£111M spent on council offices
Discussion
JagLover said:
Standard Labour modus operandi
and when they come to implement the cuts imposed on them by a cut in the central government grant they will be careful to cut front line services and leave the numbers of diversity consultants and all other such non jobs unchanged.
EXACTLY this. It's always the Labour councils who come up with such batsand when they come to implement the cuts imposed on them by a cut in the central government grant they will be careful to cut front line services and leave the numbers of diversity consultants and all other such non jobs unchanged.
t crazy spending as this, almost always in inner-city areas with large effnik populations, and they are ALWAYS in receipt of huge central-government hand-outs to stay afloat (as the locals pay no council tax, natch). I wonder what the Newham councillors 'expense accounts' look like. At one guess, effing expensive.
Oli.
sleep envy said:
hornetrider said:
sleep envy said:
may I ask, how many publically funded construction projects have you worked on?
17.which ones?
Like I said, I'm not averse to them moving buildings to consolidate into one building, even if it did cost 92m to buy. I'm not au fait with London property prices so that may be a bargain. What I DO want to know is - how much did they get when they presumably flogged off the 26 buildings they vacated (BBC article reference).
And when it comes to spec - that lobby does look lavish, this is public funds we are talking about, not S&T LLP head office. Also - think about the plebs who live in that area trashing it, yeesh.
Did you work on / spec this building?
hornetrider said:
Did you work on / spec this building?
nope, I didn't have any involvement but I've worked on construction projects (incl some of the largest seen in the UK which were publically funded) long enough to know what gets reported in the press gets twisted and misrepresentedsleep envy said:
what gets reported in the press gets twisted and misrepresented
In other news bear sts in woods etc.However, you cannot deny those light fightings are outrageous and so to is that lobby (if it is the lobby, and not some break out recreation area). I'd love to be able to take a look round the place.
Also as said, how much did they sell the 26 vacated offices for?
sleep envy said:
hornetrider said:
Did you work on / spec this building?
nope, I didn't have any involvement but I've worked on construction projects (incl some of the largest seen in the UK which were publically funded) long enough to know what gets reported in the press gets twisted and misrepresentedhornetrider said:
However, you cannot deny those light fightings are outrageous and so to is that lobby (if it is the lobby, and not some break out recreation area). I'd love to be able to take a look round the place.
Also as said, how much did they sell the 26 vacated offices for?
if you read my posts I have already said that I'm not defending the light fittingsAlso as said, how much did they sell the 26 vacated offices for?
it's the reception, as already said those areas are always up spec'd in a building
it's a public building - the doors are open to all, feel free to have a nosey round
I don't know about the disposal, the FOI act will allow you access to that info
sleep envy said:
hornetrider said:
Did you work on / spec this building?
nope, I didn't have any involvement but I've worked on construction projects (incl some of the largest seen in the UK which were publically funded) long enough to know what gets reported in the press gets twisted and misrepresentedWhilst a building may cost a lot of money. 92M! 92 Million pounds of our money. Say it slowly.. It's a phenomenal amount, absurd in these times.
eps said:
If you read the whole article they (Newham Council) seem determined to spend money at almost no cost.
Whilst a building may cost a lot of money. 92M! 92 Million pounds of our money. Say it slowly.. It's a phenomenal amount, absurd in these times.
it's clear that you haven't really understood all the facts behind this 'story'Whilst a building may cost a lot of money. 92M! 92 Million pounds of our money. Say it slowly.. It's a phenomenal amount, absurd in these times.
in these times?
the site wasn't bought until 2007, at which point the scheme will have been running for at least 18 months
sleep envy said:
1. if you read my posts I have already said that I'm not defending the light fittings
2. it's the reception, as already said those areas are always up spec'd in a building
3. it's a public building - the doors are open to all, feel free to have a nosey round
You seem a bit narky today 2. it's the reception, as already said those areas are always up spec'd in a building
3. it's a public building - the doors are open to all, feel free to have a nosey round
1. Good
2. Just because it's always done that way doesn't make it right - not with public money
3. CBA to drive all the way to the big smoke and can't imagine they'd invite me in to check out the spec of their meeting rooms
sleep envy said:
eps said:
If you read the whole article they (Newham Council) seem determined to spend money at almost no cost.
Whilst a building may cost a lot of money. 92M! 92 Million pounds of our money. Say it slowly.. It's a phenomenal amount, absurd in these times.
it's clear that you haven't really understood all the facts behind this 'story'Whilst a building may cost a lot of money. 92M! 92 Million pounds of our money. Say it slowly.. It's a phenomenal amount, absurd in these times.
in these times?
the site wasn't bought until 2007, at which point the scheme will have been running for at least 18 months
eps said:
You're defending that? I've merely reported the facts available, yet you seem happy to suggest that the disposal will save a load of money and the assumed cost savings will more than cover the cost. Meanwhile they are shedding jobs and also, as someone has indicated not spending money on the local hospital. I know which I'd rather have a few million spent on!
I'm not defending it, just pointing out the innacuracies in your postsevery council is having to shed jobs, it's not exclusive to those that have invested in construction schemes
btw, you neatly avoid this little factoid 'This council expects to save almost £140m in total by the end of 2014'
sounds like a healthy net gain to me
anyways, I'm off to a meeting - I've got to spec an M&E installation and spend millions of public money
eps said:
You're defending that? I've merely reported the facts available, yet you seem happy to suggest that the disposal will save a load of money and the assumed cost savings will more than cover the cost. Meanwhile they are shedding jobs and also, as someone has indicated not spending money on the local hospital. I know which I'd rather have a few million spent on!
How would the money that Newham Council spent (achieved through Council taxes (even if loaned from CGvt/treasury or private financing)) find it's way into the NHS and even then into a Hospital in Newham?Shedding jobs is what every public sector area is doing now as a direct reaction to funding cuts, this has nothing to do with buildings and facilities and the new building will have had no impact on that.
Even then without knowing the full cost in terms of the revenue generated from previous site disposals and the presumed running cost of the the lifecycle of the old buildings vs the new one, then I think I'll sit on the fence on this one. Yes they've gone overboard on a couple of twinklies for the front desk but why shouldn't they try and build a pleasant and modern building, the local inhabitants might even respect it and have some pride in it.
I bet you hate the thought of the Olympics being in London too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff