Comment: With no choice but to use cars, we need parking spaces

Comment: With no choice but to use cars, we need parking spaces

Comment: With no choice but to use cars, we need parking spaces

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

The danger for any broadly-accepted political concept is that it can, over time, lapse into dogma. One such trend has been emerging in the way motorists are getting a raw deal under a planning system skewed in favour of developers under the guise of green initiatives.

In a number of flats developments in densely populated areas of the town, applicants have put forward schemes with not enough parking spaces.

On the face of it, this would just seem to be developers cutting corners to the detriment of the people who will live there. This shortcut is understandably desirable as reduced parking means another property or two can be crammed into the development.

Yet when councillors express displeasure about these shortfalls, planning officials retort that the developer can claim the development, or part of it, is “car free”. And that is basically that.

Recent cases include the proposals to develop the Victorian villa at 36 Clarendon Road (24 spaces for 36 new flats) or the old Verulam Arms pub in St Albans Road (13 spaces for 18 flats). Both were turned down in the end, but because of other factors.

Another area where this groupthink appears is during the periodic discussions at the borough council about raising the price of permits in controlled parking zones.

A comparative data chart produced by the borough showed many councils charge a far higher amount for second vehicle permits. Possibly this is partly to prevent overcrowding. But there also seems to be a more pernicious strand of thought that cars are a bona fide demarcation of wealth – people with two vehicles must be well-heeled and indulgent petrolheads bent on destroying the environment.

In reality, many families have to run a second car due to necessities such as working in an area poorly served by public transport or having to get their children to school.

Most families would surely do away with their second car if they could, purely on expense grounds.

Many of these initiatives are tenuously justified by their environment credentials as part of the green agenda, which is widely endorsed by the political establishment.

Personally I can see sense in weaning ourselves off a dependency on fossil fuels. As long as it is the life blood of our economy, petroleum-producing nations will always have a friendly hand on our throat.

It’s also important to add that cars are not intrinsically evil.

The current breed run on a finite fuel that harms the environment. But that is not the fault of the people who drive and rely on them.

If our political class is so concerned about emissions their time would be better spent helping industry come up with a viable affordable green alternative instead of ham-fistedly trying to force people out of their cars and into an inadequate public transport system.

And these efforts should go beyond the current series of vacuous green gestures such as turning parking spaces in the town’s car parks into charging points for green electro-cars. (If anyone ever sees one of these being used by the way, do let me know as it would be a rare enough occurrence to merit news coverage).

At the moment, the blunt and unthinking application of green initiatives seems to be aiding developers and the council at the expense of everyone unable to afford their own driveway.

Comments (100)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:21pm Fri 28 Mar 14

TRT says...

I take it you haven't actually read the Watford Development Plan, which zones areas according to ease of access to public transport and enforces a parking standard accordingly? It's a freely available public document you can get from the planning office.
I take it you haven't actually read the Watford Development Plan, which zones areas according to ease of access to public transport and enforces a parking standard accordingly? It's a freely available public document you can get from the planning office. TRT
  • Score: 9

2:22pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

What a great article. I agree with Mike.

I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple.

What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town.

We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal.

Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford.

A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised.

Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity.

Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.
What a great article. I agree with Mike. I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple. What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town. We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal. Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford. A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised. Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity. Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

3:21pm Fri 28 Mar 14

not a regular says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What a great article. I agree with Mike. I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple. What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town. We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal. Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford. A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised. Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity. Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.
A great idea but unfortunately we don't live in a utopia. For every additional parking space that you add to a home, that's more land that the home buyer has to purchase. That means the cost of a home goes up. That also means that there are fewer homes built on a development because those parking spaces have to be put somewhere, and unfortunately due to insane arbitrary boundaries, such as the green belt, land is finite.

So tell you what, allow building to take place on just a half mile into the green belt and maybe there wouldn't be a requirement to build rabbit hutches and sell them for ten times the average wage.

You can't have it both ways.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What a great article. I agree with Mike. I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple. What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town. We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal. Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford. A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised. Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity. Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.[/p][/quote]A great idea but unfortunately we don't live in a utopia. For every additional parking space that you add to a home, that's more land that the home buyer has to purchase. That means the cost of a home goes up. That also means that there are fewer homes built on a development because those parking spaces have to be put somewhere, and unfortunately due to insane arbitrary boundaries, such as the green belt, land is finite. So tell you what, allow building to take place on just a half mile into the green belt and maybe there wouldn't be a requirement to build rabbit hutches and sell them for ten times the average wage. You can't have it both ways. not a regular
  • Score: 4

4:42pm Fri 28 Mar 14

WatfordAlex says...

TRT wrote:
I take it you haven't actually read the Watford Development Plan, which zones areas according to ease of access to public transport and enforces a parking standard accordingly? It's a freely available public document you can get from the planning office.
Spot on. I've lived in a few other places outside Watford and they all follow the same sort of approach. It's a very standard thing across the country in fact. Bottom line: developers know they can sell/rent properties close to Watford Junction to people who don't own cars. If they need a car for work then they will buy/rent one of the tens of thousands of properties in the town that does have parking provision. Free market and all that!
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I take it you haven't actually read the Watford Development Plan, which zones areas according to ease of access to public transport and enforces a parking standard accordingly? It's a freely available public document you can get from the planning office.[/p][/quote]Spot on. I've lived in a few other places outside Watford and they all follow the same sort of approach. It's a very standard thing across the country in fact. Bottom line: developers know they can sell/rent properties close to Watford Junction to people who don't own cars. If they need a car for work then they will buy/rent one of the tens of thousands of properties in the town that does have parking provision. Free market and all that! WatfordAlex
  • Score: 7

4:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

WatfordAlex says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What a great article. I agree with Mike.

I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple.

What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town.

We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal.

Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford.

A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised.

Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity.

Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.
It's actually a pretty poor article. Incidentally, I've never been fined while driving, so what's all this "fined at every opportunity" BS. If you get fined regularly then presumably that's because you keep speeding or driving without insurance etc - if so, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for you!

It's simple economics Phil. You make parking cheaper then council tax would have to go up to make up the shortfall and congestion will get worse as more people drive. UKIP - the party that promises you higher taxes and gridlock...
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What a great article. I agree with Mike. I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple. What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town. We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal. Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford. A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised. Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity. Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.[/p][/quote]It's actually a pretty poor article. Incidentally, I've never been fined while driving, so what's all this "fined at every opportunity" BS. If you get fined regularly then presumably that's because you keep speeding or driving without insurance etc - if so, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for you! It's simple economics Phil. You make parking cheaper then council tax would have to go up to make up the shortfall and congestion will get worse as more people drive. UKIP - the party that promises you higher taxes and gridlock... WatfordAlex
  • Score: 8

5:18pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

WatfordAlex wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What a great article. I agree with Mike.

I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple.

What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town.

We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal.

Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford.

A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised.

Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity.

Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.
It's actually a pretty poor article. Incidentally, I've never been fined while driving, so what's all this "fined at every opportunity" BS. If you get fined regularly then presumably that's because you keep speeding or driving without insurance etc - if so, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for you!

It's simple economics Phil. You make parking cheaper then council tax would have to go up to make up the shortfall and congestion will get worse as more people drive. UKIP - the party that promises you higher taxes and gridlock...
It's a simple economic fact that the council makes a large surplus from charging too much for parking, not to mention the cut of the profits taken by the third party that manages parking for the town.

It's therefore childsplay to look at how that surplus can best be used to make parking cheaper for those that pay the ever-higher charges imposed by WBC.

Council tax would only need to rise if there was a shortfall in parking receipts. I am not planning that. I am just planning to return value to motorists.

As for higher taxes, Ukip is a party of value for money and cutting taxes.

LibDems are a party of tax and spend, no better than Labour. Already they are pressing for new and unfair taxes after the next election.

Thankfully their party is dying and so they will have no influence nationally on peoples lives after the next general election.

So, vote LibDem for higher taxes and higher parking charges and less parking because they didn't build a parking spot for the bloke round the corner with a car who is now parking on your street.

Or vote Ukip for homes worth living in and enough parking spaces for all. And lower taxes!

The choice is yours.
[quote][p][bold]WatfordAlex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What a great article. I agree with Mike. I believe that if you build homes you should provide a parking space for each home. It's really that simple. What is happening now is just a cause of frustration for existing and future residents of the town. We also need to build homes people want to live in and those homes need a parking space each. Hutches are for rabbits and even then it's not ideal. Whoever thought up the current arrangements obviously didn't think it through or didn't care enough about people who want to use cars. Either way it is failing the people of Watford. A Ukip Mayor would fight to change this to ensure all new homes have at least one car parking space and that parking costs are reduced across the town, not raised. Until the green lobby manage to get car ownership made a criminal offence, car drivers should not be treated like criminals to be charged and fined at every opportunity. Car owners wanting to park outside their own homes on a public road should not be considered a source of revenue for the local council. It's one of the things I want to see changed.[/p][/quote]It's actually a pretty poor article. Incidentally, I've never been fined while driving, so what's all this "fined at every opportunity" BS. If you get fined regularly then presumably that's because you keep speeding or driving without insurance etc - if so, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for you! It's simple economics Phil. You make parking cheaper then council tax would have to go up to make up the shortfall and congestion will get worse as more people drive. UKIP - the party that promises you higher taxes and gridlock...[/p][/quote]It's a simple economic fact that the council makes a large surplus from charging too much for parking, not to mention the cut of the profits taken by the third party that manages parking for the town. It's therefore childsplay to look at how that surplus can best be used to make parking cheaper for those that pay the ever-higher charges imposed by WBC. Council tax would only need to rise if there was a shortfall in parking receipts. I am not planning that. I am just planning to return value to motorists. As for higher taxes, Ukip is a party of value for money and cutting taxes. LibDems are a party of tax and spend, no better than Labour. Already they are pressing for new and unfair taxes after the next election. Thankfully their party is dying and so they will have no influence nationally on peoples lives after the next general election. So, vote LibDem for higher taxes and higher parking charges and less parking because they didn't build a parking spot for the bloke round the corner with a car who is now parking on your street. Or vote Ukip for homes worth living in and enough parking spaces for all. And lower taxes! The choice is yours. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -10

6:54pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Cox seems to know how to find land for new housing with loads of parking in Watford where none exists. That's a neat trick, but promising the impossible when you have no chance of having to deliver on the promise is easy. Perhaps he should spend a bit more time checking his facts before going into print with this nonsense
Cox seems to know how to find land for new housing with loads of parking in Watford where none exists. That's a neat trick, but promising the impossible when you have no chance of having to deliver on the promise is easy. Perhaps he should spend a bit more time checking his facts before going into print with this nonsense Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 8

8:05pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford said 'Council tax would only need to rise if there was a shortfall in parking receipts. I am not planning that. I am just planning to return value to motorists.

Perhaps you could explain how your economic theory of 'reducing the cost of parking and not having a shortfall of revenue' works.
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford said 'Council tax would only need to rise if there was a shortfall in parking receipts. I am not planning that. I am just planning to return value to motorists. Perhaps you could explain how your economic theory of 'reducing the cost of parking and not having a shortfall of revenue' works. Nascot
  • Score: 3

9:13pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Cox seems to know how to find land for new housing with loads of parking in Watford where none exists. That's a neat trick, but promising the impossible when you have no chance of having to deliver on the promise is easy. Perhaps he should spend a bit more time checking his facts before going into print with this nonsense
Another LibDem who wants to tell you how to live your life. He wouldn't live in one himself but it's ok for everyone else. Politicians, eh?

You have a choice. Decent housing or rabbit hutches with no parking.

I have been approached by angry residents who live near new developments that do not have sufficient allocated parking. Whether you like it or not Wacko people are still free to own a car even if you make sure they don't have anywhere to park it.

It just means you are putting pressure on parking often in the most overcrowded parts of town and the residents who were there before now have even less chance of parking their car.

Vote Ukip, it makes a lot more sense than the LibDems and you don't even have to read the small print. It appears Nick Clegg is a fan of small print.

As for delivering - elect me and I'll deliver. No problems.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: Cox seems to know how to find land for new housing with loads of parking in Watford where none exists. That's a neat trick, but promising the impossible when you have no chance of having to deliver on the promise is easy. Perhaps he should spend a bit more time checking his facts before going into print with this nonsense[/p][/quote]Another LibDem who wants to tell you how to live your life. He wouldn't live in one himself but it's ok for everyone else. Politicians, eh? You have a choice. Decent housing or rabbit hutches with no parking. I have been approached by angry residents who live near new developments that do not have sufficient allocated parking. Whether you like it or not Wacko people are still free to own a car even if you make sure they don't have anywhere to park it. It just means you are putting pressure on parking often in the most overcrowded parts of town and the residents who were there before now have even less chance of parking their car. Vote Ukip, it makes a lot more sense than the LibDems and you don't even have to read the small print. It appears Nick Clegg is a fan of small print. As for delivering - elect me and I'll deliver. No problems. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -12

9:46pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Nascot says...

OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges

100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income
Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is
100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?
OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges 100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is 100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more? Nascot
  • Score: 6

8:51am Sat 29 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Nascot wrote:
OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges

100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income
Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is
100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?
Ridiculous comment.

Answer me this Nascot.

How much surplus did WBC make on parking last year Nascot?

ukip are a party of cutting taxes. Some parking charges are a tax by any other name.
[quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges 100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is 100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?[/p][/quote]Ridiculous comment. Answer me this Nascot. How much surplus did WBC make on parking last year Nascot? ukip are a party of cutting taxes. Some parking charges are a tax by any other name. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -18

12:21pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I see that I have a score of -5 on this thread for providing parking, cutting taxes and cutting parking fees.

I think you can see where the LibDems are coming from on this as it is their anonymous posters, quite possibly councillors, who criticise this idea.

If you want higher taxes and bigger state, vote LibDem.

If you want lower taxes, vote Ukip.

I've never met anyone who has said they have not paid enough taxes and want to pay more. I have however heard from a number of politicians, LibDems and Labour primarily who will say that YOU should pay more taxes.

UKIP - a new way of thinking that keeps your tax bills lower.

Vote Ukip.
I see that I have a score of -5 on this thread for providing parking, cutting taxes and cutting parking fees. I think you can see where the LibDems are coming from on this as it is their anonymous posters, quite possibly councillors, who criticise this idea. If you want higher taxes and bigger state, vote LibDem. If you want lower taxes, vote Ukip. I've never met anyone who has said they have not paid enough taxes and want to pay more. I have however heard from a number of politicians, LibDems and Labour primarily who will say that YOU should pay more taxes. UKIP - a new way of thinking that keeps your tax bills lower. Vote Ukip. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -14

12:52pm Sat 29 Mar 14

LSC says...

I generally agreed with the article up until the point where electric cars were referred to as 'green'.
They are not green, and in my view never will be, despite battery technology.
Until somebody explains to me how you can put a charging point in every parking space in the country without digging up every single road in the country. Every private office car park space, every private garage will need one for it to work.
Who is going to pay for that and how?
What is the environmental impact of 30 million tons of hot tarmac, 200 million miles of heavy duty copper wire?
There are 34 million vehicles in the UK as of 2012, and you would want a charging point, made from metals and plastics, at home and at work as well as other places. So you'd need probably 100 MILLION charging points, then have to wire them up. Then power them... how?

Green my backside. Even if we could afford it, we'd choke the planet to death installing it.
I generally agreed with the article up until the point where electric cars were referred to as 'green'. They are not green, and in my view never will be, despite battery technology. Until somebody explains to me how you can put a charging point in every parking space in the country without digging up every single road in the country. Every private office car park space, every private garage will need one for it to work. Who is going to pay for that and how? What is the environmental impact of 30 million tons of hot tarmac, 200 million miles of heavy duty copper wire? There are 34 million vehicles in the UK as of 2012, and you would want a charging point, made from metals and plastics, at home and at work as well as other places. So you'd need probably 100 MILLION charging points, then have to wire them up. Then power them... how? Green my backside. Even if we could afford it, we'd choke the planet to death installing it. LSC
  • Score: -4

5:36pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Nascot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I see that I have a score of -5 on this thread for providing parking, cutting taxes and cutting parking fees.

I think you can see where the LibDems are coming from on this as it is their anonymous posters, quite possibly councillors, who criticise this idea.

If you want higher taxes and bigger state, vote LibDem.

If you want lower taxes, vote Ukip.

I've never met anyone who has said they have not paid enough taxes and want to pay more. I have however heard from a number of politicians, LibDems and Labour primarily who will say that YOU should pay more taxes.

UKIP - a new way of thinking that keeps your tax bills lower.

Vote Ukip.
For the record .
I have ONLY ever posted under Nascot and am neither a LibDem councillor nor a member of any political party.

Anyone remember RegEdit? Funny how he has disappeared and Phil Cox seems to have taken his place.

Phil Cox is an IT consultant and RegEdit is a computing term. Coincidence?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I see that I have a score of -5 on this thread for providing parking, cutting taxes and cutting parking fees. I think you can see where the LibDems are coming from on this as it is their anonymous posters, quite possibly councillors, who criticise this idea. If you want higher taxes and bigger state, vote LibDem. If you want lower taxes, vote Ukip. I've never met anyone who has said they have not paid enough taxes and want to pay more. I have however heard from a number of politicians, LibDems and Labour primarily who will say that YOU should pay more taxes. UKIP - a new way of thinking that keeps your tax bills lower. Vote Ukip.[/p][/quote]For the record . I have ONLY ever posted under Nascot and am neither a LibDem councillor nor a member of any political party. Anyone remember RegEdit? Funny how he has disappeared and Phil Cox seems to have taken his place. Phil Cox is an IT consultant and RegEdit is a computing term. Coincidence? Nascot
  • Score: -2

6:12pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Nascot wrote:
OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges

100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income
Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is
100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?
Ridiculous comment.

Answer me this Nascot.

How much surplus did WBC make on parking last year Nascot?

ukip are a party of cutting taxes. Some parking charges are a tax by any other name.
Come on then Cox, why don't you tell us all how much surplus WBC made on parking last year and in recent years, and what they spent it on. And please back it up with your reference sources because like other readers I really don't know, however I suspect you may find you've been talking rubbish as usual. At the same time please tell us all which political party has kept our council taxes down to a zero increase for several years now. (hint - it's not UKIP ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges 100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is 100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?[/p][/quote]Ridiculous comment. Answer me this Nascot. How much surplus did WBC make on parking last year Nascot? ukip are a party of cutting taxes. Some parking charges are a tax by any other name.[/p][/quote]Come on then Cox, why don't you tell us all how much surplus WBC made on parking last year and in recent years, and what they spent it on. And please back it up with your reference sources because like other readers I really don't know, however I suspect you may find you've been talking rubbish as usual. At the same time please tell us all which political party has kept our council taxes down to a zero increase for several years now. (hint - it's not UKIP ;-) Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Sat 29 Mar 14

LSC says...

I don't understand why I have been voted down on my post. Anyone care to point out where I am wrong? You know, with facts?
Or do some of you REALLY buy the BS 'green' talk?
I learned today you aren't supposed to put paper that has been shredded in the recycle bin. Someone please explain the science to me on that one, because the first thing they do with old paper is pulp it to make new paper. What is the difference how big it is?
Of course, they then bleach it using up to 8 times more bleach than they need on new paper, and all the extra bleach kills a lot more fishes than chopping down a tree in a sustainable forest ever did, but it's GREEN, right?
I don't understand why I have been voted down on my post. Anyone care to point out where I am wrong? You know, with facts? Or do some of you REALLY buy the BS 'green' talk? I learned today you aren't supposed to put paper that has been shredded in the recycle bin. Someone please explain the science to me on that one, because the first thing they do with old paper is pulp it to make new paper. What is the difference how big it is? Of course, they then bleach it using up to 8 times more bleach than they need on new paper, and all the extra bleach kills a lot more fishes than chopping down a tree in a sustainable forest ever did, but it's GREEN, right? LSC
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Nascot wrote:
OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges

100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income
Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is
100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?
Ridiculous comment.

Answer me this Nascot.

How much surplus did WBC make on parking last year Nascot?

ukip are a party of cutting taxes. Some parking charges are a tax by any other name.
Come on then Cox, why don't you tell us all how much surplus WBC made on parking last year and in recent years, and what they spent it on. And please back it up with your reference sources because like other readers I really don't know, however I suspect you may find you've been talking rubbish as usual. At the same time please tell us all which political party has kept our council taxes down to a zero increase for several years now. (hint - it's not UKIP ;-)
Just ask next time you're in council, Manny will know. Or just google it if you don't want to wait until next week.

If elected I will ask him myself for the latest figures and then publish them online on the council website. That way residents can see how much profit the council makes each year.

As for keeping taxes frozen, yes your party has done that.

Well done.

Sort of.

The question begging to be asked is "Why did it take a recession for the LibDem council to stop increases in the council tax and more to the point, why stop at freezing taxes, why not reduce them across the board?"

A Ukip council would not be satisfied with just freezing taxes. We would be looking to reduce them.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nascot[/bold] wrote: OK here's a UKIP scenario according to Phil Cox's policy to reduce parking charges 100 car park spaces currently @ £10 a day = £1,000 income Under Phil (UKIP Cox) as promised, reduced to £5 per day = £500. Result is 100 happy motorists, possibly not even Watford residents & £500 shortfall in parking revenue. Council tax increases to compensate = 80,000 Watford residents paying higher Council tax. Need I say more?[/p][/quote]Ridiculous comment. Answer me this Nascot. How much surplus did WBC make on parking last year Nascot? ukip are a party of cutting taxes. Some parking charges are a tax by any other name.[/p][/quote]Come on then Cox, why don't you tell us all how much surplus WBC made on parking last year and in recent years, and what they spent it on. And please back it up with your reference sources because like other readers I really don't know, however I suspect you may find you've been talking rubbish as usual. At the same time please tell us all which political party has kept our council taxes down to a zero increase for several years now. (hint - it's not UKIP ;-)[/p][/quote]Just ask next time you're in council, Manny will know. Or just google it if you don't want to wait until next week. If elected I will ask him myself for the latest figures and then publish them online on the council website. That way residents can see how much profit the council makes each year. As for keeping taxes frozen, yes your party has done that. Well done. Sort of. The question begging to be asked is "Why did it take a recession for the LibDem council to stop increases in the council tax and more to the point, why stop at freezing taxes, why not reduce them across the board?" A Ukip council would not be satisfied with just freezing taxes. We would be looking to reduce them. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -11

9:19pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?
So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet? Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 3

10:27pm Sat 29 Mar 14

LSC says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?
I'm totally on the fence and can't vote in Watford anyway. But to be fair Wacko, we had Labour in government, they were a disaster. We now have supposedly the 'best of'' what the Tories and Lib Dems have to offer working together, and I can't claim to be impressed.
On a more local level we have all sorts in power around the region, but instead of potholes being sorted we get Purple Flag awards for such a friendly town centre (In the top ten of the most crime ridden streets in the entire UK) and bridges across a pond. We get a proposed market of portacabins but no-where cheap to park to visit it.
Every weekend we get violent crime in the street but no police to stop it.

We all know this has been going on for years. I wouldn't blame people for giving UKIP a go, we've tried the others and they didn't work.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?[/p][/quote]I'm totally on the fence and can't vote in Watford anyway. But to be fair Wacko, we had Labour in government, they were a disaster. We now have supposedly the 'best of'' what the Tories and Lib Dems have to offer working together, and I can't claim to be impressed. On a more local level we have all sorts in power around the region, but instead of potholes being sorted we get Purple Flag awards for such a friendly town centre (In the top ten of the most crime ridden streets in the entire UK) and bridges across a pond. We get a proposed market of portacabins but no-where cheap to park to visit it. Every weekend we get violent crime in the street but no police to stop it. We all know this has been going on for years. I wouldn't blame people for giving UKIP a go, we've tried the others and they didn't work. LSC
  • Score: 0

3:05am Sun 30 Mar 14

Sara says...

LSC wrote:
I don't understand why I have been voted down on my post. Anyone care to point out where I am wrong? You know, with facts?
Or do some of you REALLY buy the BS 'green' talk?
I learned today you aren't supposed to put paper that has been shredded in the recycle bin. Someone please explain the science to me on that one, because the first thing they do with old paper is pulp it to make new paper. What is the difference how big it is?
Of course, they then bleach it using up to 8 times more bleach than they need on new paper, and all the extra bleach kills a lot more fishes than chopping down a tree in a sustainable forest ever did, but it's GREEN, right?
Shredded paper can't be recycled for two reasons. Firstly once paper is shredded, the fibres in the paper are much shorter, which means the quality is much lower. After a few lots of shredding, it's not very usable.

Secondly if you have a co-mingled system where all dry recyclables go in one bin, the shredded paper gets caught up around glass and plastics, making even more materials impossible to recycle.

However shredded paper can be composted, which is what we do with ours.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why I have been voted down on my post. Anyone care to point out where I am wrong? You know, with facts? Or do some of you REALLY buy the BS 'green' talk? I learned today you aren't supposed to put paper that has been shredded in the recycle bin. Someone please explain the science to me on that one, because the first thing they do with old paper is pulp it to make new paper. What is the difference how big it is? Of course, they then bleach it using up to 8 times more bleach than they need on new paper, and all the extra bleach kills a lot more fishes than chopping down a tree in a sustainable forest ever did, but it's GREEN, right?[/p][/quote]Shredded paper can't be recycled for two reasons. Firstly once paper is shredded, the fibres in the paper are much shorter, which means the quality is much lower. After a few lots of shredding, it's not very usable. Secondly if you have a co-mingled system where all dry recyclables go in one bin, the shredded paper gets caught up around glass and plastics, making even more materials impossible to recycle. However shredded paper can be composted, which is what we do with ours. Sara
  • Score: 5

3:09pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?
Why was WBC Parking account allowed to build a reserve of a million pounds and how has it been frittered away?

Are residents wrong when they see little joined up thinking in planning when HMOs and high density blocks exacerbate their parking pressures which makes them an easy target for a fine?

if this fund is non profit making and ring fenced, therefore it does nothing to reduce council tax or fund other services except parasitically create work for itself. Meanwhile development pressures create more congestion and more easily available fines.

Parking policy is out of step with the job market. We need policies that help people live a fuller life and not restrict their life chances. Politicians are very good at telling others to do as I say and not as I do.

The job market
The dash for job is such that having a car gives a bigger range of options. Why should some groups be penalised in reducing their career options? For example, some youngsters need a car to get to Luton for their apprenticeships.
Sessional hours, zero contracts, shift work, minimum wages etc requires workers to be able access cheap readily available public transport.
A significant percentage of jobs are in outlining business parks
A high percentage of servicing jobs require engineers to cover many wide areas.
Outsourcing, sub contracting, self employment has meant that many workers have to forage for contracts over much wider areas.
Many have more than just one job or need more than just one wage earner going of course in separate directions at different times.
Many self employed people have to have a van as they are self employed and besides many firms are reducing their car parking facilities and expect workers to take their van home and maybe only come into the office once a week.
Trades people are reluctant to take on jobs where there is little parking or there is a risk of being fined
Public transport
Check out the cost of public transport for those on low wages.
Far too many use the seats as a foot rest and for their children to jump on.
Is there a seat?
Apart from London, public transport is poor and in many cases non existent.
Street lighting
Many workers are forced to return home late after working late into the early hours long after the lights have been switched off. I'd like to recommend cycling as I do but it is dangerous on our narrow roads.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?[/p][/quote]Why was WBC Parking account allowed to build a reserve of a million pounds and how has it been frittered away? Are residents wrong when they see little joined up thinking in planning when HMOs and high density blocks exacerbate their parking pressures which makes them an easy target for a fine? if this fund is non profit making and ring fenced, therefore it does nothing to reduce council tax or fund other services except parasitically create work for itself. Meanwhile development pressures create more congestion and more easily available fines. Parking policy is out of step with the job market. We need policies that help people live a fuller life and not restrict their life chances. Politicians are very good at telling others to do as I say and not as I do. The job market The dash for job is such that having a car gives a bigger range of options. Why should some groups be penalised in reducing their career options? For example, some youngsters need a car to get to Luton for their apprenticeships. Sessional hours, zero contracts, shift work, minimum wages etc requires workers to be able access cheap readily available public transport. A significant percentage of jobs are in outlining business parks A high percentage of servicing jobs require engineers to cover many wide areas. Outsourcing, sub contracting, self employment has meant that many workers have to forage for contracts over much wider areas. Many have more than just one job or need more than just one wage earner going of course in separate directions at different times. Many self employed people have to have a van as they are self employed and besides many firms are reducing their car parking facilities and expect workers to take their van home and maybe only come into the office once a week. Trades people are reluctant to take on jobs where there is little parking or there is a risk of being fined Public transport Check out the cost of public transport for those on low wages. Far too many use the seats as a foot rest and for their children to jump on. Is there a seat? Apart from London, public transport is poor and in many cases non existent. Street lighting Many workers are forced to return home late after working late into the early hours long after the lights have been switched off. I'd like to recommend cycling as I do but it is dangerous on our narrow roads. Cuetip
  • Score: -8

5:14pm Sun 30 Mar 14

LSC says...

Sara wrote:
LSC wrote:
I don't understand why I have been voted down on my post. Anyone care to point out where I am wrong? You know, with facts?
Or do some of you REALLY buy the BS 'green' talk?
I learned today you aren't supposed to put paper that has been shredded in the recycle bin. Someone please explain the science to me on that one, because the first thing they do with old paper is pulp it to make new paper. What is the difference how big it is?
Of course, they then bleach it using up to 8 times more bleach than they need on new paper, and all the extra bleach kills a lot more fishes than chopping down a tree in a sustainable forest ever did, but it's GREEN, right?
Shredded paper can't be recycled for two reasons. Firstly once paper is shredded, the fibres in the paper are much shorter, which means the quality is much lower. After a few lots of shredding, it's not very usable.

Secondly if you have a co-mingled system where all dry recyclables go in one bin, the shredded paper gets caught up around glass and plastics, making even more materials impossible to recycle.

However shredded paper can be composted, which is what we do with ours.
That makes some scientific sense, although I was under the impression paper was pulped, which in my mind meant smashed in to tiny pieces and virtually liquified into a kind of porridge. Then bleach was added, it was laid out and dried into usable paper. But I fully admit I don't know the true process and the ins and outs.
I totally see your second point but in Hertsmere we have paper only bins, made of plastic and imported from China from factories with no emission restrictions on the factories or the coal fired power stations.
Just how much paper do I have to recycle to wipe out the carbon footprint of the bin I put it in I wonder?
[quote][p][bold]Sara[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I don't understand why I have been voted down on my post. Anyone care to point out where I am wrong? You know, with facts? Or do some of you REALLY buy the BS 'green' talk? I learned today you aren't supposed to put paper that has been shredded in the recycle bin. Someone please explain the science to me on that one, because the first thing they do with old paper is pulp it to make new paper. What is the difference how big it is? Of course, they then bleach it using up to 8 times more bleach than they need on new paper, and all the extra bleach kills a lot more fishes than chopping down a tree in a sustainable forest ever did, but it's GREEN, right?[/p][/quote]Shredded paper can't be recycled for two reasons. Firstly once paper is shredded, the fibres in the paper are much shorter, which means the quality is much lower. After a few lots of shredding, it's not very usable. Secondly if you have a co-mingled system where all dry recyclables go in one bin, the shredded paper gets caught up around glass and plastics, making even more materials impossible to recycle. However shredded paper can be composted, which is what we do with ours.[/p][/quote]That makes some scientific sense, although I was under the impression paper was pulped, which in my mind meant smashed in to tiny pieces and virtually liquified into a kind of porridge. Then bleach was added, it was laid out and dried into usable paper. But I fully admit I don't know the true process and the ins and outs. I totally see your second point but in Hertsmere we have paper only bins, made of plastic and imported from China from factories with no emission restrictions on the factories or the coal fired power stations. Just how much paper do I have to recycle to wipe out the carbon footprint of the bin I put it in I wonder? LSC
  • Score: 2

8:10pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Cuetip wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?
Why was WBC Parking account allowed to build a reserve of a million pounds and how has it been frittered away?

Are residents wrong when they see little joined up thinking in planning when HMOs and high density blocks exacerbate their parking pressures which makes them an easy target for a fine?

if this fund is non profit making and ring fenced, therefore it does nothing to reduce council tax or fund other services except parasitically create work for itself. Meanwhile development pressures create more congestion and more easily available fines.

Parking policy is out of step with the job market. We need policies that help people live a fuller life and not restrict their life chances. Politicians are very good at telling others to do as I say and not as I do.

The job market
The dash for job is such that having a car gives a bigger range of options. Why should some groups be penalised in reducing their career options? For example, some youngsters need a car to get to Luton for their apprenticeships.
Sessional hours, zero contracts, shift work, minimum wages etc requires workers to be able access cheap readily available public transport.
A significant percentage of jobs are in outlining business parks
A high percentage of servicing jobs require engineers to cover many wide areas.
Outsourcing, sub contracting, self employment has meant that many workers have to forage for contracts over much wider areas.
Many have more than just one job or need more than just one wage earner going of course in separate directions at different times.
Many self employed people have to have a van as they are self employed and besides many firms are reducing their car parking facilities and expect workers to take their van home and maybe only come into the office once a week.
Trades people are reluctant to take on jobs where there is little parking or there is a risk of being fined
Public transport
Check out the cost of public transport for those on low wages.
Far too many use the seats as a foot rest and for their children to jump on.
Is there a seat?
Apart from London, public transport is poor and in many cases non existent.
Street lighting
Many workers are forced to return home late after working late into the early hours long after the lights have been switched off. I'd like to recommend cycling as I do but it is dangerous on our narrow roads.
And your solution to all these issues is..........?
[quote][p][bold]Cuetip[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: So there you have it folks, Cox claims the council are creaming profits off the motorist through parking charges, but can't back his allegation up with facts, and yet again he promises things he can't deliver. If he's going to reduce taxes I want to know what services he's going to cut to balance the books. Oh yes and he's also got to pay for that ridiculous ministry of common sense idea of his. None of it adds up. Don't waste your vote on UKIP, use it for a party which has a hope of success and some real policies. BTW does anyone know if Cox has published his promised manifesto yet?[/p][/quote]Why was WBC Parking account allowed to build a reserve of a million pounds and how has it been frittered away? Are residents wrong when they see little joined up thinking in planning when HMOs and high density blocks exacerbate their parking pressures which makes them an easy target for a fine? if this fund is non profit making and ring fenced, therefore it does nothing to reduce council tax or fund other services except parasitically create work for itself. Meanwhile development pressures create more congestion and more easily available fines. Parking policy is out of step with the job market. We need policies that help people live a fuller life and not restrict their life chances. Politicians are very good at telling others to do as I say and not as I do. The job market The dash for job is such that having a car gives a bigger range of options. Why should some groups be penalised in reducing their career options? For example, some youngsters need a car to get to Luton for their apprenticeships. Sessional hours, zero contracts, shift work, minimum wages etc requires workers to be able access cheap readily available public transport. A significant percentage of jobs are in outlining business parks A high percentage of servicing jobs require engineers to cover many wide areas. Outsourcing, sub contracting, self employment has meant that many workers have to forage for contracts over much wider areas. Many have more than just one job or need more than just one wage earner going of course in separate directions at different times. Many self employed people have to have a van as they are self employed and besides many firms are reducing their car parking facilities and expect workers to take their van home and maybe only come into the office once a week. Trades people are reluctant to take on jobs where there is little parking or there is a risk of being fined Public transport Check out the cost of public transport for those on low wages. Far too many use the seats as a foot rest and for their children to jump on. Is there a seat? Apart from London, public transport is poor and in many cases non existent. Street lighting Many workers are forced to return home late after working late into the early hours long after the lights have been switched off. I'd like to recommend cycling as I do but it is dangerous on our narrow roads.[/p][/quote]And your solution to all these issues is..........? Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 4

9:07am Mon 31 Mar 14

johnhornet says...

I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote! johnhornet
  • Score: 13

10:16am Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

10:49am Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it?

Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it? Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well. Su Murray
  • Score: 2

11:00am Mon 31 Mar 14

johnhornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
Phil,

I have reviewed your comment. Your condescending attitude towards the electorate is baffling.

"...Better you float off elsewhere...."

Quality - can you imagine any grown-up politician saying that?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]Phil, I have reviewed your comment. Your condescending attitude towards the electorate is baffling. "...Better you float off elsewhere...." Quality - can you imagine any grown-up politician saying that? johnhornet
  • Score: 5

11:04am Mon 31 Mar 14

johnhornet says...

Phil,

" Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

How have you calculated the £1m?
Phil, " Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? How have you calculated the £1m? johnhornet
  • Score: 0

11:37am Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

johnhornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
Phil,

I have reviewed your comment. Your condescending attitude towards the electorate is baffling.

"...Better you float off elsewhere...."

Quality - can you imagine any grown-up politician saying that?
Can you imagine any voter telling a political party he would vote for you if only you would declare your policies to be stupid?

Sorry John, I don't believe you're genuine.
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]Phil, I have reviewed your comment. Your condescending attitude towards the electorate is baffling. "...Better you float off elsewhere...." Quality - can you imagine any grown-up politician saying that?[/p][/quote]Can you imagine any voter telling a political party he would vote for you if only you would declare your policies to be stupid? Sorry John, I don't believe you're genuine. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

11:48am Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it?

Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.
Su,

you're a green party candidate/member.

You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years.

As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby.

Please report back later with the figures Su.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it? Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.[/p][/quote]Su, you're a green party candidate/member. You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years. As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby. Please report back later with the figures Su. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

12:13pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it?

Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.
Su,

you're a green party candidate/member.

You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years.

As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby.

Please report back later with the figures Su.
Phil,

Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me.

Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine.

Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either.

As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it? Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.[/p][/quote]Su, you're a green party candidate/member. You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years. As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby. Please report back later with the figures Su.[/p][/quote]Phil, Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me. Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine. Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either. As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me. Su Murray
  • Score: 7

12:17pm Mon 31 Mar 14

johnhornet says...

Phil,

I don't know what you mean by
"Sorry John, I don't believe you're genuine"

Are you implying that I'm a Lib Dem is disguise, or a virtual robot, or what? I'm not a member of any political party and have never been, I voted for most parties over the years.

The problem is with most politicians. Look through your statements above - you are saying what you think is right to get elected, not stuff to improve anyone's lot. Your message to the greens makes clear that the £1m you spouted off about parking is a bit of a guess.

The bigger problem is that many people now hate politics - they think all politicians lie, and some of the stuff above implies that a vote grabbing headline is what's the most important. Like you I can't think of anything were than another 4 years or Dorothy Thornhill either - Watford needs change and new ideas.

Sadly you've done nothing to make me vote UKIP.

In your words "best I float off elsewhere..."
Phil, I don't know what you mean by "Sorry John, I don't believe you're genuine" Are you implying that I'm a Lib Dem is disguise, or a virtual robot, or what? I'm not a member of any political party and have never been, I voted for most parties over the years. The problem is with most politicians. Look through your statements above - you are saying what you think is right to get elected, not stuff to improve anyone's lot. Your message to the greens makes clear that the £1m you spouted off about parking is a bit of a guess. The bigger problem is that many people now hate politics - they think all politicians lie, and some of the stuff above implies that a vote grabbing headline is what's the most important. Like you I can't think of anything were than another 4 years or Dorothy Thornhill either - Watford needs change and new ideas. Sadly you've done nothing to make me vote UKIP. In your words "best I float off elsewhere..." johnhornet
  • Score: 4

12:44pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it?

Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.
Su,

you're a green party candidate/member.

You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years.

As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby.

Please report back later with the figures Su.
Phil,

Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me.

Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine.

Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either.

As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.
For goodness sake Su, what is the harm in finding out for their own reasons how much profit was made on parking over the last three years? It's not a secret. It could be found out very quickly in council as they already have the info. Councillors are entitled to that info, aren't they, for whatever reason they deem fit.

I don't expect them to have it at their fingertips. I would however expect them to be able to pick up the phone, call Manny or whoever is required, and get the information before having to hang up. It's really that easy.

Why don't you stop imagining how hard it can be, pick up the phone and find out how easy it can be?

I meant no discourteousy Su, but you could report the figures back here from your councillors, very easily. I'm just wondering why you don't want to.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it? Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.[/p][/quote]Su, you're a green party candidate/member. You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years. As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby. Please report back later with the figures Su.[/p][/quote]Phil, Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me. Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine. Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either. As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake Su, what is the harm in finding out for their own reasons how much profit was made on parking over the last three years? It's not a secret. It could be found out very quickly in council as they already have the info. Councillors are entitled to that info, aren't they, for whatever reason they deem fit. I don't expect them to have it at their fingertips. I would however expect them to be able to pick up the phone, call Manny or whoever is required, and get the information before having to hang up. It's really that easy. Why don't you stop imagining how hard it can be, pick up the phone and find out how easy it can be? I meant no discourteousy Su, but you could report the figures back here from your councillors, very easily. I'm just wondering why you don't want to. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

1:05pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it?

Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.
Su,

you're a green party candidate/member.

You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years.

As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby.

Please report back later with the figures Su.
Phil,

Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me.

Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine.

Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either.

As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.
For goodness sake Su, what is the harm in finding out for their own reasons how much profit was made on parking over the last three years? It's not a secret. It could be found out very quickly in council as they already have the info. Councillors are entitled to that info, aren't they, for whatever reason they deem fit.

I don't expect them to have it at their fingertips. I would however expect them to be able to pick up the phone, call Manny or whoever is required, and get the information before having to hang up. It's really that easy.

Why don't you stop imagining how hard it can be, pick up the phone and find out how easy it can be?

I meant no discourteousy Su, but you could report the figures back here from your councillors, very easily. I'm just wondering why you don't want to.
Phil,

What you are saying is you don't have the figures. Therefore your 'promise' that you would reduce parking fees is meaningless. You have no idea whether that would be feasible.

You are a Mayoral candidate - why not 'phone and ask for the information before making promises that may not be viable?

Why don't I want to obtain the figures? I'm not the one making the commitment. I think people should be aware that a Mayoral candidate is making unsubstantiated claims. Not that they'd be surprised. It's taken for granted that politicians of all flavours will lie. The sad thing is, that means any candidate who was being honest, wouldn't be believed.

You know Phil, if I was running for Mayor, and had wanted to make such a promise, I would have found out the facts or simply said I would look at the viability of reducing parking fees (assuming that's what I wanted to do). Of course that isn't a good vote catching statement. Thanks to the spin by all politicians, people would just assume that was a lie. Ironic eh?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it? Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.[/p][/quote]Su, you're a green party candidate/member. You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years. As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby. Please report back later with the figures Su.[/p][/quote]Phil, Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me. Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine. Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either. As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake Su, what is the harm in finding out for their own reasons how much profit was made on parking over the last three years? It's not a secret. It could be found out very quickly in council as they already have the info. Councillors are entitled to that info, aren't they, for whatever reason they deem fit. I don't expect them to have it at their fingertips. I would however expect them to be able to pick up the phone, call Manny or whoever is required, and get the information before having to hang up. It's really that easy. Why don't you stop imagining how hard it can be, pick up the phone and find out how easy it can be? I meant no discourteousy Su, but you could report the figures back here from your councillors, very easily. I'm just wondering why you don't want to.[/p][/quote]Phil, What you are saying is you don't have the figures. Therefore your 'promise' that you would reduce parking fees is meaningless. You have no idea whether that would be feasible. You are a Mayoral candidate - why not 'phone and ask for the information before making promises that may not be viable? Why don't I want to obtain the figures? I'm not the one making the commitment. I think people should be aware that a Mayoral candidate is making unsubstantiated claims. Not that they'd be surprised. It's taken for granted that politicians of all flavours will lie. The sad thing is, that means any candidate who was being honest, wouldn't be believed. You know Phil, if I was running for Mayor, and had wanted to make such a promise, I would have found out the facts or simply said I would look at the viability of reducing parking fees (assuming that's what I wanted to do). Of course that isn't a good vote catching statement. Thanks to the spin by all politicians, people would just assume that was a lie. Ironic eh? Su Murray
  • Score: 6

1:19pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

johnhornet wrote:
Phil,

I don't know what you mean by
"Sorry John, I don't believe you're genuine"

Are you implying that I'm a Lib Dem is disguise, or a virtual robot, or what? I'm not a member of any political party and have never been, I voted for most parties over the years.

The problem is with most politicians. Look through your statements above - you are saying what you think is right to get elected, not stuff to improve anyone's lot. Your message to the greens makes clear that the £1m you spouted off about parking is a bit of a guess.

The bigger problem is that many people now hate politics - they think all politicians lie, and some of the stuff above implies that a vote grabbing headline is what's the most important. Like you I can't think of anything were than another 4 years or Dorothy Thornhill either - Watford needs change and new ideas.

Sadly you've done nothing to make me vote UKIP.

In your words "best I float off elsewhere..."
John,

you told me that one of the reasons you wouldn't vote Ukip is because we do not describe our policies as stupid.

That's a bit of a stupid thing to say, isn't it? When did you last hear a politician say that the policies he/she is standing on are a stupid?

Based on that, can you blame me for not believing you are a genuine floating voter who might have considered voting Ukip? Maybe I'm wrong on that, but then you may need to look at how you present your comments.

Why would returning say a million pounds to motorists every year without costing taxpayers a penny not be a way of improving anyone's lot? It is making parking charges fair by not making a huge profit whilst at the same time reducing the costs of motorists in Watford.

That's just one policy that improves the lot of the residents.

You also say I am saying anything to get elected. Is that a bit like saying a politician who actually believes in doing the right thing, all these things I've said I will do for the people of Watford is too good to be true?

Well, I may be a bit of an unusual politician. I have worked, hard, for a living. I believe a council should serve the people and not itself. I believe a council should take no more from the people than it needs to to deliver the services required. I also believe in a fair deal for motorists and if elected I will deliver one.

As for the figures, last time I looked it was about a million pounds excess profit from parking. That had gone up by about 25% from the previous year. If that kind of profit is being made from motorists then parking costs can be reduced or made free in certain circumstances. All we hear from the LibDem majority council is how they are going to put up parking charges or introduce new ones.

We are a party of value for money. I will be a Mayor that focuses on Value for Money. Other politicians may just want your money so they can spend it. I believe the money, where possible, is most often better left with the taxpayer to spend for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: Phil, I don't know what you mean by "Sorry John, I don't believe you're genuine" Are you implying that I'm a Lib Dem is disguise, or a virtual robot, or what? I'm not a member of any political party and have never been, I voted for most parties over the years. The problem is with most politicians. Look through your statements above - you are saying what you think is right to get elected, not stuff to improve anyone's lot. Your message to the greens makes clear that the £1m you spouted off about parking is a bit of a guess. The bigger problem is that many people now hate politics - they think all politicians lie, and some of the stuff above implies that a vote grabbing headline is what's the most important. Like you I can't think of anything were than another 4 years or Dorothy Thornhill either - Watford needs change and new ideas. Sadly you've done nothing to make me vote UKIP. In your words "best I float off elsewhere..."[/p][/quote]John, you told me that one of the reasons you wouldn't vote Ukip is because we do not describe our policies as stupid. That's a bit of a stupid thing to say, isn't it? When did you last hear a politician say that the policies he/she is standing on are a stupid? Based on that, can you blame me for not believing you are a genuine floating voter who might have considered voting Ukip? Maybe I'm wrong on that, but then you may need to look at how you present your comments. Why would returning say a million pounds to motorists every year without costing taxpayers a penny not be a way of improving anyone's lot? It is making parking charges fair by not making a huge profit whilst at the same time reducing the costs of motorists in Watford. That's just one policy that improves the lot of the residents. You also say I am saying anything to get elected. Is that a bit like saying a politician who actually believes in doing the right thing, all these things I've said I will do for the people of Watford is too good to be true? Well, I may be a bit of an unusual politician. I have worked, hard, for a living. I believe a council should serve the people and not itself. I believe a council should take no more from the people than it needs to to deliver the services required. I also believe in a fair deal for motorists and if elected I will deliver one. As for the figures, last time I looked it was about a million pounds excess profit from parking. That had gone up by about 25% from the previous year. If that kind of profit is being made from motorists then parking costs can be reduced or made free in certain circumstances. All we hear from the LibDem majority council is how they are going to put up parking charges or introduce new ones. We are a party of value for money. I will be a Mayor that focuses on Value for Money. Other politicians may just want your money so they can spend it. I believe the money, where possible, is most often better left with the taxpayer to spend for themselves. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -9

1:30pm Mon 31 Mar 14

not a regular says...

Thoroughly enjoying the prospect of having another four years of bickering and insult-slinging between our potential "leaders" instead of actually attempting to run a decent authority making informed decisions based on quality information.

Phil, you made a claim of such conjecture, either admit that you don't have the figures or stop spouting off at other people for not having them either. Do you genuinely believe that any of your comments on here are furthering confidence in you to run a council as effectively as we deserve?

That is what the majority of politicians are only able to do, and why the voter turnout is and will continue to dwindle. Avoid answering questions, lie and shout at eachother. You know, the type of things you get in primary schools.
Thoroughly enjoying the prospect of having another four years of bickering and insult-slinging between our potential "leaders" instead of actually attempting to run a decent authority making informed decisions based on quality information. Phil, you made a claim of such conjecture, either admit that you don't have the figures or stop spouting off at other people for not having them either. Do you genuinely believe that any of your comments on here are furthering confidence in you to run a council as effectively as we deserve? That is what the majority of politicians are only able to do, and why the voter turnout is and will continue to dwindle. Avoid answering questions, lie and shout at eachother. You know, the type of things you get in primary schools. not a regular
  • Score: 4

1:32pm Mon 31 Mar 14

not a regular says...

Oh and I'm just a normal guy on his lunch break, reading his local news site. I shouldn't have to say it but I'm not affiliated with any political party.
Oh and I'm just a normal guy on his lunch break, reading his local news site. I shouldn't have to say it but I'm not affiliated with any political party. not a regular
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not.

As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid.

Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote!
Ok John, I've reviewed your comment.

You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?)

You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be?

You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious?

John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances.

Better you float off elsewhere.

Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that.

Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.
OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it?

Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.
Su,

you're a green party candidate/member.

You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years.

As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby.

Please report back later with the figures Su.
Phil,

Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me.

Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine.

Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either.

As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.
For goodness sake Su, what is the harm in finding out for their own reasons how much profit was made on parking over the last three years? It's not a secret. It could be found out very quickly in council as they already have the info. Councillors are entitled to that info, aren't they, for whatever reason they deem fit.

I don't expect them to have it at their fingertips. I would however expect them to be able to pick up the phone, call Manny or whoever is required, and get the information before having to hang up. It's really that easy.

Why don't you stop imagining how hard it can be, pick up the phone and find out how easy it can be?

I meant no discourteousy Su, but you could report the figures back here from your councillors, very easily. I'm just wondering why you don't want to.
Phil,

What you are saying is you don't have the figures. Therefore your 'promise' that you would reduce parking fees is meaningless. You have no idea whether that would be feasible.

You are a Mayoral candidate - why not 'phone and ask for the information before making promises that may not be viable?

Why don't I want to obtain the figures? I'm not the one making the commitment. I think people should be aware that a Mayoral candidate is making unsubstantiated claims. Not that they'd be surprised. It's taken for granted that politicians of all flavours will lie. The sad thing is, that means any candidate who was being honest, wouldn't be believed.

You know Phil, if I was running for Mayor, and had wanted to make such a promise, I would have found out the facts or simply said I would look at the viability of reducing parking fees (assuming that's what I wanted to do). Of course that isn't a good vote catching statement. Thanks to the spin by all politicians, people would just assume that was a lie. Ironic eh?
Su, you really do take the biscuit. You wriggle like a worm on a hook not to get the information for readers, all sorts of reasons will stop you doing it and there is no reason for you to actually try to do it.

So instead you imply that I am a liar whilst being too lazy or disinterested to find out the facts even though it would be quite easy to do. Or maybe the truth that motorists are being bashed in Watford does not suit your green party anti-fossil-fuel agenda.

As an aspiring local green politician I am not sure if that shows you in a bad or just a realistic light.

OK, here's the link. It shows what is happening in Watford.

http://www.thisismon
ey.co.uk/money/cars/
article-2259588/How-
did-Council-make-par
king-fees-2011-12.ht
ml

If elected I will get the true figures as this may be an understatement of the profits made. I will then try to return that money to Watford motorists. I am sure elected councillors would feel embarrassed about making such a profit from just one section of society and would also want to return that money, especially with a Ukip Mayor exposing the greed of the rip-off parking charges in Watford. The question is, why is it only a Ukip Mayoral candidate that is actually saying anything about it? The other parties should hang their heads in shame for their inaction and greed.

Ripping off the Motorist in Watford?

It stops here with a Ukip Mayor. Yet another good reason to vote Ukip.

Yet another good reason not to vote for the parties in power with an anti-motorist agenda.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: I wish Phil Cox would not use these forums as a UKIP mouthpiece. It’s not. As a truly floating voter he has completely put me and I suspect several other voters off. "…….they are rubbish - we would do this....." is the only thing he says without any acknowledgment it could be difficult, or what he suggests is stupid. Vacuous. Never mind, every stupid comment means one less vote![/p][/quote]Ok John, I've reviewed your comment. You don't want anyone from Ukip to comment on the WO and explain their policies on the subject. You don't want the electorate to know what a Ukip Mayor or councillor would do about a local issue. (Why not?) You want me to say things could be difficult when in practice they are not difficult. Like returning say a million pounds excess profit to local motorists by reducing parking fees. I mean, how hard could that be? You want Ukip to say that their policies are stupid. Is this guy even serious? John, go and vote for a party who will say their policies are stupid. Trouble is, I don't think they'd want you under those circumstances. Better you float off elsewhere. Ukip want people who believe in what we are trying to do and want to support us. There are thousands in Watford who do just that. Now, if you have anything to say about the parking issues instead of trying to knock Ukip, let's hear them. Intelligent politicians are always welcoming of thoughtful views on a subject.[/p][/quote]OK Phil, can you show how you've reached the figure of a million pounds excess profit? Possibly it's information that is already in the public domain and I have missed it. If so, could you tell me where to find it? Contrary to what some people may think, I do have some sympathy with the problems motorists face though I do think we need to be looking for viable alternative solutions as well.[/p][/quote]Su, you're a green party candidate/member. You still have a few councillors at WBC. They have an inside line to the council. Why not ask them to get the exact figure? I wouldn't imagine it would take very long to get the figures for the last three years. As a green you are the last person I would trust to support the interests of motorists. As for your alternatives, please look first to see if they are affordable and actually green. See LSC's comment above, it outlines one of the major flaws in the thinking of the green lobby. Please report back later with the figures Su.[/p][/quote]Phil, Councillors, Green or otherwise, do not have every bit of relevant information at their fingertips. I imagine that both Ian and Steve would expect me to request information I required via the usual channels open to a member of the public. Quite right too really - their job is to represent their constituents, not gather information for me. Besides, I am not claiming that the Council are making a million in excess profit on parking fees. However, you are. Either you have evidence to back this up, or your statement that you would return this £1m is populist, moonshine. Why you imagine I should want to obtain figures for your use I have no idea. Asking me to "please report back later with the figures" is not a courteous way to speak to me either. As to Green party thinking on cars and motorists, I doubt you have a clue so please don't slur me.[/p][/quote]For goodness sake Su, what is the harm in finding out for their own reasons how much profit was made on parking over the last three years? It's not a secret. It could be found out very quickly in council as they already have the info. Councillors are entitled to that info, aren't they, for whatever reason they deem fit. I don't expect them to have it at their fingertips. I would however expect them to be able to pick up the phone, call Manny or whoever is required, and get the information before having to hang up. It's really that easy. Why don't you stop imagining how hard it can be, pick up the phone and find out how easy it can be? I meant no discourteousy Su, but you could report the figures back here from your councillors, very easily. I'm just wondering why you don't want to.[/p][/quote]Phil, What you are saying is you don't have the figures. Therefore your 'promise' that you would reduce parking fees is meaningless. You have no idea whether that would be feasible. You are a Mayoral candidate - why not 'phone and ask for the information before making promises that may not be viable? Why don't I want to obtain the figures? I'm not the one making the commitment. I think people should be aware that a Mayoral candidate is making unsubstantiated claims. Not that they'd be surprised. It's taken for granted that politicians of all flavours will lie. The sad thing is, that means any candidate who was being honest, wouldn't be believed. You know Phil, if I was running for Mayor, and had wanted to make such a promise, I would have found out the facts or simply said I would look at the viability of reducing parking fees (assuming that's what I wanted to do). Of course that isn't a good vote catching statement. Thanks to the spin by all politicians, people would just assume that was a lie. Ironic eh?[/p][/quote]Su, you really do take the biscuit. You wriggle like a worm on a hook not to get the information for readers, all sorts of reasons will stop you doing it and there is no reason for you to actually try to do it. So instead you imply that I am a liar whilst being too lazy or disinterested to find out the facts even though it would be quite easy to do. Or maybe the truth that motorists are being bashed in Watford does not suit your green party anti-fossil-fuel agenda. As an aspiring local green politician I am not sure if that shows you in a bad or just a realistic light. OK, here's the link. It shows what is happening in Watford. http://www.thisismon ey.co.uk/money/cars/ article-2259588/How- did-Council-make-par king-fees-2011-12.ht ml If elected I will get the true figures as this may be an understatement of the profits made. I will then try to return that money to Watford motorists. I am sure elected councillors would feel embarrassed about making such a profit from just one section of society and would also want to return that money, especially with a Ukip Mayor exposing the greed of the rip-off parking charges in Watford. The question is, why is it only a Ukip Mayoral candidate that is actually saying anything about it? The other parties should hang their heads in shame for their inaction and greed. Ripping off the Motorist in Watford? It stops here with a Ukip Mayor. Yet another good reason to vote Ukip. Yet another good reason not to vote for the parties in power with an anti-motorist agenda. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -9

1:58pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil,

The conversation between you and I started with my asking if you could point me to the relevant information - which you declined to do. Now you accuse me of wriggling like a worm on the hook? Because I won't jump to it and obtain information on your behalf? Information you could obtain yourself - or maybe it's you being lazy?

As to my being an 'aspiring local Green politician' I told you not so long ago that I don't know if I will stand again. Once again, I'll point out - it's you that aspires to be the Mayor, not me. Perhaps I should put my name in the hat and prove just how far telling the truth, and avoiding spin, would get someone in politics these days.
Phil, The conversation between you and I started with my asking if you could point me to the relevant information - which you declined to do. Now you accuse me of wriggling like a worm on the hook? Because I won't jump to it and obtain information on your behalf? Information you could obtain yourself - or maybe it's you being lazy? As to my being an 'aspiring local Green politician' I told you not so long ago that I don't know if I will stand again. Once again, I'll point out - it's you that aspires to be the Mayor, not me. Perhaps I should put my name in the hat and prove just how far telling the truth, and avoiding spin, would get someone in politics these days. Su Murray
  • Score: 5

2:16pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su.

You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out?

If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely.

I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time.

Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking?

What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?
Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su. You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out? If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely. I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time. Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking? What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

2:26pm Mon 31 Mar 14

johnhornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su.

You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out?

If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely.

I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time.

Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking?

What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?
More party politics - lets say that at the moment they make £1m profit from parking now. Is that ring-fenced, or spent on something else? If its spent on something else, the question is not simple, whether you are purple, green, red, blue, or yellow. What gets cut?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su. You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out? If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely. I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time. Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking? What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?[/p][/quote]More party politics - lets say that at the moment they make £1m profit from parking now. Is that ring-fenced, or spent on something else? If its spent on something else, the question is not simple, whether you are purple, green, red, blue, or yellow. What gets cut? johnhornet
  • Score: 2

2:32pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su.

You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out?

If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely.

I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time.

Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking?

What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?
You could obtain the information via an FOI

But let's start from the figures in that link and assume they are roughly correct now. Almost £1m. It's not just made up of money from parking permits though. It includes money from parking meters and fines. That raises a number of questions.

What is that money currently being spent on? Is it fair that motorists should be bearing that cost? Is it being spent on transport related things or things that have absolutely nothing to do with transport or roads?

Where is the bulk of the profit being made? If it's fines - motorists have the answer in their own hands - stop breaking the law. If it's from permits, then yes, there is a strong argument for reducing the cost of permits but what would the knock on effects be? If it's from parking meters, maybe we should consider reducing the cost of them. That could help residents but also may encourage non residents to come to Watford,thereby bringing in trade.

One of the major problems imo with this government is they make policy up piece meal. It doesn't make for effective government. The same is true of local government.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su. You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out? If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely. I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time. Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking? What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?[/p][/quote]You could obtain the information via an FOI But let's start from the figures in that link and assume they are roughly correct now. Almost £1m. It's not just made up of money from parking permits though. It includes money from parking meters and fines. That raises a number of questions. What is that money currently being spent on? Is it fair that motorists should be bearing that cost? Is it being spent on transport related things or things that have absolutely nothing to do with transport or roads? Where is the bulk of the profit being made? If it's fines - motorists have the answer in their own hands - stop breaking the law. If it's from permits, then yes, there is a strong argument for reducing the cost of permits but what would the knock on effects be? If it's from parking meters, maybe we should consider reducing the cost of them. That could help residents but also may encourage non residents to come to Watford,thereby bringing in trade. One of the major problems imo with this government is they make policy up piece meal. It doesn't make for effective government. The same is true of local government. Su Murray
  • Score: 5

2:35pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

johnhornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su.

You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out?

If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely.

I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time.

Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking?

What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?
More party politics - lets say that at the moment they make £1m profit from parking now. Is that ring-fenced, or spent on something else? If its spent on something else, the question is not simple, whether you are purple, green, red, blue, or yellow. What gets cut?
Last time I heard, it's ring-fenced, or at least it's meant to be.

What gets cut is excessive profit.
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Sad to say, I don't have any Ukip councillors I can ask Su. You have a couple of green ones. Wouldn't it have just been easy to ask them to find out? If it's in the press it can hardly be a state secret can it? Who would the council be hiding it from, their councillors? Unlikely. I too am against spin and all for telling the truth. That's a platform I am more than happy to stand on and do stand on. People deserve the truth, particularly at election time. Getting back to the point Su, would you personally be in favour of returning this excess profit to the motorist in terms of reduced cost or free parking? What is the policy of your green party here in Watford on this?[/p][/quote]More party politics - lets say that at the moment they make £1m profit from parking now. Is that ring-fenced, or spent on something else? If its spent on something else, the question is not simple, whether you are purple, green, red, blue, or yellow. What gets cut?[/p][/quote]Last time I heard, it's ring-fenced, or at least it's meant to be. What gets cut is excessive profit. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -7

2:44pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Cllr Andy Wylie says...

ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid. Cllr Andy Wylie
  • Score: 2

3:10pm Mon 31 Mar 14

johnhornet says...

Interesting Andy, thanks.
So it was a bit of a vote grabbing headline after all. Vote for me to get a million pounds back. Ah don't - I just guessed the numbers.

No wonder the public floating voter like me is fed up with ALL politicians. Four more years of Dorothy pictures I suppose......
Interesting Andy, thanks. So it was a bit of a vote grabbing headline after all. Vote for me to get a million pounds back. Ah don't - I just guessed the numbers. No wonder the public floating voter like me is fed up with ALL politicians. Four more years of Dorothy pictures I suppose...... johnhornet
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -9

5:10pm Mon 31 Mar 14

jimbo26 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Phil
Whilst I agree with your comments that there is something that needs to be done about the poor parking situation throughout Watford and when new building developments are proposed, I don't believe the best way to go about this is by reducing the cost of parking in the town.
The higher fees charges for permits should go back into improving the public transport infra structure.
Until there is something done about this then families will buy and run more than one car and add to congestion as the local infrastructure is overrun.
It takes over an hour to get from Abbots Langley into Watford Town Centre on a bus in rush hour, if you drove it would take less than half that time.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Phil Whilst I agree with your comments that there is something that needs to be done about the poor parking situation throughout Watford and when new building developments are proposed, I don't believe the best way to go about this is by reducing the cost of parking in the town. The higher fees charges for permits should go back into improving the public transport infra structure. Until there is something done about this then families will buy and run more than one car and add to congestion as the local infrastructure is overrun. It takes over an hour to get from Abbots Langley into Watford Town Centre on a bus in rush hour, if you drove it would take less than half that time. jimbo26
  • Score: 4

5:18pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 6

5:53pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
Any comments?

WBC Budget Panel Tuesday, 27th November, 2012 7.00 pm
The Head of Planning referred to the report and noted that the income from the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was reducing and that the CPZ was currently making a loss. The implementation of a considerable number of new schemes had been requested which would reduce the reserves; the only option to augment funds was to increase the cost of parking permits. She suggested that a 30% increase would be appropriate and would result in an additional£6 for each first permit and £12 for a second.
In response to a query from the Vice Chair, the Head of Planning advised that proposed projects would be at risk were permit costs to be frozen. She explained that there were two choices: to alter project delivery or to increase parking permit costs for residents.
The Head of Strategic Finance forecast income for the following year as:
Parking permits £220,000
Pay and Display £438,000
Penalty Notices £600,000
Councillor Khan noted that the amount in RESERVE in 2011 had been £962,000 but this now stood at approximately£575,0
00. He asked why this figure was so reduced.
Councillor Khan said that his query was related to geographical areas of Watford and noted that in some wards residents found it impossible to park at night whilst for some areas CPZs were a‘luxury’.
The Portfolio Holder asked why no additional income had been derived from the new schemes.
The Head of Planning advised that Zone B (on the Cassiobury estate) was the only new scheme to have been introduced and that increased operating costs had negated income from permits. Other schemes, such as the Your Parking Your Say survey would not generate income.
Councillor Jeffree referred to the increased permit charges as detailed in Annex C. He considered that a 30% increase was appropriate. He noted, however, that the predicted increased income of £61,500 would not solve the problem of the £360,650 deficit.
How true is it you were worried that the reserves had continue to dwindle as some schemes are not self financing and need to be subsidised from other areas hence the hunt for more coinage from the terraced streets around St Albans Rd?
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]Any comments? WBC Budget Panel Tuesday, 27th November, 2012 7.00 pm The Head of Planning referred to the report and noted that the income from the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was reducing and that the CPZ was currently making a loss. The implementation of a considerable number of new schemes had been requested which would reduce the reserves; the only option to augment funds was to increase the cost of parking permits. She suggested that a 30% increase would be appropriate and would result in an additional£6 for each first permit and £12 for a second. In response to a query from the Vice Chair, the Head of Planning advised that proposed projects would be at risk were permit costs to be frozen. She explained that there were two choices: to alter project delivery or to increase parking permit costs for residents. The Head of Strategic Finance forecast income for the following year as: Parking permits £220,000 Pay and Display £438,000 Penalty Notices £600,000 Councillor Khan noted that the amount in RESERVE in 2011 had been £962,000 but this now stood at approximately£575,0 00. He asked why this figure was so reduced. Councillor Khan said that his query was related to geographical areas of Watford and noted that in some wards residents found it impossible to park at night whilst for some areas CPZs were a‘luxury’. The Portfolio Holder asked why no additional income had been derived from the new schemes. The Head of Planning advised that Zone B (on the Cassiobury estate) was the only new scheme to have been introduced and that increased operating costs had negated income from permits. Other schemes, such as the Your Parking Your Say survey would not generate income. Councillor Jeffree referred to the increased permit charges as detailed in Annex C. He considered that a 30% increase was appropriate. He noted, however, that the predicted increased income of £61,500 would not solve the problem of the £360,650 deficit. How true is it you were worried that the reserves had continue to dwindle as some schemes are not self financing and need to be subsidised from other areas hence the hunt for more coinage from the terraced streets around St Albans Rd? Cuetip
  • Score: 1

7:16pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Phil
Whilst I agree with your comments that there is something that needs to be done about the poor parking situation throughout Watford and when new building developments are proposed, I don't believe the best way to go about this is by reducing the cost of parking in the town.
The higher fees charges for permits should go back into improving the public transport infra structure.
Until there is something done about this then families will buy and run more than one car and add to congestion as the local infrastructure is overrun.
It takes over an hour to get from Abbots Langley into Watford Town Centre on a bus in rush hour, if you drove it would take less than half that time.
Come up with an idea, send it in to me as Mayor and it will be seriously considered.

I would like to provide good quality cheap public transport as so many people rely on it, but I do not want to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport. I want to give them a choice between good quality public transport and using their car.

The trouble is, public transport does not meet everybodys need and can be unreliable. Sometimes people need a car, sometimes they need two and sometimes they just choose to use a car.

I use public transport for my journeys to work or walk 95% of the time. On other occasions a car is the only realistic prospect.

