Watford Mayor 'proved right' over free swimming (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Watford Mayor 'proved right' over free swimming
1:37pm Friday 18th June 2010 in
Watford Mayor Dorothy Thornhill says she has been “proved right” by a government decision to pull the plug on a controversial free swimming programme.
Mayor Thornhill’s ruling Liberal Democrat administration clashed repeatedly with former Labour MP Claire Ward over its refusal to implement the policy – introduced in April 2009 for under 16s and over 60s.
Watford Borough Council argued the government funded policy would still have cost its taxpayers an additional £70,000 and did not represent value for money.
Speaking after the new coalition government announced it would scrap the scheme, Mayor Thornhill said: “It was a very difficult decision to resist because of the amount of political and public pressure we were facing, but we stuck to our guns because we believed it would not get more people swimming and was not value for money.
“It was used persistently against us, particularly by our own [former] MP but I have been proved right.”
Councillor Nigel Bell, deputy Labour group leader at Watford Town Hall, defended the previous government’s policy. He said: “I think it’s a real shame that the Liberal Democrats never had any serious intention of introducing this.
“It’s also a shame that people won’t be allowed the health benefits of free swimming”
Comments(19)
Mike Watford
says...
2:57pm Fri 18 Jun 10
That mechanism was agreed before we even had a Mayor.
Sara
says...
3:22pm Fri 18 Jun 10
See http://www.threerive
rs.gov.uk/Default.as
px/Web/iswimforfree for details.
phil mitchel
says...
3:36pm Fri 18 Jun 10
As mentioned during the election ...vote Lib Dem get a Tory, stil the electorate will realise come the next election best just vote tory and cut out the middle man.
Andrew1963
says...
4:07pm Fri 18 Jun 10
Sara wrote:So Liberal Democrats controlling Three Rivers were and are wrong to offer free swimming according to Thornhill and the Conservative supportting Parliamentary Liberal Democrat party. Will the Three Rivers Lib Dems now own up to their error and apologise for what Mayor Thornhill describes as the waste of public money? After all either Thornill is right or Three Rivers Liberal Democrats are right.
Can I reassure Three Rivers' residents that Three Rivers will continue to offer free swimming to under 19 and over 60 year olds at Woodside, Sir James Altham and William Penn at least until the end of the summer holidays. See http://www.threerive rs.gov.uk/Default.as px/Web/iswimforfree for details.
phil mitchel
says...
7:20pm Fri 18 Jun 10
Sara
says...
10:32pm Fri 18 Jun 10
Three Rivers were offering free swimming for young people in the summer holidays before the govt came up with their plan. So for us, it was an extension of our original idea.
Andrew1963
says...
10:42pm Fri 18 Jun 10
Sara wrote:Problem is The liberal Democrat coalition said it is a bad policy and Lib Dem Mayor Thornhill says the Lib Dem administration in Three Rivers has wasted public money on a bad policy. She did not say, in Watford we decided to prioritise other issues over free swimming - she says Three Rivers council has bad ideas that waste local peoples money!
The reason why we elect local councils, rather than all being run directly from Westminster is so that councillors can decide what is right for their communities. Three Rivers were offering free swimming for young people in the summer holidays before the govt came up with their plan. So for us, it was an extension of our original idea.
Roy Storkdill
says...
11:27pm Fri 18 Jun 10
Andrew1963 wrote:Why do Watford BC want to share so many of their services with Three Rivers now then Dorothy? Three Rivers get a worse service now and spend nothing like whats wasted at Watford
Sara wrote: The reason why we elect local councils, rather than all being run directly from Westminster is so that councillors can decide what is right for their communities. Three Rivers were offering free swimming for young people in the summer holidays before the govt came up with their plan. So for us, it was an extension of our original idea.Problem is The liberal Democrat coalition said it is a bad policy and Lib Dem Mayor Thornhill says the Lib Dem administration in Three Rivers has wasted public money on a bad policy. She did not say, in Watford we decided to prioritise other issues over free swimming - she says Three Rivers council has bad ideas that waste local peoples money!
thai rog
says...
