As I posted on Swindontalk.com :-
I also have a lot of sympathy with Lower Shaw farm -they provide a really different environment and offer all sorts of things no one else in area does. However I am also a council tax payer and I voted for the conservatives because they promised not to screw me over on council tax and to reform the way Swindon Borough Council was run - and whilst I can't agree with everything they are doing, I believe they are doing the right thing here, as much as lower shaw farm is used, it has to pay it's way.
However I cannot stand the sort of comments this so called representative of south swindon, Anne Snelgrove, makes when she obviously has no idea of what is going on. I feel sorry for all those who voted for her.
Let's look at some of the thinks she said :-
They don’t seem to know what they are doing or why. The reasons they are giving for closure of the farm don’t stack up
Isn't this fairly clear ? - the council have an asset that is not producing an acceptable yield and thus they are looking at ways to make it pay - it is called asset management isn't it ?
and the repeated claims that this has something to do with central government are complete fabrication
What repeated claims ? I know the government doesn't give swindon enough money - I am a school governor and we receive considerably less per child than most local authorities our size such as Milton Keynes or peterborough - even the adver published the figures - Why isn't Anne Snelgrove fighting the government for a better settlement for our kids - why isn't her assistant posting letters to the education minister demanding more money for swindon? She could be campaigning to limit the number of houses her government wants to build here in swindon - sorry, can't quite hear you Anne !
If the Tories seriously think that government wants Lower Shaw Farm closed, why haven’t they approached me for help? In fact, they have not had the courtesy, or the intelligence to give me a full picture of why exactly they think the sell off is necessary
What ? Are you offering to help the Tories close lower shaw farm ?? Did the council say that it thought the government wanted the land sold off - if so where was that printed ? Perhaps they haven't approached you Anne because you are a really negative person who can't even acknowledge the improvements that the conservatives have made to the council after the disasterous way the labour party ran the borough down whilst raising council tax levels to ridiculous heights ? I would also be really careful about questioning intelligence or shall we look at some of your speeches in the past ?
I know - why don't you give us a full picture of why you support the erosion of civil liberties by the introduction of ID cards ? The legislative and regulatory reform Bill ? the ridiculous amount of money being wasted on the fiasco called computers for health - what was the figure ? Oh yes - about £12.4 billion pounds pretty much down the drain - how many million pounds were pumped into isoft ?- how many lower shaw farms would that save ?
The iraq war - did you think of those four soldiers who were killed on sunday whilst you were posing for your photo's with your mate at the cenotaph ? That your labour party is directly responsible for their deaths - stick in the craw doesn't it? How about how many billion pounds the war has cost ? Although the value of life is so much higher.
“I am also concerned that Cllr Bluh asserts that “Lower Shaw Farm does not currently offer best value”
Obviously this is a tricky one for you Anne, so i'll help you along. Commercial property has consistantly produced between 5% & 7% over the past ten years. Just so you understand - Yield is The annual rate of return on an investment or asset, expressed as a percentage. Lower Shaw Farm is unfortunately classed as a commercial asset. Perhaps if the labour councillors who originally agreed the lease had done it properly in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation now would we?
Thus if an asset is worth, for example £2,000,000 (two million pounds if you find numbers hard to work with) and the expected yield is (for the sake of keeping numbers simple for you) 5% - it would be expected that the asset would return £100,000 (that is one hundred thousand pounds). per annum (per year - don't want to confuse you) a figure which I believe is the one quoted in the adver.
So if the actual rent being produced is only £8,000 that translates to a yield of 0.4%
In terms of a best value review - let's consider the evidence - £100,000 or £8,000 ? Expected yield 5% - actual yield 0.4% - What don't you understand ? I know I don't have faith in most MP's, but if you can't work out that 5% is better than 0.4% or £100,000 is better than £8,000 perhaps you should consider your position ?
If you really want to talk about disposing of assets - shall we have a look at what the labour government has done - selling off the old defense research establishment - now called qinetiq -
here is a quote from the times "Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, who has been pushing for an investigation into the sale of 34 per cent of the company in 2003, said: “This strengthens the case for an inquiry into how Carlyle managed to acquire its stake for just £42 million.”
If the company is valued at £1.3 billion, Carlyle is in line for a £360 million profit on its initial investment. It will continue to hold a 12 per cent stake, worth £156 million, but could choose to sell that in just six months’ time. "
Hey not bad one of tony's friends making £360 million pounds from selling one of the contries assets.
How about the sale of government property to a private offershore company who doesn't pay any tax (private eye) should we have a public debate about that Anne ? perhaps we could hold it a lower shaw farm and show solidarity ?
I’m here to help but it has become quite clear to me that my help is not wanted by the Tories in Swindon and the public is paying the price
Anne - how exactly are you helping ? The labour party - the government - you are a part of, is systematically destroying the heritage of this country, has no control over the immigration system, has lost control of law and order, is proposing to let off criminals if they apologise (daily mail today) instead of banging them up - oh sorry ! you can't do that because you didn't have the foresight to build any prisons to put them in, has increased personal taxation to levels that are squeezing the most productive in this country, and yet you have a benefits system that rewards the least productive. If that is help Anne, I'm not surprised they don't want any!
You have no concept of how to support decent hardworking families who are foolish enough to have two parents who are still together trying to provide for their children - you would actually make them better off if they split up !
You have introduced over 70 different taxes - but not on income tax - do you think we are stupid and haven't noticed ? Oh yes Anne we are certainly paying the price - but of your government's incompetance not Swindon's.
You supported publicly John Prescott !! The man who ordered the widespread destruction of properties in the North to replace them with modern little shoe boxes - at a higher cost than would have been if the properties had been refurbished (estates gazette)- the energy cost alone in destroying the houses and using new bricks and mortar is absurd - hmm - haven't I heard you bang on about sustainability - doesn't quite square up does it ?
John Prescott - The man who thinks a back garden is prime development land. The man who's department thought it would be good to build all over the front garden and the land next to coate water ! So you support him and his decisions do you Anne ? - happy about the building going on in swindon are you ? All those houses next to coate ? I hope you are really pleased with yourself. Don't try to blame the council on this - it was the planning inspector who put the nail in the coffin.
You of all people have no right to even consider accusing the conservatives of mismanagement. Your own labour group here in Swindon made a complete balls up of running the council - increases in council tax of over 40% in three years and what did we get at the end - one of the worst performing councils in the country. And yet the conservatives have improved the council so much that even your government is impressed by the progress (don't think you've been quoted saying that have you - couldn't quite bring yourself to admit it ?)
Come on Jude - post Annes Reply !
With their majority in the Council, the sad truth is that they can ride roughshod over local people and it seems they are intent on doing so.
Dangerous words - perhaps if we rephrase this:-
"With their majority in government, the sad truth is that they can ride roughshod over local people and it seems they are intent on doing so" ain't that the truth !