I would like to see good public transport and respect for car users as well. Motorists should not subsidise the council, that's what taxes are for.
[quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Phil Whilst I agree with your comments that there is something that needs to be done about the poor parking situation throughout Watford and when new building developments are proposed, I don't believe the best way to go about this is by reducing the cost of parking in the town. The higher fees charges for permits should go back into improving the public transport infra structure. Until there is something done about this then families will buy and run more than one car and add to congestion as the local infrastructure is overrun. It takes over an hour to get from Abbots Langley into Watford Town Centre on a bus in rush hour, if you drove it would take less than half that time.[/p][/quote]Come up with an idea, send it in to me as Mayor and it will be seriously considered. I would like to provide good quality cheap public transport as so many people rely on it, but I do not want to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport. I want to give them a choice between good quality public transport and using their car. The trouble is, public transport does not meet everybodys need and can be unreliable. Sometimes people need a car, sometimes they need two and sometimes they just choose to use a car. I use public transport for my journeys to work or walk 95% of the time. On other occasions a car is the only realistic prospect. I would like to see good public transport and respect for car users as well. Motorists should not subsidise the council, that's what taxes are for. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.
Imitation is the sincerest kind of flattery.

If you make a million pounds from parking and then show a loss, then something has happened to that money. Probably spent.

I do not have the resources to chase this around to get to the bottom of it but as Mayor I will have professional advice available on this matter and will be able to understand exactly what the LibDems did to turn a million pound profit into a loss. Initial impressions make Labour look like good stewards of the public purse in comparison.

It's not laziness on my part, I do not have the technical skills or the time to follow the money. As Mayor, I will have both and the findings should be illuminating.

Why is this LibDem urging us to move on? Is it getting uncomfortable?
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.[/p][/quote]Imitation is the sincerest kind of flattery. If you make a million pounds from parking and then show a loss, then something has happened to that money. Probably spent. I do not have the resources to chase this around to get to the bottom of it but as Mayor I will have professional advice available on this matter and will be able to understand exactly what the LibDems did to turn a million pound profit into a loss. Initial impressions make Labour look like good stewards of the public purse in comparison. It's not laziness on my part, I do not have the technical skills or the time to follow the money. As Mayor, I will have both and the findings should be illuminating. Why is this LibDem urging us to move on? Is it getting uncomfortable? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

7:43pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.
Imitation is the sincerest kind of flattery.

If you make a million pounds from parking and then show a loss, then something has happened to that money. Probably spent.

I do not have the resources to chase this around to get to the bottom of it but as Mayor I will have professional advice available on this matter and will be able to understand exactly what the LibDems did to turn a million pound profit into a loss. Initial impressions make Labour look like good stewards of the public purse in comparison.

It's not laziness on my part, I do not have the technical skills or the time to follow the money. As Mayor, I will have both and the findings should be illuminating.

Why is this LibDem urging us to move on? Is it getting uncomfortable?
Ah you don't have the ability to 'follow the money' so you wanted me to do it for you. I understand now.

Far be it for me to defend the Lib dems Phil, but don't you think if there was something seriously underhand going on with regards this, the Labour and/or Green councillors would be raising it?

Still, if you're convinced, why not try and do a bit of digging? There's time to get any information you need via a FOI request if it isn't already available. After all, if you want people to believe you can 'follow the money' across the whole Council budget, it might be good to show you can do it across one aspect.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.[/p][/quote]Imitation is the sincerest kind of flattery. If you make a million pounds from parking and then show a loss, then something has happened to that money. Probably spent. I do not have the resources to chase this around to get to the bottom of it but as Mayor I will have professional advice available on this matter and will be able to understand exactly what the LibDems did to turn a million pound profit into a loss. Initial impressions make Labour look like good stewards of the public purse in comparison. It's not laziness on my part, I do not have the technical skills or the time to follow the money. As Mayor, I will have both and the findings should be illuminating. Why is this LibDem urging us to move on? Is it getting uncomfortable?[/p][/quote]Ah you don't have the ability to 'follow the money' so you wanted me to do it for you. I understand now. Far be it for me to defend the Lib dems Phil, but don't you think if there was something seriously underhand going on with regards this, the Labour and/or Green councillors would be raising it? Still, if you're convinced, why not try and do a bit of digging? There's time to get any information you need via a FOI request if it isn't already available. After all, if you want people to believe you can 'follow the money' across the whole Council budget, it might be good to show you can do it across one aspect. Su Murray
  • Score: 3

9:46pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.
Imitation is the sincerest kind of flattery.

If you make a million pounds from parking and then show a loss, then something has happened to that money. Probably spent.

I do not have the resources to chase this around to get to the bottom of it but as Mayor I will have professional advice available on this matter and will be able to understand exactly what the LibDems did to turn a million pound profit into a loss. Initial impressions make Labour look like good stewards of the public purse in comparison.

It's not laziness on my part, I do not have the technical skills or the time to follow the money. As Mayor, I will have both and the findings should be illuminating.

Why is this LibDem urging us to move on? Is it getting uncomfortable?
Ah you don't have the ability to 'follow the money' so you wanted me to do it for you. I understand now.

Far be it for me to defend the Lib dems Phil, but don't you think if there was something seriously underhand going on with regards this, the Labour and/or Green councillors would be raising it?

Still, if you're convinced, why not try and do a bit of digging? There's time to get any information you need via a FOI request if it isn't already available. After all, if you want people to believe you can 'follow the money' across the whole Council budget, it might be good to show you can do it across one aspect.
Su,

I don't recall asking you to follow anything or anyone, sorry if what I asked led you to this misunderstanding.

I simply asked you to get one figure (actually three figures, one for each year for comparison purposes) from your green councillor friends in council and you thought it was too difficult to do. Fair enough. I had thought it an easy thing to do and I wouldn't have hesitated if there had been Ukip councillors available.

I have not and do not suggest anything illegal has happened to the million pounds. I am saying it will make interesting reading where a million pounds of surplus parking money has gone in one year. Wouldn't you like to know?

Finally Su, as Mayor I will have access to the sort of resources that will not only allow me to follow the money but to do all that and more. I would rather wait until I have the resources required and the co-operation of the council as Mayor. It will produce a far better result a lot easier. It's just common sense to do a good job using the right tools.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Cox really takes the biscuit, he claims he can give back £1m and then when he's told by someone who knows about these things that the current balance is only around £200k, rather than admit he's been talking a load of unsubstantiated rubbish, he now claims that profits have been squirrelled away somewhere to create a loss. Completely barking. Most of the info he needs is already in the public domain, but he's too bone idle to look it up, not impressive for an IT professional. Just look up the records of the budget committee on the council website, and if anything isn't there as Sue rightly says, make an FOI request. Cox is well and truly kippered on this one, time to move on.[/p][/quote]Imitation is the sincerest kind of flattery. If you make a million pounds from parking and then show a loss, then something has happened to that money. Probably spent. I do not have the resources to chase this around to get to the bottom of it but as Mayor I will have professional advice available on this matter and will be able to understand exactly what the LibDems did to turn a million pound profit into a loss. Initial impressions make Labour look like good stewards of the public purse in comparison. It's not laziness on my part, I do not have the technical skills or the time to follow the money. As Mayor, I will have both and the findings should be illuminating. Why is this LibDem urging us to move on? Is it getting uncomfortable?[/p][/quote]Ah you don't have the ability to 'follow the money' so you wanted me to do it for you. I understand now. Far be it for me to defend the Lib dems Phil, but don't you think if there was something seriously underhand going on with regards this, the Labour and/or Green councillors would be raising it? Still, if you're convinced, why not try and do a bit of digging? There's time to get any information you need via a FOI request if it isn't already available. After all, if you want people to believe you can 'follow the money' across the whole Council budget, it might be good to show you can do it across one aspect.[/p][/quote]Su, I don't recall asking you to follow anything or anyone, sorry if what I asked led you to this misunderstanding. I simply asked you to get one figure (actually three figures, one for each year for comparison purposes) from your green councillor friends in council and you thought it was too difficult to do. Fair enough. I had thought it an easy thing to do and I wouldn't have hesitated if there had been Ukip councillors available. I have not and do not suggest anything illegal has happened to the million pounds. I am saying it will make interesting reading where a million pounds of surplus parking money has gone in one year. Wouldn't you like to know? Finally Su, as Mayor I will have access to the sort of resources that will not only allow me to follow the money but to do all that and more. I would rather wait until I have the resources required and the co-operation of the council as Mayor. It will produce a far better result a lot easier. It's just common sense to do a good job using the right tools. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

10:09pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here?

As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you!

Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.
You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here? As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you! Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror. Su Murray
  • Score: 2

12:16am Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here?

As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you!

Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.
Su,

The question remains - How do you "lose" a million pounds worth of profit?

If I am elected I will publish the facts once I have investigated them thoroughly. It shouldn't take long with the right expertise.

I am not worried about any pledges I have made. My pledge on parking is to keep parking prices as low as possible, stop making excessive profits from parking and keep or introduce more free parking. It's a principle of fairness.

In other words to give motorists value for money. That may not be in the green manifesto I suspect but motorists might like to feel they are getting a fair deal from their council. The LibDems (backed by the greens?) are just now looking to charge even more for parking by raising prices and charging for parking that is currently free.

For anyone who thinks I am pandering to the motoring vote, I'm not. I will do the same for all the residents of Watford. I will try to get the best value for money and if possible return excess receipts to taxpayers by way of reduced council tax.

I will treat everyone fairly. What I won't do is penalise one section of society just because it offends some green ideal about making car ownership difficult and expensive.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here? As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you! Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.[/p][/quote]Su, The question remains - How do you "lose" a million pounds worth of profit? If I am elected I will publish the facts once I have investigated them thoroughly. It shouldn't take long with the right expertise. I am not worried about any pledges I have made. My pledge on parking is to keep parking prices as low as possible, stop making excessive profits from parking and keep or introduce more free parking. It's a principle of fairness. In other words to give motorists value for money. That may not be in the green manifesto I suspect but motorists might like to feel they are getting a fair deal from their council. The LibDems (backed by the greens?) are just now looking to charge even more for parking by raising prices and charging for parking that is currently free. For anyone who thinks I am pandering to the motoring vote, I'm not. I will do the same for all the residents of Watford. I will try to get the best value for money and if possible return excess receipts to taxpayers by way of reduced council tax. I will treat everyone fairly. What I won't do is penalise one section of society just because it offends some green ideal about making car ownership difficult and expensive. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

1:23am Tue 1 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here?

As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you!

Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.
Su,

The question remains - How do you "lose" a million pounds worth of profit?

If I am elected I will publish the facts once I have investigated them thoroughly. It shouldn't take long with the right expertise.

I am not worried about any pledges I have made. My pledge on parking is to keep parking prices as low as possible, stop making excessive profits from parking and keep or introduce more free parking. It's a principle of fairness.

In other words to give motorists value for money. That may not be in the green manifesto I suspect but motorists might like to feel they are getting a fair deal from their council. The LibDems (backed by the greens?) are just now looking to charge even more for parking by raising prices and charging for parking that is currently free.

For anyone who thinks I am pandering to the motoring vote, I'm not. I will do the same for all the residents of Watford. I will try to get the best value for money and if possible return excess receipts to taxpayers by way of reduced council tax.

I will treat everyone fairly. What I won't do is penalise one section of society just because it offends some green ideal about making car ownership difficult and expensive.
There is no evidence that the Council have lost a million pounds profit.

So, you are watering down your pledge now. It's no longer that you will repay £1m to motorists but instead you will do what you can?

Have you checked when/if the Greens have backed the lib dems locally? Or are you making unfounded assertions yet again? As I previously said, you have no idea what the Green stance is.

You are making it up as you go along. We don't need that. We have an immature democracy that is being strangled by lies. UKIP are presenting themselves as an alternative but are using all the same tricks and lies.

It's bad enough when people vote for the lies of the main stream parties who, regardless or whether one agrees with their agenda - do at least have a plan. To vote for UKIP who don't have an over all plan/idea of what is going on, is pure insanity.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here? As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you! Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.[/p][/quote]Su, The question remains - How do you "lose" a million pounds worth of profit? If I am elected I will publish the facts once I have investigated them thoroughly. It shouldn't take long with the right expertise. I am not worried about any pledges I have made. My pledge on parking is to keep parking prices as low as possible, stop making excessive profits from parking and keep or introduce more free parking. It's a principle of fairness. In other words to give motorists value for money. That may not be in the green manifesto I suspect but motorists might like to feel they are getting a fair deal from their council. The LibDems (backed by the greens?) are just now looking to charge even more for parking by raising prices and charging for parking that is currently free. For anyone who thinks I am pandering to the motoring vote, I'm not. I will do the same for all the residents of Watford. I will try to get the best value for money and if possible return excess receipts to taxpayers by way of reduced council tax. I will treat everyone fairly. What I won't do is penalise one section of society just because it offends some green ideal about making car ownership difficult and expensive.[/p][/quote]There is no evidence that the Council have lost a million pounds profit. So, you are watering down your pledge now. It's no longer that you will repay £1m to motorists but instead you will do what you can? Have you checked when/if the Greens have backed the lib dems locally? Or are you making unfounded assertions yet again? As I previously said, you have no idea what the Green stance is. You are making it up as you go along. We don't need that. We have an immature democracy that is being strangled by lies. UKIP are presenting themselves as an alternative but are using all the same tricks and lies. It's bad enough when people vote for the lies of the main stream parties who, regardless or whether one agrees with their agenda - do at least have a plan. To vote for UKIP who don't have an over all plan/idea of what is going on, is pure insanity. Su Murray
  • Score: 3

7:25am Tue 1 Apr 14

johnhornet says...

Vote for me for Mayor. I'll give back lots of money, because the experts will tell me where its been hidden. Not sure how much, but I know it’s hidden. No one else on the council has raised it as hidden, but it’s a great headline. I want the job but haven't really got time to do research before the interview. But I'll be much better than the others. That's mainly because I talk, but don't listen. That's because I'm always right I cannot ever be persuaded that I'm wrong.

Phil, sadly this is the perception that the public have of politicians and all you are doing on here is reinforcing that belief. The public want people that listen and have a conversation to represent them. Its the conversation bit that's missing.
Vote for me for Mayor. I'll give back lots of money, because the experts will tell me where its been hidden. Not sure how much, but I know it’s hidden. No one else on the council has raised it as hidden, but it’s a great headline. I want the job but haven't really got time to do research before the interview. But I'll be much better than the others. That's mainly because I talk, but don't listen. That's because I'm always right I cannot ever be persuaded that I'm wrong. Phil, sadly this is the perception that the public have of politicians and all you are doing on here is reinforcing that belief. The public want people that listen and have a conversation to represent them. Its the conversation bit that's missing. johnhornet
  • Score: 1

9:14am Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

johnhornet wrote:
Vote for me for Mayor. I'll give back lots of money, because the experts will tell me where its been hidden. Not sure how much, but I know it’s hidden. No one else on the council has raised it as hidden, but it’s a great headline. I want the job but haven't really got time to do research before the interview. But I'll be much better than the others. That's mainly because I talk, but don't listen. That's because I'm always right I cannot ever be persuaded that I'm wrong.

Phil, sadly this is the perception that the public have of politicians and all you are doing on here is reinforcing that belief. The public want people that listen and have a conversation to represent them. Its the conversation bit that's missing.
Basic economics.

1. Make a million pounds profit.

2. To turn that into a loss the money has to go somewhere. I suspect it has been spent but I won't know for sure until I look into it.

What will be interesting to see exactly what happened to it.

--------------------


The simple fact remains that motorists are taxpayers too. Their burden of tax should be no more or less than other taxpayers.

You can either agree with that principle or not.

Some councils treatmotorists as a "Cash cow", a target for raising taxes through the back door.

Ukip would not do that.
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: Vote for me for Mayor. I'll give back lots of money, because the experts will tell me where its been hidden. Not sure how much, but I know it’s hidden. No one else on the council has raised it as hidden, but it’s a great headline. I want the job but haven't really got time to do research before the interview. But I'll be much better than the others. That's mainly because I talk, but don't listen. That's because I'm always right I cannot ever be persuaded that I'm wrong. Phil, sadly this is the perception that the public have of politicians and all you are doing on here is reinforcing that belief. The public want people that listen and have a conversation to represent them. Its the conversation bit that's missing.[/p][/quote]Basic economics. 1. Make a million pounds profit. 2. To turn that into a loss the money has to go somewhere. I suspect it has been spent but I won't know for sure until I look into it. What will be interesting to see exactly what happened to it. -------------------- The simple fact remains that motorists are taxpayers too. Their burden of tax should be no more or less than other taxpayers. You can either agree with that principle or not. Some councils treatmotorists as a "Cash cow", a target for raising taxes through the back door. Ukip would not do that. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

10:46am Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here?

As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you!

Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.
Su,

The question remains - How do you "lose" a million pounds worth of profit?

If I am elected I will publish the facts once I have investigated them thoroughly. It shouldn't take long with the right expertise.

I am not worried about any pledges I have made. My pledge on parking is to keep parking prices as low as possible, stop making excessive profits from parking and keep or introduce more free parking. It's a principle of fairness.

In other words to give motorists value for money. That may not be in the green manifesto I suspect but motorists might like to feel they are getting a fair deal from their council. The LibDems (backed by the greens?) are just now looking to charge even more for parking by raising prices and charging for parking that is currently free.

For anyone who thinks I am pandering to the motoring vote, I'm not. I will do the same for all the residents of Watford. I will try to get the best value for money and if possible return excess receipts to taxpayers by way of reduced council tax.

I will treat everyone fairly. What I won't do is penalise one section of society just because it offends some green ideal about making car ownership difficult and expensive.
There is no evidence that the Council have lost a million pounds profit.

So, you are watering down your pledge now. It's no longer that you will repay £1m to motorists but instead you will do what you can?

Have you checked when/if the Greens have backed the lib dems locally? Or are you making unfounded assertions yet again? As I previously said, you have no idea what the Green stance is.

