The Council has published its proposals for the review of secondary schools in Southampton. The issue is going to be decided by the Lib Dem cabinet on 12th June.
Note to Cabinet 05/06/06
Cllr J Moulton
ITEM NO:B1a - SECONDARY EDUCATION REVIEW
St Marks School / Civil Service Ground site:
- The idea of a new school on the existing St Mark's School Junior site with the ex Civil Service Sports Grounds as playing field has received considerable public interest and public support. The St Mark's site as providing a possible location for new city centre school has also received a lot of interest.
- This was noted at scrutiny and acknowledged. It is noted in the summary of the responses to the consultation. It is also noted in the ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED section of the report. However there is nothing regarding the St Marks site in the RECOMMENDATIONS section of the report.
- The RECOMMENDATIONS section should include a recommendation to examine the feasibility of a learning campus on the site of St Mark's Junior School.
Objection to the closure of Grove Park School:
- The closure of Grove Park school (on the Grove Park site) was not a proposal in the consultation.
- Parents have not been asked to give their views. Those that have given their views are opposed (including teaching staff).
- It is an excellent site with playing fields.
- There has been considerable investment in community facilities at the school over recent years and this will be wasted if the school is closed.
- Grove Park is an improving school.
- Originally the proposal was to close Woolston school, which has no playing fields. This has been taken off the agenda due to political pressure. Instead now it is proposed to close Grove Park, which from an independent view point can only be regarded as a wholly more appropriate site for a school.
- If the school is closed the land will be sold off for development. I object to this. It is irrational to sell off sports fields at Grove Park, whilst at the same time to consider compulsory purchasing existing properties next to Woolston school to give that school much smaller sports facilities.
- The closure of Grove Park is a knee jerk reaction. It is totally unacceptable to reveal the proposal two weeks before the Cabinet decision is due to be taken.
General Comments:
- It is not strategic. It does not look at choice of schools which parents want (how many single sex, co-educational schools are needed in each area of the City).
- It is piece meal approach, attempting move ahead with changes which are perceived to be easier politically and delaying changes which are perceived to be politically more sensitive.
- The focus is entirely on reducing the number of schools, to bring up the average pupils numbers, to hit Government targets.
- It does not focus on children and improving performance.
- It has been rushed and is ill thought out. This sort of re-organisation should have been planned years ago. It is simply chasing Government money and targets.
- It is not forward looking. What happens if pupil numbers rise in the future? We have c20,000 Poles in the City. What will happen when they bring their families to this country to settle?
- What thought has been given to encouraging local families not to send their children out of city as means of increasing roll numbers?
- What scope is there for reducing forms of entry in some schools, as a way of bringing surplus places down?
- The Education and Inspections Bill has now passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. The Bill implements the proposals for new ‘trust schools.' No consideration has been given to setting up of trust schools in Southampton.
- There is no analysis of the interaction with primary schools. Indeed primary schools were not even consulted in advance of issuing the questionnaire to parents.
- The consultation was inadequate. Insufficient information was provided to parents. The idea of a community campus is vague and unclear to parents. It is smokescreen to cover up the true agenda which is to close schools in the City.
- The financial case is also incredibly thin. The capital side is very general. The revenue savings (reinvestment) are not spelled out clearly.
- For such a radical change, which will upset hundreds of parents across the City, involve disposal of valuable public assets and the expenditure of considerable sums of money, it is totally inadequate.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
How Liberal / Conservative are you?
A fun survey which I found through a link on Iain Dale's Blog.
| Your Political Profile: |
| Overall: 65% Conservative, 35% Liberal |
| Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal |
| Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal |
| Ethics: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal |
| Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal |
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Government needs to tackle the pensions crisis
Last week the Government published its Pensions White Paper. It has received a broad welcome from across the political spectrum despite their being no attempt to form a consensus. A political consensus is vital as it is important that pensions reform is long lasting and can survive changes of Governments into the future. Whatever our separate party political motivations, the duty of all elected representatives is to do what is right for the long-term interest of Britain.
Conservatives are encouraged by plans to re-instate the earnings link to the Basic State Pension so that in the future it will increase in line with people's average earnings and not prices. Conservatives have been calling for the earnings link to be re-established for a number of years. It is concerning however that the Government has said that it may not happen until as late as 2015. In the intervening 9 years, pensioners will get relatively poorer and will remain stranded on means tested benefits. The Government has said that it is subject to "affordability and the fiscal position", a comment which smacks of a deal between the Prime Minister and Gordon Brown to water down the plans, and gives the Chancellor a 'get out of jail free card' if he becomes Prime Minister.
