months off. But the SNP/Tory coalition have run a nimbyist scare campaign against the centre. Now they have whipped their councillors to stop the centre being used, with the result that we will have to find other premises, spend more millions and delay the improved services for the young people we want to help.

A more disgraceful and disappointing state of affairs it is impossible to imagine.

3rd may 2008

A postscript to the press release below:

There had been a Schools Estate Review Group, including Tory and SNP members which, after extensive investigation, recommended the new shape of the schools estate, with new build, closures and mergers. The report was unanimous, there were no dissenting voices, i.e. the Tory and SNP members on the review group agreed, and went along with, with its findings. The SNP rep was Alan Hill!

After extensive consultation the recommendation of the report were adjusted and some schools were removed from the closure list.

Even so, the SNP, under the leadership of Alan Hill, and the Tories voted,  en bloc, against the finalised recommendations! These were findings they had agreed to previously, on which there had been extensive consultation, and which had been changed in the light of that very consultation.

It’s really difficult to seee how the council can conduct its business responsibly in the face of such inconsistency and such frankly irresponsible, not to say dishonest, behaviour from the opposition parties.

Below is the draft text of a Press Release Issued 1st may.

SNP and Tories Vote for Spending in Irvine.

 On his election last year, Provost Bobby Rae was quoted as saying that he would “….make sure that the Largs and the North Coast would in future get more than their fair share of the investment from the council…”, and that towns like Irvine would be pushed down the pecking order for council investment.

It is therefore astonishing that Provost Rae, at a special meeting of the council on 29^th April, should use the privilege of the Provost’s casting vote to support the continued use of half-empty schools in Irvine, at a cost to the Education Budget of £600,000 annually: that could amount to £2.4 million over the life of this council.

These Irvine schools are under utilised, some with an occupancy rate of only 48%, but Provost Rae somehow believes that throwing money at them is a proper use of council cash. This money will not be spent on the education of children. It will not be spent on new teachers, new books, new desks, more pencils or more jotters. It will not be spent on anything remotely educational. The voters’ money will be spent on keeping open half-empty schools that would be better merged and rationalised to provide the proper and properly managed education that the pupils deserve.

 Meanwhile I have groups from Skelmorlie and elsewhere approaching me for money to build new all-weather playing fields and school playgrounds, either of which would cost a fraction of the £600,000, and each of which would come from the Education budget that the Provost wants to pour into the bricks and mortar of half-empty schools.

 

Mr Rae was joined in his folly by Councillors Hill and Marshall. So the next time any school or other group in this area needs access to council monies to fund a much needed project, perhaps they should approach the SNP and Tory councillors and ask them what happened to the millions of pounds that they seem to believe is better spent in keeping empty schools operating, year after year, in Irvine, rather than being invested in facilities for the towns and people of North Ayrshire on general and the North Coast Ward in particular.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Not Subsidise The Cumbrae Ferry?

    

Why not Subsidise the Cumbrae Ferry?

The SNP in Holyrood has started an “experiment” in the Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) on the routes to the Western Isles. This is, in effect, a £25 million subsidy (bribe) to voters on those routes. The ostensible reason is to see if the RET system is sustainable but given the “coincidence” that the ”experiment” runs up to the next Scottish Elections, it is fairly evident that the real aim is to buy votes in one the SNP’s key constituencies.

If you live on Cumbrae or Arran, you might well ask: what about us? Cumbrae in particular has the highest ferry fares/mile in Scotland; why can’t we get the subsidy? It would be a fair question, but don’t ask it of Kenny Gibson. When pushed on the matter he admitted that he had not raised it at Holyrood, saying “No Labour MSP raised it either”! Which makes you wonder why Mr Gibson sought votes from the people of Cumbrae and Arran if he never intended to represent their interests. What kind of MSP thinks his opponents should raise the problems of his constituents?. I wonder what other problems on Cumbrae Mr Gibson thinks Labour MSPs should deal with? It’s quite bizarre!

The question is: what is RET and will it work? The evidence is patchy. The idea has been mooted for 30 years or more, and used to be a regular in the manifesto of ex-Tory MP John Corrie (remember him?), but it has never been tried in the UK because of the manifest problems with designing a workable and practical system.

The Norwegians have had RET for about 25 years, but it has not been an unqualified success, and they are now reducing dependence on RET and replacing it with other systems.