You are making it up as you go along. We don't need that. We have an immature democracy that is being strangled by lies. UKIP are presenting themselves as an alternative but are using all the same tricks and lies.

It's bad enough when people vote for the lies of the main stream parties who, regardless or whether one agrees with their agenda - do at least have a plan. To vote for UKIP who don't have an over all plan/idea of what is going on, is pure insanity.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Some might see a parallel in voting terms there. Like voting Green, Labour, LibDem or Conservative and then wondering why you feel so let down by your elected politicians.

That's probably one of the reasons our support is so high. People want a change. A proper change for the better. Ukip represents that. A respect for people and doing what the people want, not the parties.

Out of interest. what does your local green party stand for Su? You say I don't know, so why not inform me? After all, you are one of the prominent local active greens and have stood for election so I would hope you would know.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: You said earlier in the thread that you are against spin and yet isn't that what you are doing here? As a word of friendly advice Phil, I'd suggest you don't make promises when you have no idea if they are viable. Were you ever to be elected, they might come back to bite you! Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror.[/p][/quote]Su, The question remains - How do you "lose" a million pounds worth of profit? If I am elected I will publish the facts once I have investigated them thoroughly. It shouldn't take long with the right expertise. I am not worried about any pledges I have made. My pledge on parking is to keep parking prices as low as possible, stop making excessive profits from parking and keep or introduce more free parking. It's a principle of fairness. In other words to give motorists value for money. That may not be in the green manifesto I suspect but motorists might like to feel they are getting a fair deal from their council. The LibDems (backed by the greens?) are just now looking to charge even more for parking by raising prices and charging for parking that is currently free. For anyone who thinks I am pandering to the motoring vote, I'm not. I will do the same for all the residents of Watford. I will try to get the best value for money and if possible return excess receipts to taxpayers by way of reduced council tax. I will treat everyone fairly. What I won't do is penalise one section of society just because it offends some green ideal about making car ownership difficult and expensive.[/p][/quote]There is no evidence that the Council have lost a million pounds profit. So, you are watering down your pledge now. It's no longer that you will repay £1m to motorists but instead you will do what you can? Have you checked when/if the Greens have backed the lib dems locally? Or are you making unfounded assertions yet again? As I previously said, you have no idea what the Green stance is. You are making it up as you go along. We don't need that. We have an immature democracy that is being strangled by lies. UKIP are presenting themselves as an alternative but are using all the same tricks and lies. It's bad enough when people vote for the lies of the main stream parties who, regardless or whether one agrees with their agenda - do at least have a plan. To vote for UKIP who don't have an over all plan/idea of what is going on, is pure insanity.[/p][/quote]Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein Some might see a parallel in voting terms there. Like voting Green, Labour, LibDem or Conservative and then wondering why you feel so let down by your elected politicians. That's probably one of the reasons our support is so high. People want a change. A proper change for the better. Ukip represents that. A respect for people and doing what the people want, not the parties. Out of interest. what does your local green party stand for Su? You say I don't know, so why not inform me? After all, you are one of the prominent local active greens and have stood for election so I would hope you would know. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

10:47am Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I see that I have a score of -5 on this thread for providing parking, cutting taxes and cutting parking fees.

I think you can see where the LibDems are coming from on this as it is their anonymous posters, quite possibly councillors, who criticise this idea.

If you want higher taxes and bigger state, vote LibDem.

If you want lower taxes, vote Ukip.

I've never met anyone who has said they have not paid enough taxes and want to pay more. I have however heard from a number of politicians, LibDems and Labour primarily who will say that YOU should pay more taxes.

UKIP - a new way of thinking that keeps your tax bills lower.

Vote Ukip.
well here goes I want to pay more tax and so do the overwhelming majority of normal working people, and you know what they have for decades, why because in order to pay more tax you have to earn more money!!
The same is true for town center property if you want to have a parking space, or multiple spaces you need more money, outside of the center obviously it is a different thing, but for those that commute into london everyday, is it really a necessity, for youngsters starting out with prohibitive insurance costs, is it really the priority it once was.
On the one hand I can see where Mike is coming from on this and would argue for far better public transport in and around Watford,For instance I have long held it to be absurd that travel from Stanmore or Bushey to Watford is cheaper and better than from Garston. Also with children living at home into their late twenty's the idea of one two or even three or four cars being needed for social and work requirements is not far fetched for a family, so high secondary fees may not be as progressive as they appear.
On the other hand car ownership is becoming increasingly a luxury for the younger generation and a lot of people are not taking that route any longer, preferring to commute by other means, so why should they be disadvantaged, by pandering to the needs of car owners.
As for your statement on tax and Labour it is worth noting that it just is not true, it might of changed shape a bit but basically tax rates didn't rise under Labour; and the only reason people paid more tax under Labour was they were earning more money.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I see that I have a score of -5 on this thread for providing parking, cutting taxes and cutting parking fees. I think you can see where the LibDems are coming from on this as it is their anonymous posters, quite possibly councillors, who criticise this idea. If you want higher taxes and bigger state, vote LibDem. If you want lower taxes, vote Ukip. I've never met anyone who has said they have not paid enough taxes and want to pay more. I have however heard from a number of politicians, LibDems and Labour primarily who will say that YOU should pay more taxes. UKIP - a new way of thinking that keeps your tax bills lower. Vote Ukip.[/p][/quote]well here goes I want to pay more tax and so do the overwhelming majority of normal working people, and you know what they have for decades, why because in order to pay more tax you have to earn more money!! The same is true for town center property if you want to have a parking space, or multiple spaces you need more money, outside of the center obviously it is a different thing, but for those that commute into london everyday, is it really a necessity, for youngsters starting out with prohibitive insurance costs, is it really the priority it once was. On the one hand I can see where Mike is coming from on this and would argue for far better public transport in and around Watford,For instance I have long held it to be absurd that travel from Stanmore or Bushey to Watford is cheaper and better than from Garston. Also with children living at home into their late twenty's the idea of one two or even three or four cars being needed for social and work requirements is not far fetched for a family, so high secondary fees may not be as progressive as they appear. On the other hand car ownership is becoming increasingly a luxury for the younger generation and a lot of people are not taking that route any longer, preferring to commute by other means, so why should they be disadvantaged, by pandering to the needs of car owners. As for your statement on tax and Labour it is worth noting that it just is not true, it might of changed shape a bit but basically tax rates didn't rise under Labour; and the only reason people paid more tax under Labour was they were earning more money. ancientandageing
  • Score: 3

11:04am Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil,

The conversation between you and I started with my asking if you could point me to the relevant information - which you declined to do. Now you accuse me of wriggling like a worm on the hook? Because I won't jump to it and obtain information on your behalf? Information you could obtain yourself - or maybe it's you being lazy?

As to my being an 'aspiring local Green politician' I told you not so long ago that I don't know if I will stand again. Once again, I'll point out - it's you that aspires to be the Mayor, not me. Perhaps I should put my name in the hat and prove just how far telling the truth, and avoiding spin, would get someone in politics these days.
this may be informative
http://www.ukipdaily
.com/use-local-press
-media-campaigns-ele
ctoral-success/#.Uzq
NkfldX1Y
Looks like the idea is to manipulate forums like this and local newspapers, to get you on the defensive (and all non UKIPers) and fish for ideas, along with dirty tricks like coordinated letters under different names etc,

BTW have you got a local manifesto yet we are way pat the "SHOULD" date>
I cant call it a promised date as that would m.ake me a Liar according to David Penn one of the prospective County Councillors for UKIP Phil Cox's election agent
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: Phil, The conversation between you and I started with my asking if you could point me to the relevant information - which you declined to do. Now you accuse me of wriggling like a worm on the hook? Because I won't jump to it and obtain information on your behalf? Information you could obtain yourself - or maybe it's you being lazy? As to my being an 'aspiring local Green politician' I told you not so long ago that I don't know if I will stand again. Once again, I'll point out - it's you that aspires to be the Mayor, not me. Perhaps I should put my name in the hat and prove just how far telling the truth, and avoiding spin, would get someone in politics these days.[/p][/quote]this may be informative http://www.ukipdaily .com/use-local-press -media-campaigns-ele ctoral-success/#.Uzq NkfldX1Y Looks like the idea is to manipulate forums like this and local newspapers, to get you on the defensive (and all non UKIPers) and fish for ideas, along with dirty tricks like coordinated letters under different names etc, BTW have you got a local manifesto yet we are way pat the "SHOULD" date> I cant call it a promised date as that would m.ake me a Liar according to David Penn one of the prospective County Councillors for UKIP Phil Cox's election agent ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

12:17pm Tue 1 Apr 14

jimbo26 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
jimbo26 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters.

It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss.

Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books.

As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format.

One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.
Phil
Whilst I agree with your comments that there is something that needs to be done about the poor parking situation throughout Watford and when new building developments are proposed, I don't believe the best way to go about this is by reducing the cost of parking in the town.
The higher fees charges for permits should go back into improving the public transport infra structure.
Until there is something done about this then families will buy and run more than one car and add to congestion as the local infrastructure is overrun.
It takes over an hour to get from Abbots Langley into Watford Town Centre on a bus in rush hour, if you drove it would take less than half that time.
Come up with an idea, send it in to me as Mayor and it will be seriously considered.

I would like to provide good quality cheap public transport as so many people rely on it, but I do not want to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport. I want to give them a choice between good quality public transport and using their car.

The trouble is, public transport does not meet everybodys need and can be unreliable. Sometimes people need a car, sometimes they need two and sometimes they just choose to use a car.

I use public transport for my journeys to work or walk 95% of the time. On other occasions a car is the only realistic prospect.

I would like to see good public transport and respect for car users as well. Motorists should not subsidise the council, that's what taxes are for.
Providing good quality public transport and a cheap alternative would be a great idea, but in reality I can't see this happening. As with most town and city centers there is less space for there to be cars.
Therefore leaving people paying a higher rate for parking. The problem is there isn't much of an alternative to cars in and around Watford.
I don't see this issue as motorists subsidising the council though. If you have a car in any built up neighborhood you will be expected to pay a premium for the road space. The fees for the permits should go back administration of permit application but in reality this may not be the case.
You have mentioned a number of times this £1m figure - If this is the figure you can work out that according to the watford.gov site there are 32,350 households in Watford - so this works out as £31 per household per year or £2.57 a month.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]The Daily Mail, whilst not to everybodys taste, is not known for lying over such matters. It just goes to show how one person's million pound profit is another person's thousand pound loss. Clearly there was an excess that year 2011/12 of about a million pounds which was a 25% increase over the previous year. It seems it has been spent to create a loss on the books. As to how it was spent to end up with a loss is another matter. I will investigate this thoroughly if elected and publish the results in a clear and easy-to-understand format. One of the first things I will want to do if elected is make a thorough examination of the councils books.[/p][/quote]Phil Whilst I agree with your comments that there is something that needs to be done about the poor parking situation throughout Watford and when new building developments are proposed, I don't believe the best way to go about this is by reducing the cost of parking in the town. The higher fees charges for permits should go back into improving the public transport infra structure. Until there is something done about this then families will buy and run more than one car and add to congestion as the local infrastructure is overrun. It takes over an hour to get from Abbots Langley into Watford Town Centre on a bus in rush hour, if you drove it would take less than half that time.[/p][/quote]Come up with an idea, send it in to me as Mayor and it will be seriously considered. I would like to provide good quality cheap public transport as so many people rely on it, but I do not want to drive people out of their cars and onto public transport. I want to give them a choice between good quality public transport and using their car. The trouble is, public transport does not meet everybodys need and can be unreliable. Sometimes people need a car, sometimes they need two and sometimes they just choose to use a car. I use public transport for my journeys to work or walk 95% of the time. On other occasions a car is the only realistic prospect. I would like to see good public transport and respect for car users as well. Motorists should not subsidise the council, that's what taxes are for.[/p][/quote]Providing good quality public transport and a cheap alternative would be a great idea, but in reality I can't see this happening. As with most town and city centers there is less space for there to be cars. Therefore leaving people paying a higher rate for parking. The problem is there isn't much of an alternative to cars in and around Watford. I don't see this issue as motorists subsidising the council though. If you have a car in any built up neighborhood you will be expected to pay a premium for the road space. The fees for the permits should go back administration of permit application but in reality this may not be the case. You have mentioned a number of times this £1m figure - If this is the figure you can work out that according to the watford.gov site there are 32,350 households in Watford - so this works out as £31 per household per year or £2.57 a month. jimbo26
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Cllr Andy Wylie wrote:
ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly.

WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead.

Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments.

The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m.

The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k.

p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.
this bit about "Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management".

seems either Nifty or Shifty depending on your perspective, or maybe a bit of both, well yes a bit of both , good foresight by the council I think, well on balance that is.
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Andy Wylie[/bold] wrote: ex-Councillor actually but you don't seem to be able to change your username on this site. I like to keep quiet these days but parking was my responsibility for several years so Phil, try reading these instead of websites that give you, well, rubbish, frankly. WBC website, annual accounts, budget book for 2010/11, pages 106 and 127. Page 127 gives you the way the parking shop budget is drawn up. It should net to nil, before final overhead speading (which, thanks to getting info from other public bodies, has to get done right at the last minute) and in 2010/11 the final budget was £29k loss, after that overhead spead. Page 106 gives you the base rental income from the muti-storey car parks, part of the agreement that was put in place when the Harlequin took over those car parks back in the day. Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management. That's the figure that gets included in the anti-parking websites "revenue" to "boost" their arguments. The parking shop produces an annual report which you can view from the parking page on the website. It shows, amongst a whole host of other data, that in 2012/3 the Parking Account had a deficit of £5867, which would have been on a turnover of around £1.5m. The profit/loss on the parking account is funded through the parking reserve account, which on the latest set of annual accounts, is standing at around £200k. p.s. most Councillors don't post on this site, certainly I was the only senior one to do so when I was on WBC. I'm afraid the WOBS isn't what it was in the conciousness of Watford politicians or its citizens. Sign of the times, I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]this bit about "Because it is sourced from car parking it has to be classified as that in government returns but WBC puts it with all its other rental income into the General Fund to fund ordinary day to day council activities, not into the parking shop accounts or its management". seems either Nifty or Shifty depending on your perspective, or maybe a bit of both, well yes a bit of both , good foresight by the council I think, well on balance that is. ancientandageing
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Cllr Andy Wylie says...

Ex Councillor, actually, here again.

Phil, the answer to your issue on the reserves isn't hard to find and doesn't need a major enquiry! Look at that Budget Panel meeting, check out the appendices as well and then look at that 2010/11 budget book on page 127. Look at the fines revenue line - that is the real problem. The fines revenue has been going down and the shortfall to meet commitments has had to come out of reserves.

Just like commercial rental income, car parking fines are not a controllable item and are subject to considerable in year as well as year on year variation. So, if the council is getting about £100k to £150k less a year in parking fines than five years ago to put into the reserve or fund other parking projects (such as yellow lines, scheme extensions or statutory lines and signs changes), that reserve will get depleted pretty quickly. It is a good thing not to hang onto reserves needlessly and fund improvements but at some stage, if the fund is heading towards being dangerously low, you need to look out. That is what was being looked at in detail when I left the Council in 2012 because we had identified the trend as not being the usual blip.

The question that Councillors were and are asking is "Is this a long term trend?" and how can we keep the scheme solvent in the medium term, given the issue of it having to be self funding.

Incidentally, London schemes do not have to be so balanced and are usually big revenue generators for their councils with some pretty unsavoury practises as a result. I wish they could be brought into line with the rest of the country so that every council in England does not get judged by what goes on there.

p.s. on the subject of the original article, minimum parking standards for new developments were outlawed years ago. I argued for their re-instatement with one of the Ministers in the Blair Government (Lord Rooker) but he felt that encouraging more housing in the south east "so London can compete with Europe" was the priority for the UK economy and maximum car parking standards meant more dwellings per sq ft. At least we tried.
Ex Councillor, actually, here again. Phil, the answer to your issue on the reserves isn't hard to find and doesn't need a major enquiry! Look at that Budget Panel meeting, check out the appendices as well and then look at that 2010/11 budget book on page 127. Look at the fines revenue line - that is the real problem. The fines revenue has been going down and the shortfall to meet commitments has had to come out of reserves. Just like commercial rental income, car parking fines are not a controllable item and are subject to considerable in year as well as year on year variation. So, if the council is getting about £100k to £150k less a year in parking fines than five years ago to put into the reserve or fund other parking projects (such as yellow lines, scheme extensions or statutory lines and signs changes), that reserve will get depleted pretty quickly. It is a good thing not to hang onto reserves needlessly and fund improvements but at some stage, if the fund is heading towards being dangerously low, you need to look out. That is what was being looked at in detail when I left the Council in 2012 because we had identified the trend as not being the usual blip. The question that Councillors were and are asking is "Is this a long term trend?" and how can we keep the scheme solvent in the medium term, given the issue of it having to be self funding. Incidentally, London schemes do not have to be so balanced and are usually big revenue generators for their councils with some pretty unsavoury practises as a result. I wish they could be brought into line with the rest of the country so that every council in England does not get judged by what goes on there. p.s. on the subject of the original article, minimum parking standards for new developments were outlawed years ago. I argued for their re-instatement with one of the Ministers in the Blair Government (Lord Rooker) but he felt that encouraging more housing in the south east "so London can compete with Europe" was the priority for the UK economy and maximum car parking standards meant more dwellings per sq ft. At least we tried. Cllr Andy Wylie
  • Score: 5

2:16pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Andy,

I look forward to reviewing the figures myself if elected and publishing what I find.
Andy, I look forward to reviewing the figures myself if elected and publishing what I find. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

2:24pm Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Andy,

I look forward to reviewing the figures myself if elected and publishing what I find.
I think the accounts are all ready published here :-
http://www.watford.g
ov.uk/ccm/content/fi
nance/accounts/state
ment-of-accounts.en
That the idea is that if you have an idea and want to go on to make it policy you sort of, now what is the term, ahh "Look at them", get your facts straight, instead of taking a lead from what the Daily Mail?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Andy, I look forward to reviewing the figures myself if elected and publishing what I find.[/p][/quote]I think the accounts are all ready published here :- http://www.watford.g ov.uk/ccm/content/fi nance/accounts/state ment-of-accounts.en That the idea is that if you have an idea and want to go on to make it policy you sort of, now what is the term, ahh "Look at them", get your facts straight, instead of taking a lead from what the Daily Mail? ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

2:36pm Tue 1 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

I live in Central Watford and I work in Elstree. I can get a bus, walk or cycle. THis is cheaper and more environmentally friendly than driving. People wholive in central Watford can survive without cars Watford Junction is a massive transport hub, it just needs a mind shift.