The White Paper is good news for women and carers. A more flexible carer's credit will be introduced and there will be a reduction in the number of years needed for a full State Pension. This should be welcomed as for too long the women have been penalised by a system designed more for the 1940s, than the 21st Century. However again the Government is delaying the change, until 2010, meaning that millions of women retiring, or already retired, will be left behind. Over a million women will retire between now and 2010 without a full contribution record and therefore will not get a full Basic State Pension. This is on top of the 3.8 million women already retired on a partial State Pension.
It is quite right that in the future the state pension age should increase, reflecting the fact that people are living longer and in many cases starting work later. This reflects the changes made in private sector pensions. What is scandalous is that the Government refuses to tackle public sector unions in some cases public sector workers will continue into the future to retire on a full pension at age 60. Public sector workers deserve fair treatment, the same as everyone else but they, too, must share in shouldering the burden of adjustment.
A new Private Pension Saving scheme will be introduced with people automatically enrolled. Employers, employees and the state will share the cost of contributions. It won't be compulsory but the rigmarole of having to complete a form to opt out will likely mean that most people will end up paying into the new scheme. This idea of auto enrolment has proved extremely successful in the private sector in increasing membership of occupational pension schemes. The Government has not yet explained whether or not it plans to run this new savings scheme. It certainly should not and it should be left to the pensions industry.
There is no mention about the Governments much trumpeted Stakeholder Pensions which were introduced a few years ago. Presumably these an now expected to whither and die, now that the Government has a new initiative.
The Government is very proud of the Financial Assistance Scheme that it has introduced to help members of pensions schemes which have collapsed. It will increase the funding of the scheme to £2b. However no mention is made of the £5b a year that Gordon Brown has raided from our pensions since 1997!
Despite being a step in the right direction, the Pensions White Paper stills leaves us with a horrendously complex, underfunded pensions system, riddled with unfairness. The Government had the opportunity to do much more. The next step is to build on these reforms and ensure that the solving the pensions crisis remains top of the political agenda and is not now kicked into the long grass.
Conservatives are encouraged by plans to re-instate the earnings link to the Basic State Pension so that in the future it will increase in line with people's average earnings and not prices. Conservatives have been calling for the earnings link to be re-established for a number of years. It is concerning however that the Government has said that it may not happen until as late as 2015. In the intervening 9 years, pensioners will get relatively poorer and will remain stranded on means tested benefits. The Government has said that it is subject to "affordability and the fiscal position", a comment which smacks of a deal between the Prime Minister and Gordon Brown to water down the plans, and gives the Chancellor a 'get out of jail free card' if he becomes Prime Minister.
The White Paper is good news for women and carers. A more flexible carer's credit will be introduced and there will be a reduction in the number of years needed for a full State Pension. This should be welcomed as for too long the women have been penalised by a system designed more for the 1940s, than the 21st Century. However again the Government is delaying the change, until 2010, meaning that millions of women retiring, or already retired, will be left behind. Over a million women will retire between now and 2010 without a full contribution record and therefore will not get a full Basic State Pension. This is on top of the 3.8 million women already retired on a partial State Pension.
It is quite right that in the future the state pension age should increase, reflecting the fact that people are living longer and in many cases starting work later. This reflects the changes made in private sector pensions. What is scandalous is that the Government refuses to tackle public sector unions in some cases public sector workers will continue into the future to retire on a full pension at age 60. Public sector workers deserve fair treatment, the same as everyone else but they, too, must share in shouldering the burden of adjustment.
A new Private Pension Saving scheme will be introduced with people automatically enrolled. Employers, employees and the state will share the cost of contributions. It won't be compulsory but the rigmarole of having to complete a form to opt out will likely mean that most people will end up paying into the new scheme. This idea of auto enrolment has proved extremely successful in the private sector in increasing membership of occupational pension schemes. The Government has not yet explained whether or not it plans to run this new savings scheme. It certainly should not and it should be left to the pensions industry.
There is no mention about the Governments much trumpeted Stakeholder Pensions which were introduced a few years ago. Presumably these an now expected to whither and die, now that the Government has a new initiative.
The Government is very proud of the Financial Assistance Scheme that it has introduced to help members of pensions schemes which have collapsed. It will increase the funding of the scheme to £2b. However no mention is made of the £5b a year that Gordon Brown has raided from our pensions since 1997!
Despite being a step in the right direction, the Pensions White Paper stills leaves us with a horrendously complex, underfunded pensions system, riddled with unfairness. The Government had the opportunity to do much more. The next step is to build on these reforms and ensure that the solving the pensions crisis remains top of the political agenda and is not now kicked into the long grass.
Friday, May 26, 2006
New Development in Howard Road
I have objected to a planning application for a block of 7 new one bedroom flats on the corner of Stafford Road and Howard Road.
The plans include no parking provision whatsoever. The area already has huge parking problems and building more flats with no parking will just make things worse.
There is plenty of space on the site for parking so its seems mad not to put some in when the flats are built.
The decision will be made by the Council's planning committee which is made up of elected Councillors.
I have added a link under "Southampton Links" where you can look up planning applications in the City. This has all the maps and plans and details of the application. The planning reference is: 06/00586/FUL.
The plans include no parking provision whatsoever. The area already has huge parking problems and building more flats with no parking will just make things worse.
There is plenty of space on the site for parking so its seems mad not to put some in when the flats are built.
The decision will be made by the Council's planning committee which is made up of elected Councillors.
I have added a link under "Southampton Links" where you can look up planning applications in the City. This has all the maps and plans and details of the application. The planning reference is: 06/00586/FUL.
Lib/Lab Pact to run Southampton City Council
On Wednesday it was decided that the Liberal Democrats would continue to run the City Council for another year.
The local elections on May 4th left all three political parties on 16 Councillors, and no clear winner. In the end a deal was cut between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems took all the Executive / Cabinet Member Postions (which make the majority of day to day political decisions and Labour took the chairmanships of all the Scrutiny panels (these are salaried posts). The scrutiny pannels are limited in that they can only scrutinize and delay cabinet decisions. They cannnot reverse them.
The Conservatives did not take part in the deal and were essentially squeezed out by the two left wing parties who have decided to work together.
The Conservatives felt that the Lib Dems did not have a mandate to continue running the City. They were the only party to lose a Council seat at the elections and the polled least number of votes. Conservatives polled c17,000, Labour c16000, Lib Dem c15,000. The Lib Dem Administration was widely regarded as a failure. It was indecisive and lacking in leadership. Labour was extremely vitriolic towards the Lib Dems during the local elections and it is therefore ironic that they chose to put them back in office for the price of a few chairmanships of Council committees.
The local elections on May 4th left all three political parties on 16 Councillors, and no clear winner. In the end a deal was cut between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems took all the Executive / Cabinet Member Postions (which make the majority of day to day political decisions and Labour took the chairmanships of all the Scrutiny panels (these are salaried posts). The scrutiny pannels are limited in that they can only scrutinize and delay cabinet decisions. They cannnot reverse them.
The Conservatives did not take part in the deal and were essentially squeezed out by the two left wing parties who have decided to work together.
The Conservatives felt that the Lib Dems did not have a mandate to continue running the City. They were the only party to lose a Council seat at the elections and the polled least number of votes. Conservatives polled c17,000, Labour c16000, Lib Dem c15,000. The Lib Dem Administration was widely regarded as a failure. It was indecisive and lacking in leadership. Labour was extremely vitriolic towards the Lib Dems during the local elections and it is therefore ironic that they chose to put them back in office for the price of a few chairmanships of Council committees.
St Marks School Summer Fayre
Last Saturday St Marks school had its summer fayre. I went along to support the Friends of the Field who had a tent with information on the ex Civil Service Sports Ground. We handed out questionaires for people to give their views on what they think the land should be used for.
A questionaire can be downloaded from the Friends of the Field website.
A questionaire can be downloaded from the Friends of the Field website.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Traffic Lights in Hill Lane
I was recently contacted by a resident about the phasing of the traffic lights in Hill Lane. The ones at the junction with Milton Road didn't seem to be in synch with the Archers Road/Hill Lane junction and as a result, it was proving almost impossible to turn right from Milton Road into Hill Lane. The traffic waiting to turn left into Hill Lane was being prevented from doing so because the right-turning traffic wasn't moving.
This was causing some cars wanting to turn left to pull into the wrong side of the road, passing the right turning traffic and cutting in front of them to turn left into Hill Lane.
I reported this the Council's traffic enginners who had already spoken with concerned parents of children at Springhill School.
The reason the phasing between the junctions is noticeably poorer since the Hill Lane/Archer Road junction changes is directly associated with the introduction of the all round pedestrian stage and the loss of time to traffic on all arms.
The Council have now implemented some changes in the linking of the two sets of signals, Hill Lane /Archers Rd and Hill Lane / Milton Rd. This seems to have eased some the problems. Further minor tweaks to timings are likely to take place over the next week as traffic settles down.
These changes will not completely eradicate all the problems although it does seem to have had a significant impact.
The situation will continue to be monitored and should further action be required the Council will consider what further changes might be needed.
Roadmarking are also going to be refreshed following a discussion with the operators of the school bus services and complaints that buses were "often" forced to mount the pavement when turning left out of Milton Road.
This was causing some cars wanting to turn left to pull into the wrong side of the road, passing the right turning traffic and cutting in front of them to turn left into Hill Lane.
I reported this the Council's traffic enginners who had already spoken with concerned parents of children at Springhill School.
The reason the phasing between the junctions is noticeably poorer since the Hill Lane/Archer Road junction changes is directly associated with the introduction of the all round pedestrian stage and the loss of time to traffic on all arms.
The Council have now implemented some changes in the linking of the two sets of signals, Hill Lane /Archers Rd and Hill Lane / Milton Rd. This seems to have eased some the problems. Further minor tweaks to timings are likely to take place over the next week as traffic settles down.
These changes will not completely eradicate all the problems although it does seem to have had a significant impact.
The situation will continue to be monitored and should further action be required the Council will consider what further changes might be needed.
Roadmarking are also going to be refreshed following a discussion with the operators of the school bus services and complaints that buses were "often" forced to mount the pavement when turning left out of Milton Road.
Save the Field Questionaire
You can download a survey from the Friends of the Field website. You can give your views on what you think should be done with the former Civil Service Sports Ground site in Malmesbury Road.
Monday, May 15, 2006
New Telephone Number for Non Emergency Problems
A new Single Non Emergency Number - 101 - was launched at 12 noon today.
Anyone in Hampshire or the Isle of Wight will be able dial this number to report a range of incidents.
The number can dialled using both land line and mobile networks but will only work in the geographical boundaries of the two counties.
The receiving call centre is located at police HQ Winchester who, when the call relates to council services, will either pass the information to the relevant council or transfer the caller to a council call centre.
The police 0845-045-4545 remains in operation as does the Its Your Call Number 0845 605 2222 although the latter will eventually be subsumed by 101. Calls to 101 will be charged at 10p per call although from public call boxes and some mobile networks it will be free.
What the number is for:
1. Anti Social Behaviour, including: Graffiti, vandalism, deliberate damage to property Intimidation and harassment, begging Kerb crawling/prostitution People being drunk or rowdy in public places People dealing drugs.
2. Street Defects: Street lighting, damage to road signs
3. Nuisance Rubbish: Fly tipping, litter and waste
4. Vehicles: Abandoned or nuisance vehicles
5. Noise Nuisance: Noisy neighbours or loud parties
Anyone in Hampshire or the Isle of Wight will be able dial this number to report a range of incidents.
The number can dialled using both land line and mobile networks but will only work in the geographical boundaries of the two counties.
The receiving call centre is located at police HQ Winchester who, when the call relates to council services, will either pass the information to the relevant council or transfer the caller to a council call centre.
The police 0845-045-4545 remains in operation as does the Its Your Call Number 0845 605 2222 although the latter will eventually be subsumed by 101. Calls to 101 will be charged at 10p per call although from public call boxes and some mobile networks it will be free.
What the number is for:
1. Anti Social Behaviour, including: Graffiti, vandalism, deliberate damage to property Intimidation and harassment, begging Kerb crawling/prostitution People being drunk or rowdy in public places People dealing drugs.
2. Street Defects: Street lighting, damage to road signs
3. Nuisance Rubbish: Fly tipping, litter and waste
4. Vehicles: Abandoned or nuisance vehicles
5. Noise Nuisance: Noisy neighbours or loud parties
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Mindless Vandalism
I woke up this morning to discover my car had the back window smashed in. Maybe it was a mistake leaving it parked in the road with a let down by Labour poster in the window.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Thank You!!
Just a quick post to thank everyone who voted for me yesterday. I am absolutely delighted to be re-elected!
I will post a proper analysis of the results when I get a chance.
The election on results in Hampshire are on the BBC website.
In Southampton the end result is 16 Conservatives, 16 Lib Dem and 16 Labour. Only one seat changed hands. Redbridge was taken of the Lib Dems by Labour. The seat was held by a Lib Dem who defected from Labour 3 years ago.
The Conservatives polled the most votes by a reasonable margin, however disappointingly didn't gain any new seats. It was a pretty poor result for the Lib Dems, and the Labour vote held up despite a poor showing nationally.
It was quite possible that either the Conservatives or Labour could have ended up the largest Group. If Labour had polled 50 more votes in Coxford, they would have ended up the largest Group. If the Conservatives had polled 54 more then we would have been the biggest.
Winchester had a cracking result and was narrowly taken by the Conservatives. The Conservatives in Basingstoke missed over all control by just one seat.
I will post a proper analysis of the results when I get a chance.
The election on results in Hampshire are on the BBC website.
In Southampton the end result is 16 Conservatives, 16 Lib Dem and 16 Labour. Only one seat changed hands. Redbridge was taken of the Lib Dems by Labour. The seat was held by a Lib Dem who defected from Labour 3 years ago.
The Conservatives polled the most votes by a reasonable margin, however disappointingly didn't gain any new seats. It was a pretty poor result for the Lib Dems, and the Labour vote held up despite a poor showing nationally.
It was quite possible that either the Conservatives or Labour could have ended up the largest Group. If Labour had polled 50 more votes in Coxford, they would have ended up the largest Group. If the Conservatives had polled 54 more then we would have been the biggest.
Winchester had a cracking result and was narrowly taken by the Conservatives. The Conservatives in Basingstoke missed over all control by just one seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
