Shamik Das reports on Tory-run Bexley council's plans to charge kids to use a playground - following on from Tory Wandsworth's plans to do the same last month.
Just last month, Tory-run Wandsworth announced plans to charge kids £2.50 to use a playground. Now, Tory Bexley is planning to do the same, charging kids to play, pricing the poor out of the playground. They plan to charge children at least £1 to use Belvedere Splash Park – a plan not subject to any public consultation, a plan which the council admits will disproportionately hit those on lower incomes.
And, just like Wandsworth – whose leader was recently appointed Boris Johnson’s chief of staff – Bexley also has close links to the Mayor. In 2008 he appointed council leader Ian Clement to be his deputy mayor and in February he appointed current Tory council leader, Teresa O’Neill, as his outer London adviser.
Labour’s candidate for 2012 Ken Livingstone said of the plans:
“A disturbing theme is emerging across London. Every time a London Tory council leader decides to charge kids to play, Boris Johnson gives them a senior role in his administration.
“Hundreds of thousands of families in London are being squeezed with higher fares and cuts. I share the growing concerns about the direction of Boris Johnson’s administration with so many of his key advisers behind these ‘pay to play’ proposals.”
As we’ve said before on this blog, the divide between the sporting opportunities granted the privileged and those offered the poor are growing, from playgrounds and playing fields to the Olympics and Test cricket, background is having an ever greater say in outcomes – something the likes of Boris, David Cameron and George Osborne are not only unable to understand, but are actually making worse.
Not all kids go to schools that can boast 12 squash courts, 20 tennis courts, an indoor and outdoor swimming pool, four cricket fields, a nine-hole golf course, rowing on the lake that will host the 2012 Olympics, perfectly mown outfields…
53 Responses to “Another day, another Tory council planning to charge kids to play”
Anon E Mouse
John Jackson – Regarding the re-building of the Labour Party that isn’t going to happen without getting rid of the hapless Milliband – I said the same on this blog about Gordon Brown and his thoroughly unacceptable behaviour towards his staff, yet despite everyone knowing people espousing my opinion are clearly right, no one in Labour had the balls to do anything.
And suffered their second worst defeat in history.
I mention being positive because negative campaigning has been shown not to work time and again yet Labour seem unable to learn from their mistakes and just keep repeating the same hypocritical nonsense time and again.
Labour will not get elected by this type of action – the polls show Miliband is a disaster and not changing their approach will result in further election losses. What is even worse than Labour’s hypocrisy and outright deceit in blogs like this fine one, is that the activists actually seem unable to even see what is wrong. Take this reply I gave earlier to BenM, a rude Labour activist:
“What worries me is that you seem quite happy to accept the very criticisms I mention without wanting an honest political party that represents the demographic it claims it supports.
Why don’t you want a positive Labour Party BenM because it’s pretty clear you don’t….”
What is very obvious is that your re-building hasn’t even started yet and without a leader the public can vote for it will be a long long time I fear…
John Jackson
Selohesra – Thank you for your response.
Ah yes, the mythical ‘Money Tree’ – personally, I imagine it standing somewhere in the leafy avenue that links ‘El Dorado’ to the lost city of ‘Atlantis’ !
But allow me to crave your indulgence for a moment and ask you to imagine that I have in fact located this arborescent, pecuniary miracle. Surely, this is the panacea for all of the World’s problems – or is it ?
Do I share my discovery with the rest of humanity or merely take that which I require to enhance the lives of those closest to me ?
If I am to share this gift (?) with the rest of humanity, should I set pre-conditions with regard to it’s use ?
In the event that I do indeed distribute the fruits of ‘The Tree’, how can I be sure that certain recipients will not merely use their share to purchase armaments so as to secure the source and plunder the remainder by force ?
And what if the distribution of this gift (?) should ultimately lead to the complete shutdown of society in the event an enormous global party were to ensue ?!
Maybe then I should just entrust it to a bank ? (“Hang on a minute, we tried that, remember ?”) Sorry, stupid idea !!
Patently, I have a CHOICE to make – and that is precisely where we stand in this very debate.
The unlimited supply of money in and of itself does not provide a single resolution to a single problem; however, obviously, the way in which the financial resources of a nation are allocated and utilised – and remember, we live in the fifth richest nation on earth – is absolutely fundamental to the well-being of that country, it’s society and it’s individual citizens.
Currently, this Conservative led Government has made a CHOICE to inflict massive cuts upon on our public services which are based entirely upon IDEOLOGICAL DOGMA.
Despite warnings from a litany of highly respected international economists that this policy of cuts is ‘too much, too soon’ and that it will harm our fragile economy – and recent economic figures clearly support that assertion – a deliberate, opportunistic CHOICE to shrink the size of the state has been made.
Let us then set-aside any other possible consequences of this ECONOMIC VANDALISM and examine the likely effects of this decision in just one area – the issue pertinent to this debate: children and the Tory policy of charging them to play in PUBLIC parks.
There is a raft of evidence which clearly suggests that money invested in early years play and education leads to a reduction in teenage crime, teenage pregnancy and teenage drug-abuse. In the USA, a long term study carried out over a ten year period evaluating the effect of additional funding for early years play and education concluded that for every dollar spent, ten dollars was subsequently saved as a consequence of the associated reduction in juvenile crime. (I am afraid that I am unable to recall which state carried out this research but I do recollect that it began with the letter ’M’ – “sorry“).
Be under no illusion, should we CHOOSE to allow and endorse this pernicious policy of social exclusion then in the not too distant future many of the forlorn little faces peering IN through the bars of the ‘off-limits’ play areas will be bigger forlorn faces peering OUT through the bars of a young offenders institute !
If we as a society make the CHOICE that it is acceptable to socially exclude children by virtue of deliberately imposing economic sanctions upon them then not only are we incredibly short-sighted, we are also little better than fascists.
Our future is in our hands, and also in OUR PUBLIC parks.
I apologise for the length of this post, but it concerns an issue far too important for a simple glib response.
Selohesra
John – I think you are in danger of letting your splenid hyperbole get in the way of the facts.
There is not such a huge difference in total between the government cuts and those that Darling claimed he would have to impose – the big difference is that Labour never properly explained where their cuts would fall and so can opportunistically declare that wherever the government proposes cuts they would not be making them there – perhaps the Official Opposition should be renamed the Official Opportunism.
The meme of these savage cuts is being fostered by the Tories as well as Labour both of whom need to demonstrate that they are very different to each other in order to justify their own existance. This deceit is compounded by the rampant bias of the BBC (and some other media) who have been bewailing the pain of the savage cuts from the day after the election – long before any impact could really resulted.
To me it is self evident that the cuts need to be deeper and faster (I may be mistaken but I read somewhere that government expenditure would be higher in 2011 than it was in 2010).
I would rather my taxes were going to fund schools and hospitals than servicing the massive debt we have built up – partly but not entirely as a result of Brown’s failure as Chancellor & PM
John Jackson
Selohesra – Thank you again for the response.
Unfortunately, as you fail to present any ‘facts’ within the content of your post (number 31), I shall instead attempt to address the points which you raise.
However, in advance of my so doing please allow me to inform you – purely for the purpose of reference – that although I am a Democratic Socialist; I am neither a fanatical nor tribal ‘My Party, right or wrong’ (to paraphrase: Stephen Decatur) advocate of ANY political party.
You are indeed correct to state that Alistair Darling, and the previous Labour administration, did not outline exactly where the cuts which he claimed he would have to impose were likely to fall; however, as that particular government was voted out of office in May 2010, we can only speculate as to which areas of public spending would most likely have been affected, and by how much.
However, ‘THE FACT’ (which you have conveniently chosen to ignore) is that the present Tory led administration has CHOSEN to cut much deeper and much
faster than even it originally informed us would be ‘necessary’ (??!!).
Another ‘FACT’ which you may – or, if you are a member of this Tory led cohort of economic incompetents, ‘may not’ – care to acknowledge is this: within the last fortnight the Tory led government has been warned by the ‘Office for Economic Co-operation and Development’ (hardly a hot-bed of left-wing reactionaries !) about the pace of the cuts.
Furthermore, just yesterday, 5th June 2011, Mr Osborne was told by a group of Britain’s leading economists that he needs to find a plan ‘B’, and in the words of one of that number: “you can’t really achieve your deficit reduction plans unless you really cause even more damage to the economy” – which explains precisely why, as you point out in your post, “government expenditure would be higher in 2011 than it was in 2010” !
Mr Osborne’s critics also included the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office Jonathan Portes, who is now director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. In a letter to the Sunday Times, Mr Portes wrote: “You do not gain credibility by sticking to a strategy that is not working.”
Of course these concerns are just the latest in a series of warnings that have been voiced by numerous internationally renowned and respected economists not least among which is the 2008 Nobel prize winner for economics, Paul Krugman.
So, whilst it may indeed be “self evident” to your good-self that “the cuts need to be deeper and faster” – as indeed it is to the economic incompetents in this Tory led government who are clearly intent on IDEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED economic vandalism – I am afraid that your opinion is completely at odds with INFORMED, RATIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING.
A ‘meme’ ? No, This Tory led government has attempted to inculcate a fallacious deception into the national psyche in order that it may, if not glean support, then at least minimise opposition for it’s entirely IDEOLOGICALLY driven policy of excessive cuts.
And with regard to the matter of ‘hyperbole’ and ‘facts’, I will let others decide who has presented facts in support of their argument and who is reliant alone merely upon subjective opinion. I feel confident that any informed, unbiased judge will easily identify the REAL NAME of the proponent of the most convincing, comprehensive and factually supported argument.
Selohesra
John
1) – Dont bank your arguenemt on OECD line – they actually came out to clarify after Balls’s poor spin attemt to confirm they generally supported the government line
2) – ‘a group of Britains leading economists’ could just as easily read ‘left leaning economists’ – personally I dont hold much store by any economists – I think they claim to understand rather more than they do
3) excessive cuts – goverment spending is still increasing as is the deficit
4) You seem very hung up by my posting as a pseudonym – my real name is really rather common – there are many who share my name in the world just like there are probably many John Jackson’s – I dont think posting under my real name would advance the arguements either way or help you to identify me. Perhaps we should all post under our NI numbers?
5) Looks like IMF have come out supporting Government deficit reduction policy
Try again 🙂