If you live in the sticks it's one thing but if you are within a 2 mile walk of WJ and you are not physically disabled you can get most places easily.
I live in Central Watford and I work in Elstree. I can get a bus, walk or cycle. THis is cheaper and more environmentally friendly than driving. People wholive in central Watford can survive without cars Watford Junction is a massive transport hub, it just needs a mind shift. If you live in the sticks it's one thing but if you are within a 2 mile walk of WJ and you are not physically disabled you can get most places easily. CaptainPC
  • Score: 1

2:39pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I have already had a look at these accounts.

If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.
I have already had a look at these accounts. If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

2:55pm Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I have already had a look at these accounts.

If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.
Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I have already had a look at these accounts. If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.[/p][/quote]Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension? ancientandageing
  • Score: 3

5:38pm Tue 1 Apr 14

johnhornet says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I have already had a look at these accounts.

If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.
Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?
Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I have already had a look at these accounts. If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.[/p][/quote]Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?[/p][/quote]Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'. johnhornet
  • Score: 7

6:11pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

An investigative newspaper published details of an excessive profit of just under a million pounds from parking in one year.

An ex-councillor said they made a loss in the same year.

Why not find out the truth and publish it?

I will investigate thoroughly this and other issues within the council and publish the results. It will be in the interests of the taxpayer to do so.

Remember the LibDem council in Three Rivers tried to cover up the William Penn fiasco which cost millions and ran very over budget and time. Dotty and her council tried to keep secret the amount of payment made to the other landlord who got let down when Intu were given the contract to Charter Place.

Gone are the times when we could take Mayors, councils and councillors at face value.

All I want to do is expose the truth. The people deserve the truth.
An investigative newspaper published details of an excessive profit of just under a million pounds from parking in one year. An ex-councillor said they made a loss in the same year. Why not find out the truth and publish it? I will investigate thoroughly this and other issues within the council and publish the results. It will be in the interests of the taxpayer to do so. Remember the LibDem council in Three Rivers tried to cover up the William Penn fiasco which cost millions and ran very over budget and time. Dotty and her council tried to keep secret the amount of payment made to the other landlord who got let down when Intu were given the contract to Charter Place. Gone are the times when we could take Mayors, councils and councillors at face value. All I want to do is expose the truth. The people deserve the truth. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

6:17pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

It's a strange position for johnhornet to take.

A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue.

JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.
It's a strange position for johnhornet to take. A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue. JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

7:12pm Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a strange position for johnhornet to take.

A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue.

JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.
Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a strange position for johnhornet to take. A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue. JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.[/p][/quote]Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid? ancientandageing
  • Score: 7

10:01pm Tue 1 Apr 14

johnhornet says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a strange position for johnhornet to take.

A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue.

JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.
Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?
A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a strange position for johnhornet to take. A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue. JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.[/p][/quote]Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?[/p][/quote]A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable. johnhornet
  • Score: 5

10:26pm Tue 1 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

johnhornet wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a strange position for johnhornet to take.

A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue.

JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.
Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?
A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.
Dear Mr Genuine

Oops, you have just spoken about yourself in the third person.

Just how genuine is he, I mean you, I mean, oh dear....

What a tangled web we weave...
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a strange position for johnhornet to take. A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue. JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.[/p][/quote]Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?[/p][/quote]A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.[/p][/quote]Dear Mr Genuine Oops, you have just spoken about yourself in the third person. Just how genuine is he, I mean you, I mean, oh dear.... What a tangled web we weave... Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

10:56pm Tue 1 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a strange position for johnhornet to take.

A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue.

JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.
Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?
A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.
Dear Mr Genuine

Oops, you have just spoken about yourself in the third person.

Just how genuine is he, I mean you, I mean, oh dear....

What a tangled web we weave...
pedantic misapplication of grammar rules, in order to insult potential voters, that would be UKIP.
its a newspaper comment page peeps are allowed to write about their aviator in the third person, or even write I think therefore I am ancientandageing, its not what is meant by Duelist but its not a stranger either.Also its a day late.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a strange position for johnhornet to take. A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue. JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.[/p][/quote]Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?[/p][/quote]A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.[/p][/quote]Dear Mr Genuine Oops, you have just spoken about yourself in the third person. Just how genuine is he, I mean you, I mean, oh dear.... What a tangled web we weave...[/p][/quote]pedantic misapplication of grammar rules, in order to insult potential voters, that would be UKIP. its a newspaper comment page peeps are allowed to write about their aviator in the third person, or even write I think therefore I am ancientandageing, its not what is meant by Duelist but its not a stranger either.Also its a day late. ancientandageing
  • Score: 5

8:07am Wed 2 Apr 14

johnhornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
It's a strange position for johnhornet to take.

A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue.

JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.
Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?
A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.
Dear Mr Genuine

Oops, you have just spoken about yourself in the third person.

Just how genuine is he, I mean you, I mean, oh dear....

What a tangled web we weave...
Tangled web? What are you talking about?
It was an attempt at humour to illustrate to you that you are putting off people voting for you by your attitude to the voter. It’s in all our interests to have strong candidates who are prepared to ender the debate. It would appear that all you care to do is to shout louder and close your ears. BTW a sense of humour might come in handy!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: It's a strange position for johnhornet to take. A million pounds is the difference between one source and another for parking profits in the same year yet he is saying it is not worth spending any money investigating the issue. JohnHornet once again does not sound like a genuine floating voter who wants the best for Watford. It is more like the position of someone who prefers council things left well alone.[/p][/quote]Are you just being obtuse for the sake of it or are you really that stupid?[/p][/quote]A genuine politician should listen and be prepared to debate with voters (floating or not). John is a genuine floating voter. He has less choice though now as the UKIP candidate has proved himself to be ridiculous. Obtuse and stupid are other words which may be applicable.[/p][/quote]Dear Mr Genuine Oops, you have just spoken about yourself in the third person. Just how genuine is he, I mean you, I mean, oh dear.... What a tangled web we weave...[/p][/quote]Tangled web? What are you talking about? It was an attempt at humour to illustrate to you that you are putting off people voting for you by your attitude to the voter. It’s in all our interests to have strong candidates who are prepared to ender the debate. It would appear that all you care to do is to shout louder and close your ears. BTW a sense of humour might come in handy! johnhornet
  • Score: 5

10:40am Wed 2 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

johnhornet wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I have already had a look at these accounts.

If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.
Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?
Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.
Having looked at this issue in great detail, well actually scanned the accounts mentioned by the ex cllr for five mins and read his posts I can conclude you would be wasting my money here by employing an "expert".
[quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I have already had a look at these accounts. If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.[/p][/quote]Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?[/p][/quote]Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.[/p][/quote]Having looked at this issue in great detail, well actually scanned the accounts mentioned by the ex cllr for five mins and read his posts I can conclude you would be wasting my money here by employing an "expert". ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

10:53am Wed 2 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)?

Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally.

- Since then, complete silence.

Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash.

Baffling.
Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)? Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally. - Since then, complete silence. Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash. Baffling. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

11:00am Wed 2 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ancientandageing wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I have already had a look at these accounts.

If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.
Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?
Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.
Having looked at this issue in great detail, well actually scanned the accounts mentioned by the ex cllr for five mins and read his posts I can conclude you would be wasting my money here by employing an "expert".
What expertise do you have in this field?

I am looking to do more than "scan the accounts for 5 minutes". I would say that would not do the issue justice no matter who you are.

Why are some people, suspected in some quarters to be councillors, so keen to stop me looking for what happened to a million pounds of excess parking profits?
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I have already had a look at these accounts. If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.[/p][/quote]Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?[/p][/quote]Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.[/p][/quote]Having looked at this issue in great detail, well actually scanned the accounts mentioned by the ex cllr for five mins and read his posts I can conclude you would be wasting my money here by employing an "expert".[/p][/quote]What expertise do you have in this field? I am looking to do more than "scan the accounts for 5 minutes". I would say that would not do the issue justice no matter who you are. Why are some people, suspected in some quarters to be councillors, so keen to stop me looking for what happened to a million pounds of excess parking profits? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

1:09pm Wed 2 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
johnhornet wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I have already had a look at these accounts.

If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.
Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?
Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.
Having looked at this issue in great detail, well actually scanned the accounts mentioned by the ex cllr for five mins and read his posts I can conclude you would be wasting my money here by employing an "expert".
What expertise do you have in this field?

I am looking to do more than "scan the accounts for 5 minutes". I would say that would not do the issue justice no matter who you are.

Why are some people, suspected in some quarters to be councillors, so keen to stop me looking for what happened to a million pounds of excess parking profits?
none really other than to comprehend basic facts on pieces of paper when pointed at the relevant ones by someone,

The ex Cllr explained about the money and referenced his explanation, in short the Council contrived to have it go into a different account so as it did not have to be ring fenced, its either nifty or shifty but it is not missing!!

From his answer the council appears to have done this in or near completion of the Harlequin center, now the accounts are produced each year with the hel[p of professional accountants, Surly as Mayor if the council committee members can supply reasoned answers that withstand scrutiny it would be foolish to waste my money on getting more professional input?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnhornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I have already had a look at these accounts. If elected I want to look at them again in some more detail with some professional advisors.[/p][/quote]Judging by your posting on this story, I am surprised, well shocked that you have looked at the accounts, do you have a problem with English comprehension?[/p][/quote]Phil, please stop and listen to yourself. You've read the accounts but you don't know what they said. You will employ professionals when you are in post (at our expense) to find the missing million. They won't and you will have spent more of our 'hard earned'.[/p][/quote]Having looked at this issue in great detail, well actually scanned the accounts mentioned by the ex cllr for five mins and read his posts I can conclude you would be wasting my money here by employing an "expert".[/p][/quote]What expertise do you have in this field? I am looking to do more than "scan the accounts for 5 minutes". I would say that would not do the issue justice no matter who you are. Why are some people, suspected in some quarters to be councillors, so keen to stop me looking for what happened to a million pounds of excess parking profits?[/p][/quote]none really other than to comprehend basic facts on pieces of paper when pointed at the relevant ones by someone, The ex Cllr explained about the money and referenced his explanation, in short the Council contrived to have it go into a different account so as it did not have to be ring fenced, its either nifty or shifty but it is not missing!! From his answer the council appears to have done this in or near completion of the Harlequin center, now the accounts are produced each year with the hel[p of professional accountants, Surly as Mayor if the council committee members can supply reasoned answers that withstand scrutiny it would be foolish to waste my money on getting more professional input? ancientandageing
  • Score: 6

2:24pm Wed 2 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)?

Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally.

- Since then, complete silence.

Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash.

Baffling.
Phil-Seriously if you were mayor, would it nopt be better to advise people on other forms of transport?
Personally I'm sick to death of the fat,lazy whingers who feel it is a human right not to havce to walk a mile.

Don't see why we should encourage cars in Watford. It's practically gridlock most days and absolute gridlock when there's football and Christmas shopping .....

I would expect the Greens to actually address this at a local level, because they can impact their national agenda at a local level...

You can't deport Romaniains from the borough and bring Watford after Europe, so what are you for?

Q
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)? Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally. - Since then, complete silence. Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash. Baffling.[/p][/quote]Phil-Seriously if you were mayor, would it nopt be better to advise people on other forms of transport? Personally I'm sick to death of the fat,lazy whingers who feel it is a human right not to havce to walk a mile. Don't see why we should encourage cars in Watford. It's practically gridlock most days and absolute gridlock when there's football and Christmas shopping ..... I would expect the Greens to actually address this at a local level, because they can impact their national agenda at a local level... You can't deport Romaniains from the borough and bring Watford after Europe, so what are you for? Q CaptainPC
  • Score: 5

4:26pm Wed 2 Apr 14

CaptainPC says...

Apologies for the horrendous spelling in my last post.
Apologies for the horrendous spelling in my last post. CaptainPC
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)?

Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally.

- Since then, complete silence.

Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash.

Baffling.
Phil,

It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said.

However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments;

Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy.

You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position?

But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own.

I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda.

To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)? Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally. - Since then, complete silence. Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash. Baffling.[/p][/quote]Phil, It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said. However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments; Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy. You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position? But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own. I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda. To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging Su Murray
  • Score: 3

5:04pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Good to see Su back on the page.

Will we now see a green party member answer a simple question?

What do the greens stand for locally Su?

You must have used hundreds of words above avoiding the question. When will you answer it?

What do the greens stand for in Watford Su? You do know, don't you?

After all, you tried to get elected on a green ticket.
Good to see Su back on the page. Will we now see a green party member answer a simple question? What do the greens stand for locally Su? You must have used hundreds of words above avoiding the question. When will you answer it? What do the greens stand for in Watford Su? You do know, don't you? After all, you tried to get elected on a green ticket. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

5:05pm Wed 2 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)?

Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally.

- Since then, complete silence.

Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash.

Baffling.
Phil,

It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said.

However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments;

Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy.

You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position?

But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own.

I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda.

To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging
I think you will find they (UKIP) also are climate change deniers, want Muslims to sign a special register and make racist dog whistles (or at least local UKIP candidate David Penn has Done).
Oh what else stir up anti EU feeling in Russia for some bizarre reason, ride the EU gravy train, support Fracking, hate renewable energy and want to impose inferior schools on two thirds of pupils by re introducing a formal Grammar school scheme.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)? Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally. - Since then, complete silence. Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash. Baffling.[/p][/quote]Phil, It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said. However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments; Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy. You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position? But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own. I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda. To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging[/p][/quote]I think you will find they (UKIP) also are climate change deniers, want Muslims to sign a special register and make racist dog whistles (or at least local UKIP candidate David Penn has Done). Oh what else stir up anti EU feeling in Russia for some bizarre reason, ride the EU gravy train, support Fracking, hate renewable energy and want to impose inferior schools on two thirds of pupils by re introducing a formal Grammar school scheme. ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

5:40pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Good to see Su back on the page.

Will we now see a green party member answer a simple question?

What do the greens stand for locally Su?

You must have used hundreds of words above avoiding the question. When will you answer it?

What do the greens stand for in Watford Su? You do know, don't you?

After all, you tried to get elected on a green ticket.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a short while ago.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Good to see Su back on the page. Will we now see a green party member answer a simple question? What do the greens stand for locally Su? You must have used hundreds of words above avoiding the question. When will you answer it? What do the greens stand for in Watford Su? You do know, don't you? After all, you tried to get elected on a green ticket.[/p][/quote]I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a short while ago. Su Murray
  • Score: 4

5:45pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)?

Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally.

- Since then, complete silence.

Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash.

Baffling.
Phil,

It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said.

However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments;

Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy.

You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position?

But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own.

I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda.

To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging
I think you will find they (UKIP) also are climate change deniers, want Muslims to sign a special register and make racist dog whistles (or at least local UKIP candidate David Penn has Done).
Oh what else stir up anti EU feeling in Russia for some bizarre reason, ride the EU gravy train, support Fracking, hate renewable energy and want to impose inferior schools on two thirds of pupils by re introducing a formal Grammar school scheme.
I understand they want women to spend more time cleaning behind their fridges too.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)? Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally. - Since then, complete silence. Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash. Baffling.[/p][/quote]Phil, It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said. However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments; Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy. You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position? But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own. I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda. To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging[/p][/quote]I think you will find they (UKIP) also are climate change deniers, want Muslims to sign a special register and make racist dog whistles (or at least local UKIP candidate David Penn has Done). Oh what else stir up anti EU feeling in Russia for some bizarre reason, ride the EU gravy train, support Fracking, hate renewable energy and want to impose inferior schools on two thirds of pupils by re introducing a formal Grammar school scheme.[/p][/quote]I understand they want women to spend more time cleaning behind their fridges too. Su Murray
  • Score: 4

7:51pm Wed 2 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Su Murray wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)?

Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally.

- Since then, complete silence.

Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash.

Baffling.
Phil,

It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said.

However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments;

Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy.

You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position?

But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own.

I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda.

