Peter Kent-Baguley
Stoke-on-Trent City Councillor: Leader of the Potteries Alliance group.
- About This Blog
-
Stoke-on-Trent City Councillor: Leader of the Potteries Alliance group.
- Search
- Recent comments
- Comment from pkb:
Good to hear from you James. I keep an eye on your site. ... - Comment from pkb:
I suspect you have guezssed his name!... - Comment from :
An impressive CV, but why isn't he being pushed to apply for ... - Comment from :
Who is the Consultant?... - Comment from :
It would be a start if we recruited someone from the private ...
- RSS-Feed
For all categories
- Archive
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Thursday 30th August 2007
STILL NO BAN ON LANGUAGE ABUSE
Someone, somewhere is surely working on a dictionary of language abuse as practised by Free Market politicians. Those who saw my May election material will know that one of the most abused words is CONSULTATION, the meaning of which is now rendered: I will listen to you if you say what I want to hear or more bluntly, agree or shut up.
On Tuesday of this week, the City Council and (so-called) Members' Board in their ritualised decision-making forum agreed, without a whimper, to SERCO, the private company sent in by government to run our Directorate for Children and Young People, marching away along the road to wholesale privatisation of 0-5 year-old childcare.
Why? Two different - (un)connected - reasons are given. i) In 2007/8 the City Council's subsidy for Childcare "is estimated at £1,120.000. It is predicted, if no action is taken, this subsidy could rise." Predicted by whom? Could rise - ie how likely, based on what? Moreover, how was the estimated figure calculated? And, who decided to introduce the notion of "subsidy"?
ii) "Additionally, Section 8 of the Children's Act 2006 which restircts local authorities from providing childcare where there are alternative and appropriate means of delivery available in the market comes into force from 1st October 2007." So, is the real reason for privatisation, our old friend, government diktat?
Why does the united front of the Labour/Conservative/Liberal Democrat so-called MEMBERS' BOARD perform this part of its democratic charade in secret?
Cllr Ian McLaughlan, the so-called portfolio holder for children and young people's services revealed his slender grasp of the democratic process when he said to the press: "It is normal practice in such circumstances to discuss commercially sensitive information privately." What utter nonsense! It is normal practice to debate political issues openly!
Cllr McLaughlan and his united front colleagues should come out, throw off their veils and explain, if they can, to childcare staff, parents and rest of us PRECISELY why a PERFECTLY sound service should be disbanded and abandoned to the whim of the private profit-makers.