howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#2
howard
whilst i'm no fan of mr pickles, he does have a valid point, if councils have all these assests and looks like they do, surely in such dreadful times, they should look at every aspect of the running of the council, and what it owns etc.
Recently we had a big debate on here about valuable paintings owned by the town and district councils that never saw the light of day, is it worth keeping them in some room at a big cost because they have to be at special tempretures
if there never to see the light of day, whats the point of keeping them?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#3
Agree
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#4
Keith if you turn up for a council meeting I will show you some of the paintings which adorn my office .They are now seing the light of day .
There is an old saying be careful what you wish for re this thread .
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#5
Surely if its a choice of providing a service..say for example the old,infirm or even just re-opening town loos or having a nice picture adorning someones office wall then the services win hands down.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#6
No guys I dont agree with selling anything off. I dont know what Mr Pickles is doing here, he is just shuffling cards about, or indeed shuffling the deckchairs about ...even if not quite on the Titanic.
In many cases Councils are making money from pretty good investments so its lunacy to try and generate short term cash but at the expense of long term steady economics.
It reminds me of those times when all the housing stock was sold off under Mrs Thatcher, short term gain but long term loss.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#7
SUE
That is the big word SOME
The last time i checked the 2 councils owned a vast amount of paintings and many very valuable.
the cost of keeping them locked away in special rooms, with the insurance costs etc, in todays climate does make you think.=
I doubt you will see me much in council chambers these days sue
not unless i have nowt else to do
and that never happens
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
i think that barry's mate eric has his eye on a lot more than a few works of art.
councils own some very important buildings that once sold can never be replaced.
i suspect that mr pickles is the sort of chap that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#9
Paul
I joked a few weeks ago about the Greeks havin to sell off Demis Roussis the Acropolis and other large well known landmarks in order to pay their bills. These type of items are being sold every day by private investors ,trust funds and pension holding companies to the Russians, Chinese and Arabs. How often have you sat in Sues office and marvelled at the paintings hanging from her..walls..compare that with the number of people wanting a bench to rest their weary bones on or needing a leak whilst in town
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
HOWARD;
I'm sure mr pickles has a far bigger agenda, he always does, but we do have look at wastage sure it can be find
or in projects that maybe only the councils are in favour of.
the paintings just came up as a more local thing as it was raised on here and quite a lively debate.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#11
It's not the selling off of important buldings or works of art but more like tatty restaurants,pubs.old buildings and derelict land they own.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
Selling assets to clear Labour's debt seems a very good idea to me. It would help reduce the interest being paid by the government and help with deficit and debt reduction. Of course extra public spending cuts could be made instead, so if that's what you prefer, fair enough.
No matter how you work it, 1 plus 1 always makes 2 - wishful thinking cannot turn the answer into three.....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
batrryw
its the more
6 for me
1 for you
attitude of the govt that worries me
if we are all in it together like cameron says then so be it
cameron is going down same road as maggie
at least maggie was clear in her agenda
i dislike the working class and will desytroy them
they was no hidden speak with our maggie
with cameron its
im mr nice guy
but sod yer
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#14
No not at all BarryW, this is another red herring. The 'Labour left us in deep shine, so now we have to sell everything off' school. We're not talking about paintings here either, I doubt if councils have any paintings worth serious money..no Renoirs..but its selling off the freeholds of money making buildings, holdings, assets etc. This means once sold no more revenue is generated from these holdings for you and me. But instead some enterpreneur will step in, pay the initial price and he will generate the money instead, all for himself for ever and ever henceforth.
#15
I am firmly with PaulB and Howard here. It is short term lunacy to sell off assets that can never be recovered. And it is never as simple as selling a few bits to fund care and support - besides, what do we sell when that runs out? Different purses fund different things, and assets are assets.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
Governments have no need to own assets and should dispose of them. What they should retain are only those that are necessary for the delivery and operation of services.
Wherever the dead hand of government (national or local) gets involved there are no profits only costs and inefficiency once any spin is stripped away.
#17
Your advice to remove the blinkers of prejudice would be well observed, Barry!!!!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#18
Paul and Bern
Normally I would agree with you but this govt is hell bent on making cuts at any cost and it's the poorest section of our society that will suffer. With respect I doubt anyone of us are on the breadline (yet). We have jobs,laptops,food in our belly so its pretty easy for us to spout forth but what happens when meals on wheels services are cut,the free rides to the hospital are stopped and theres no money to update council houses full of damp ,metal windows and crumbling ceilings etc.
It shouldn't have to happen but the Tories spending £700k of taxpayers loot putting in new plumbing in Downing St,redecorating,new curtains literally don't give a toss. I'm alright Jack and buger you.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#19
But sadly it isn't that simple - selling off stuff won't lead directly to improved or maintained services, and it is a short term gain anyway. Once those assets have been "spent" that's your lot!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#20
Bern
I wish I had the answer. I don't but until we stop paying out obscene bank bonuses,clamp down on tax avoidance by the rich and redistribute some of the nations wealth its only going to get worse.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)