To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging
I think you will find they (UKIP) also are climate change deniers, want Muslims to sign a special register and make racist dog whistles (or at least local UKIP candidate David Penn has Done).
Oh what else stir up anti EU feeling in Russia for some bizarre reason, ride the EU gravy train, support Fracking, hate renewable energy and want to impose inferior schools on two thirds of pupils by re introducing a formal Grammar school scheme.
I understand they want women to spend more time cleaning behind their fridges too.
yep, but they are equal ops, that means they can clean behind the fridge in the boardroom
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Has anyone heard from Su Murray (local Green party member and ex- WBC Candidate)? Su kept telling me I didn't know what the greens stood for locally and so I asked her what the greens do stand for locally. - Since then, complete silence. Prior to that she was all over this thread like a rash. Baffling.[/p][/quote]Phil, It may 'baffle' you to know that not only do I have a life beyond the confines of the WO web pages, but in fact I have a life that extends beyond Watford too. Returning home yesterday evening, I read the then most recent additions to this thread and concluded there was nothing useful I could add to the substance of the article and the comments, that hadn't already been said. However, as you seem keen to hear from me I’ll address some of your comments; Prior to this comment, I had made 8 comments I believe, yet you describe this as “all over this thread like a rash”. You have made some 25+ comments. Do the words ‘pot’ ‘kettle’ and ‘black’ mean anything to you? I haven’t counted but I’d guess other commentators have made a similar amount of contributions as I. Are they “all over this thread like a rash” too? Are these threads for the comments of Phil Cox and UKIP supporters only? Doesn't sound like UKIP offer much in the way of democracy. You have made some unsubstantiated comments regarding the Council’s accounting. You also made some unfounded comments regarding ‘Greens’. Far from keeping telling you that you don’t know what the Greens stand for, I told you twice. You then ask me to tell you what the local Green party advocate – thereby proving your disparaging comments were not based on any evidence. Shouldn't you be addressing your own manifesto rather than worrying about the Green party position? But that’s the nub of the matter isn't it Phil? Because other than blaming Europe and Foreigners for everything, and wanting to do away with workers rights, UKIP don’t really stand for anything. So, like the Lib Dems before you, you try and latch on to local initiatives, plus see if you can get any ideas from the other parties because you are bereft of original ideas yourself. No doubt this is why the other week you wanted to know Jagtar’s views before announcing your own. I try to remain pleasant, and at least polite towards people, as far as possible. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that makes me a fool, or susceptible to being manipulated by you for your own agenda. To return to the subject matter of the article, and the comments, I have a further bit of advice for you. Something I'm surprised you haven’t learnt already. When in a hole, stop digging[/p][/quote]I think you will find they (UKIP) also are climate change deniers, want Muslims to sign a special register and make racist dog whistles (or at least local UKIP candidate David Penn has Done). Oh what else stir up anti EU feeling in Russia for some bizarre reason, ride the EU gravy train, support Fracking, hate renewable energy and want to impose inferior schools on two thirds of pupils by re introducing a formal Grammar school scheme.[/p][/quote]I understand they want women to spend more time cleaning behind their fridges too.[/p][/quote]yep, but they are equal ops, that means they can clean behind the fridge in the boardroom ancientandageing
  • Score: 3

9:09pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

"yep, but they are equal ops, that means they can clean behind the fridge in the boardroom"

*chuckle*

I'm sure we 'Sisters' appreciate this progress @ancientandageing.
"yep, but they are equal ops, that means they can clean behind the fridge in the boardroom" *chuckle* I'm sure we 'Sisters' appreciate this progress @ancientandageing. Su Murray
  • Score: 2

10:52pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su,

sorry to keep repeating myself, but what do the local green party stand for?
Su, sorry to keep repeating myself, but what do the local green party stand for? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

11:38pm Wed 2 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su,

sorry to keep repeating myself, but what do the local green party stand for?
Phil,

You're not 'sorry to keep repeating yourself' at all. You are hoping to cover up the hammering you've received on this thread by deflecting attention to me.

Please stop trying to 'pick the pockets' of other candidates/parties. Come up with some ideas of your own. Preferably ones that are viable.

You can push and prod and poke as much as you like. I am not going to be manipulated into playing your game.

Enough. I am not going to answer any further comments by you on this thread unless they are addressing the substance of the article.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Su, sorry to keep repeating myself, but what do the local green party stand for?[/p][/quote]Phil, You're not 'sorry to keep repeating yourself' at all. You are hoping to cover up the hammering you've received on this thread by deflecting attention to me. Please stop trying to 'pick the pockets' of other candidates/parties. Come up with some ideas of your own. Preferably ones that are viable. You can push and prod and poke as much as you like. I am not going to be manipulated into playing your game. Enough. I am not going to answer any further comments by you on this thread unless they are addressing the substance of the article. Su Murray
  • Score: 5

5:41pm Thu 3 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Su Murray wrote:
"yep, but they are equal ops, that means they can clean behind the fridge in the boardroom"

*chuckle*

I'm sure we 'Sisters' appreciate this progress @ancientandageing.
That's all down to our enlightened Local UKIP MEP Agnew who took over from Bloom as UKIP inequality spokesman.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: "yep, but they are equal ops, that means they can clean behind the fridge in the boardroom" *chuckle* I'm sure we 'Sisters' appreciate this progress @ancientandageing.[/p][/quote]That's all down to our enlightened Local UKIP MEP Agnew who took over from Bloom as UKIP inequality spokesman. ancientandageing
  • Score: 2

8:21am Fri 4 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

QUOTE

"Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC.

END QUOTE

Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford?

There are elections coming up.

I have made clear the Ukip position.

Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.

I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy.

After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?
QUOTE "Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC. END QUOTE Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford? There are elections coming up. I have made clear the Ukip position. Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy. After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

9:17am Fri 4 Apr 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
QUOTE

"Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC.

END QUOTE

Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford?

There are elections coming up.

I have made clear the Ukip position.

Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.

I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy.

After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?
You have not stated your policy thou have you??

All you have said is you will waste my money on expensive "experts" chasing money that the Daily Mail says is missing, when in fact a perfectly plausible explanation has been provided with referencing to accounts.

or is this just a case of trying to put everyone else on the defensive in line with the UKIP dark arts of local media manipulation?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: QUOTE "Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC. END QUOTE Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford? There are elections coming up. I have made clear the Ukip position. Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy. After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?[/p][/quote]You have not stated your policy thou have you?? All you have said is you will waste my money on expensive "experts" chasing money that the Daily Mail says is missing, when in fact a perfectly plausible explanation has been provided with referencing to accounts. or is this just a case of trying to put everyone else on the defensive in line with the UKIP dark arts of local media manipulation? ancientandageing
  • Score: 4

9:21am Fri 4 Apr 14

jimbo26 says...

ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
QUOTE

"Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC.

END QUOTE

Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford?

There are elections coming up.

I have made clear the Ukip position.

Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.

I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy.

After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?
You have not stated your policy thou have you??

All you have said is you will waste my money on expensive "experts" chasing money that the Daily Mail says is missing, when in fact a perfectly plausible explanation has been provided with referencing to accounts.

or is this just a case of trying to put everyone else on the defensive in line with the UKIP dark arts of local media manipulation?
He has stated his intentions:

QUOTE
Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.
END QUOTE

Can't you see that Phil Cox is a magician. He can provide adequate parking in general to everyone, without charging them for it?!?!?
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: QUOTE "Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC. END QUOTE Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford? There are elections coming up. I have made clear the Ukip position. Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy. After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?[/p][/quote]You have not stated your policy thou have you?? All you have said is you will waste my money on expensive "experts" chasing money that the Daily Mail says is missing, when in fact a perfectly plausible explanation has been provided with referencing to accounts. or is this just a case of trying to put everyone else on the defensive in line with the UKIP dark arts of local media manipulation?[/p][/quote]He has stated his intentions: QUOTE Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. END QUOTE Can't you see that Phil Cox is a magician. He can provide adequate parking in general to everyone, without charging them for it?!?!? jimbo26
  • Score: 2

9:53am Fri 4 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

jimbo26 wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
QUOTE

"Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC.

END QUOTE

Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford?

There are elections coming up.

I have made clear the Ukip position.

Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.

I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy.

After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?
You have not stated your policy thou have you??

All you have said is you will waste my money on expensive "experts" chasing money that the Daily Mail says is missing, when in fact a perfectly plausible explanation has been provided with referencing to accounts.

or is this just a case of trying to put everyone else on the defensive in line with the UKIP dark arts of local media manipulation?
He has stated his intentions:

QUOTE
Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.
END QUOTE

Can't you see that Phil Cox is a magician. He can provide adequate parking in general to everyone, without charging them for it?!?!?
Our policy on parking is

. to encourage adequate parking for new developments.

.to make parking charges to residents and people working in Watford non-profit making. That means we will try to

. reduce the cost of resident parking permits
. make street parking free (remove parking meters)
. not introduce new parking charges where currently parking is free (i.e. the streets, industrial parks and Cassiobury Park car park).

We also will investigate free parking for shoppers either in the town centre and elsewhere for an initial period of time so that shoppers wishing to pop in to the shops can do so without having to pay a parking charge. We will introduce more on street parking if possible in shopping areas.

I hope that is clear. I am happy to answer any questions on our policy but I am sure you can see our principles from what I have already said.

Now then, what is the Watford Green Party policy on parking in and around Watford Su Murray?
[quote][p][bold]jimbo26[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: QUOTE "Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC. END QUOTE Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford? There are elections coming up. I have made clear the Ukip position. Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy. After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?[/p][/quote]You have not stated your policy thou have you?? All you have said is you will waste my money on expensive "experts" chasing money that the Daily Mail says is missing, when in fact a perfectly plausible explanation has been provided with referencing to accounts. or is this just a case of trying to put everyone else on the defensive in line with the UKIP dark arts of local media manipulation?[/p][/quote]He has stated his intentions: QUOTE Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. END QUOTE Can't you see that Phil Cox is a magician. He can provide adequate parking in general to everyone, without charging them for it?!?!?[/p][/quote]Our policy on parking is . to encourage adequate parking for new developments. .to make parking charges to residents and people working in Watford non-profit making. That means we will try to . reduce the cost of resident parking permits . make street parking free (remove parking meters) . not introduce new parking charges where currently parking is free (i.e. the streets, industrial parks and Cassiobury Park car park). We also will investigate free parking for shoppers either in the town centre and elsewhere for an initial period of time so that shoppers wishing to pop in to the shops can do so without having to pay a parking charge. We will introduce more on street parking if possible in shopping areas. I hope that is clear. I am happy to answer any questions on our policy but I am sure you can see our principles from what I have already said. Now then, what is the Watford Green Party policy on parking in and around Watford Su Murray? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

10:32am Fri 4 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

http://www.express.c
o.uk/news/uk/468589/
Pickles-orders-probe
-into-Tower-Hamlets-
council-as-a-file-al
leging-fraud-passed-
to-police

To all those who do not want any investigation into the councils accounts, I would ask them to read this article.

I am sure this Mayor-led council produced accounts, yet there is a whiff of potential fraud and maladministration.

If elected I will be examining the books of the council and making that Watford Borough Council is as transparent and open to scrutiny as possible to ensure that this sort of thing cannot happen in Watford and has not happened in Watford.

Watford Borough Council will be an example to all others in terms of customer service, openness, accountability and value for money leading to lower taxes.

What other party will offer you that?
http://www.express.c o.uk/news/uk/468589/ Pickles-orders-probe -into-Tower-Hamlets- council-as-a-file-al leging-fraud-passed- to-police To all those who do not want any investigation into the councils accounts, I would ask them to read this article. I am sure this Mayor-led council produced accounts, yet there is a whiff of potential fraud and maladministration. If elected I will be examining the books of the council and making that Watford Borough Council is as transparent and open to scrutiny as possible to ensure that this sort of thing cannot happen in Watford and has not happened in Watford. Watford Borough Council will be an example to all others in terms of customer service, openness, accountability and value for money leading to lower taxes. What other party will offer you that? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

3:25pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
QUOTE

"Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC.

END QUOTE

Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford?

There are elections coming up.

I have made clear the Ukip position.

Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.

I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy.

After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?
Phil,

The money is ring fenced.

With regards the Green party, the general thrust both nationally and locally, is towards improving public and alternative transport. Indeed local Green councillors have had some success e.g in obtaining extra funding for cycle lanes. It's not the solution for everyone, but it is part of an overall strategy.

As I previously stated, even if there was surplus money being raised, one would have to look carefully at all the factors. I'm not going to repeat them - go back to the post where I previously listed some of them. .When making decisions on such things, the over all aims of the Council have to be considered. Plus of course the relevant laws!

This does not mean Greens are anti motorists. In fact, it was the Green party who raised concerns about the plans for Watford Junction station a couple of years ago and spoke out about how this would make things more difficult for motorists among other users. It was something I spoke quite a bit about in my first campaign. It gives me no pleasure that those concerns have been proven correct.

I personally have other ideas but have not finished researching whether they would be useful and/or viable in Watford. Nor have I discussed them in depth with Green party members. In any case, I have no intention of writing your manifesto for you.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: QUOTE "Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC. END QUOTE Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford? There are elections coming up. I have made clear the Ukip position. Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy. After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?[/p][/quote]Phil, The money is ring fenced. With regards the Green party, the general thrust both nationally and locally, is towards improving public and alternative transport. Indeed local Green councillors have had some success e.g in obtaining extra funding for cycle lanes. It's not the solution for everyone, but it is part of an overall strategy. As I previously stated, even if there was surplus money being raised, one would have to look carefully at all the factors. I'm not going to repeat them - go back to the post where I previously listed some of them. .When making decisions on such things, the over all aims of the Council have to be considered. Plus of course the relevant laws! This does not mean Greens are anti motorists. In fact, it was the Green party who raised concerns about the plans for Watford Junction station a couple of years ago and spoke out about how this would make things more difficult for motorists among other users. It was something I spoke quite a bit about in my first campaign. It gives me no pleasure that those concerns have been proven correct. I personally have other ideas but have not finished researching whether they would be useful and/or viable in Watford. Nor have I discussed them in depth with Green party members. In any case, I have no intention of writing your manifesto for you. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Sat 5 Apr 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
QUOTE

"Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC.

END QUOTE

Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford?

There are elections coming up.

I have made clear the Ukip position.

Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free.

I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy.

After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?
Phil,

The money is ring fenced.

With regards the Green party, the general thrust both nationally and locally, is towards improving public and alternative transport. Indeed local Green councillors have had some success e.g in obtaining extra funding for cycle lanes. It's not the solution for everyone, but it is part of an overall strategy.

As I previously stated, even if there was surplus money being raised, one would have to look carefully at all the factors. I'm not going to repeat them - go back to the post where I previously listed some of them. .When making decisions on such things, the over all aims of the Council have to be considered. Plus of course the relevant laws!

This does not mean Greens are anti motorists. In fact, it was the Green party who raised concerns about the plans for Watford Junction station a couple of years ago and spoke out about how this would make things more difficult for motorists among other users. It was something I spoke quite a bit about in my first campaign. It gives me no pleasure that those concerns have been proven correct.

I personally have other ideas but have not finished researching whether they would be useful and/or viable in Watford. Nor have I discussed them in depth with Green party members. In any case, I have no intention of writing your manifesto for you.
Su,

I'm still not sure where the greens stand on parking. You seem to have evaded the question. Again.

I was quite specific in my question and I have laid out our own local UKIP ideas. What do people have to do to get the greens to answer a straight question with a straight answer?

Could you, without changing the subject or referring to some vague masterplan, tell me where your green party stands on parking in Watford? In particular, relating to the provision of parking in relation to new developments and general parking charges.

I hope that is a specific enough straight question that you can respond to with a straight answer.

A straight answer please.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: QUOTE "Should I choose to stand for election again, now, or in the future, being honest might not get me elected, but at least when I go to the bathroom each morning, I'll be able to face myself in the mirror." - Su Murray, Green Party member, ex-candidate for election to WBC. END QUOTE Does anyone know what the Watford Green party policy on car parking is in Watford? There are elections coming up. I have made clear the Ukip position. Su, what is your party's position? This is exactly relevant to the article and we have stated our Ukip position clearly. We will provide adequate parking both in general and on new developments and make it as cheap as possible or free. I see no reason why you, on behalf of the Green party in Watford or merely as a member of said party cannot now declare your Watford Green Party parking policy. After all, you do want to be able to look yourself in the mirror in the mornings, don't you? How about a bit of honesty now, Su?[/p][/quote]Phil, The money is ring fenced. With regards the Green party, the general thrust both nationally and locally, is towards improving public and alternative transport. Indeed local Green councillors have had some success e.g in obtaining extra funding for cycle lanes. It's not the solution for everyone, but it is part of an overall strategy. As I previously stated, even if there was surplus money being raised, one would have to look carefully at all the factors. I'm not going to repeat them - go back to the post where I previously listed some of them. .When making decisions on such things, the over all aims of the Council have to be considered. Plus of course the relevant laws! This does not mean Greens are anti motorists. In fact, it was the Green party who raised concerns about the plans for Watford Junction station a couple of years ago and spoke out about how this would make things more difficult for motorists among other users. It was something I spoke quite a bit about in my first campaign. It gives me no pleasure that those concerns have been proven correct. I personally have other ideas but have not finished researching whether they would be useful and/or viable in Watford. Nor have I discussed them in depth with Green party members. In any case, I have no intention of writing your manifesto for you.[/p][/quote]Su, I'm still not sure where the greens stand on parking. You seem to have evaded the question. Again. I was quite specific in my question and I have laid out our own local UKIP ideas. What do people have to do to get the greens to answer a straight question with a straight answer? Could you, without changing the subject or referring to some vague masterplan, tell me where your green party stands on parking in Watford? In particular, relating to the provision of parking in relation to new developments and general parking charges. I hope that is a specific enough straight question that you can respond to with a straight answer. A straight answer please. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree