Cheadle and Gatley Lib Dems are moving
Your Lib Dem team for Cheadle West & Gatley Learn more
by Lib Dem team on 8 April, 2014
Stockport Council and its associated organisations (e.g. Stockport Homes, Solutions SK) now spend six pounds of every ten with local Stockport companies, nearly twice the national average.
60% of Stockport Council spending on goods and services were purchased from business in Stockport in 2012/13 – up from 35% in 2010/11. That compares to a national average of just 31.1% (according to FSB research).
Stockport’s 60% local spending means £71 million going back into the local economy.
Innovations like Stockport Council’s “Meet the Buyer” event make it easier for small local companies to do business with the council.
We talk about “Shop Local” – under the Lib Dems, Stockport is doing just that, and boosting our local economy as a result.
16 Comments
LieDums keep spending, Spending, SPENDING – PERIOD !
Stockport’s the lowest spending authority in Greater Manchester, Robert.
Stocky has the HIGHEST Council Tax in Greater Mancy, Iain !
I’m sure we’ve been over this several times before, Robert but just for you I’ll try again.
Stockport is the lowest spending borough in Greater Manchester. All councils get there money from a combination of council tax and government grants. We get lower grants than the others and always have done, so even though we spend less, our council tax still has to make up a bigger funding gap.
Try making a more convincing case to the government then – you know – the ConDems !
Failing that – just try spending less – just a few thoughts…
Cut the number of Councillors – if you dare !
Cut the number of Council ‘out-stations’ – the little district offices you still have dotted around town. To be fair ! – this has been done albeit in only a small way – when the Cheadle office in the old Institute building on the Green closed some years back. There be more such elsewhere in town mind.
Cut all but the Central Library – most folk simply do not use these facilities anymore – time has moved on !
Stop wasting OUR money on Stocky County FC – most folk in this town support clubs from a certain other ‘town’ – if they have any such sporting allegiance at all !
There be more… !
Bless you Robert – almost like it’s still 2011.
We could cut the number of councillors, but it wouldn’t save a significant amount of money. We have cut the local offices, but many are still needed (many residents have very limited ability to travel).
Disagree with you on the libraries, which are important for all sorts of reasons: long gone are the days they were just used for borrowing books. There’s still a couple of weeks for you to get nomination papers to stand against me in the local elections – if you want to stand on a “close the library” ticket we’ll see how it goes for you.
As for Stockport County, I’ve honestly no idea what money you think is being spent there as there’s nothing I’m aware of.
If there’s more, please do tell!
SCFC – no taxpayers money spent on them ? – GOOD. It was season 2010-11 when the Council in their ‘wisdom’ became the shirt sponsors ! They had only just been relegated from The Football League !!
Then there be all these silly little ‘cultural’ outlets – not least The Staircase House – where the original staircase barely exists !
Years ago I suggested that you reduce the production of the Stockport Review (aka Libdem Review) to a couple of year – it was then six. Your ex-leader ignored me saying something like “it is good to hear from the residents” – now it is quarterly = it should biannual – and he has been kicked out by the electorate.
Based on a cost of around £25k per issue I reckon your council has wasted awful lot of money over the years.
Let’s have more of this. More heat than light but very entertaining.
Hi Bruce,
You’re right that we didn’t reduce The Review to 2 a year – and for a very good reason. For many of the poorer parts of the Borough it’s the only newspaper they get and contains important information about council services, education etc. that people would otherwise have no easy access to.
So to my mind, saving a small amount of money (£50,000 out of the £50,000,000 annual savings we’ve made so far – or 0.1%) to deprive poorer members of our society of important information about the services available to them would be a false economy.
The question I am asking why didn’t you reduce the frequency to quarterly years ago – over ten years that is half a million pounds. The reason you didn’t do it is because it was (and still is) a vehicle to promote the LibDems.
Hi Bruce,
Regarding the savings, when we say we’ve saved £50 million, that’s £50 million every year, not in total over a number of years, which is why I say the Review would be 0.1% of that.
You say it’s a vehicle to promote the Lib Dems. Where, exactly?
The Lib Dems don’t have any input to The Review, nor do we see it until it’s printed. Please let me know where the Lib Dems are promoted above other parties in The Review, because I just don’t see it. If you can reference any specific stories that would be helpful.
May-June 2010 – headline- what a great place to live.
December 2010 – Minister (Danny Alexander) praises Stockport Boost
Prior to 2011 – I have noticed that there are very few since then ( I complained) – load of photos of councillors in silly poses like planting trees. One issue had a supplement ) about 3/4 years ago) containing similar stories and photos to the main issue.
Thanks Bruce – I hope that settles that issue – the Review as currently published is certainly not party propoganda.
David Cameron visited Cheadle recently – will his photo be in the next issue?
No idea as we don’t have any input into the paper, but as no minister from any party has featured for several years I think it’s unlikely!