10:09am Sat 19 Jun 10
With imminent government cut-backs needed I can point the pruners to a cushy little number in Watford Town Hall that would not be missed and the tens of thousands saved could be put towards... let's think..oh yes free swimming.
Sara
says...
1:15pm Sat 19 Jun 10
Three Rivers had been running free swimming for young people in the holidays for a number of years and found it a good use of money. Each council should do what is best for their area.
Andrew1963
says...
12:34pm Mon 21 Jun 10
Sara wrote:Can someone explain why free swimming is good value for money if you are a young person living in Hampermill Lane, Oxhey but not value for money if you live 15 yards away on Eastbury road, Oxhey? Those young people who live in Boundary Way (Three Rivers area) can get 'Value for Money' free swimming at Woodside and those who live on Boundary way (Watford Borough) are told free swimming at Woodside (same pool - same running costs,etc) is not available as it is 'Not Value for Money' !
The governent have not said it is a bad idea, they have said that it is not value for money for the government to fund. Three Rivers had been running free swimming for young people in the holidays for a number of years and found it a good use of money. Each council should do what is best for their area.
Sara
says...
7:05pm Mon 21 Jun 10
Different councils offer different services for their residents and spend their money differently. That is why we have local councils.
Andrew1963
says...
10:52pm Mon 21 Jun 10
Sara wrote:So why is it good value for Three Rivers Council to deliver a free swim at woodside but (as Mayor Thornhill says) poor value for Watford to deliver a free swim at the same venue? It is the same pool, the cost is the same. The same service can not be good value and poor value at the same time!
@Andrew1963 I would have thought that it was obvious that it is value for money for a council as a whole, not for individual residents. Different councils offer different services for their residents and spend their money differently. That is why we have local councils.
Sara
says...
9:54am Tue 22 Jun 10
Andrew1963
says...
10:26pm Tue 22 Jun 10
Sara wrote:So why didn't Watford decide to fund free swimming just for Watford residents? At the end of the day the answer is very clear. Three Rivers decided they wanted to spend public money to provide free swimming, because they thought it was good value to provide free recreation and encourage more people to be physically active. Watford Lib Dem council decided that spending public money in this way was not good value for money. A difference of opinion, but only one lot of councillors is right. Sara thinks Three Rivers were right.
@Andrew1963 because Three Rivers only pay for each Three Rivers swimmer (not funded by govt). If Watford had signed up to govt scheme, they would have had to pay for all swimmers, no matter where from.
Steve, Abbots Langley
says...
2:08pm Fri 25 Jun 10
Sal's Lib Dems are a disgrace.
The Mayor has not been "proved right" - that could only be so if the Tories had given her every penny she'd demanded.
Instead she remains happy that Watford has been denied the wonderful free swimming experience that others enjoyed before her party decided to prop up this appalling Tory government.
How Mayor Thornhill, Sal Brinton and the rest of the Lib Dem cabal who all support the coalition goverment must be loving all these cuts.
Jim_UK
says...
9:51pm Thu 1 Jul 10
bomber18
says...
4:27pm Tue 6 Jul 10
Andrew1963 wrote:The answer is simple.Dotty doesn't know,or care about "ordinary" citizens.What is important is her inflated salary.
Sara wrote: @Andrew1963 I would have thought that it was obvious that it is value for money for a council as a whole, not for individual residents. Different councils offer different services for their residents and spend their money differently. That is why we have local councils.So why is it good value for Three Rivers Council to deliver a free swim at woodside but (as Mayor Thornhill says) poor value for Watford to deliver a free swim at the same venue? It is the same pool, the cost is the same. The same service can not be good value and poor value at the same time!
More News stories
- Charity book sale in Rickmansworth
- Centenarian talks to students at school in Northwood
- Get involved in your community
- Views sought on whether to cap Watford taxi numbers
- Aldenham Country Park takeover complete
- Watford restaurant and cafe hygiene scores revealed
- Police control centre hit by attempted metal theft
- Acoustic event brings music and crafts to Abbots Langley
- Tools stolen in series of thefts from vans
- Hard disk containing data on children stolen from council offices
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
HertsPeter says...
2:18pm Fri 18 Jun 10