Alex coaches my son, lovely guy. Won a coaching award last year, I think.
Coincidentally, he is also a schoolfriend of one of my best mates in that "Edinburgh is really just a wee village" way.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Eight sports centres face closure over funding cut"
(54 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
That's good to hear. I think he's won coaching awards previously. It's nice to see him continue to get recognition and I really hope Ed Leisure appreciate what they've got there.
A lot of sports coaches come across as bitter "nearly-made-it-pro" and have a bad attitude to match. Alex always comes across as thoroughly enjoying his job and happy to chat to anyone. I haven't seen him for a long while, but it sounds like he hasn't changed. :-)
Posted 9 years ago # -
6 or 7 quid for the pool to yourself I would if guaranteed.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that, you have to put up with being the slow duffer making more waves than motion while the team shower off and chuckle too them selves while you stop after the second length to prevent the life guard having to rescue a drowner!
Posted 9 years ago # -
It's sort of ironic that the threat to the "middle class subsidy" of council leisure comes, in part, from the "middle class subsidy" of the council tax freeze.
Posted 9 years ago # -
While the full price gym prices may be expensive, they offer very competitive concessionary rates to OAPs, juniors and claimants and others on low incomes.
Don't see what's not to like, really.
Posted 9 years ago # -
In fact, even the expensive prices are cheap when compared to a lot of private gyms. Drumbrae is certainly cheaper than David Lloyd or the Virgin gym in Fountainbridge.
Comparing apples with oranges a tad, but I've no interest in paying a massive premium for a 'gentleman's club' feel as is on offer at DL.
Posted 9 years ago # -
It appears Edinburgh leisure offer types of memberships now for unemployed.
They did not in 2006 when I complained.
The gym membership prices have also dropped. It has made some improvments.
Still would think is a bit of middle class subsidy tennis and golf. Also the political discount to give retired people on high incomes a discount, rather than on a means or needs basis.
When I used to go in the afternoon when unemployed, retired teacher, doctor, government workers, it seemed I was the only one that paid full price as was unemployed. It seems a transfer payment from the tax payer to better off on sometimes discriminatory rather than need or income basis such as better off elderly claiming discounts that don’t need it or government employees.
Council tax is not income related, based on the 1992 value of assets you may not own.
The low paid worker has to pay this charge then the benefits go better off I would agree with the council tax free if that means reducing the subsidy to middle class hobbies would seem acceptable. Council tax is a regressive tax.
The sports people may have done very well personally out the arrangement, but more benefits to society may be found in discounting to lower income groups. The health benefits reduced nhs spending etc.
Currently the likes of pure gym provide benefits to lower income people through affordable sports access. But they don’t send you to prison if you don’t pay they just stop you entering.
Although there is now a membership for unemployed which is a big step forward there is still nothing for the typical low paid worker.
You have to pay for Edinburgh leisure even if you can’t afford there higher entry fees, you have to pay for well paid Scottish government council worker councillors retired teachers and golfer subsidies.
I tend to think tax payers money should pay for basic services for the badly off not for subsidies luxuries for the well off.
The councillors let edinburgh lesuire set high fees for the low paid, then the same councillors claim a discount themself.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ed1 - worth noting that approximately 80% of local government cash comes directly from the Scottish Government. Council tax makes up the remaining 20%. Council tax is frozen by the Scottish Government - not legally, but the financial penalties for not freezing it are severe for authorities and none dare raise it.
Is providing access to a wide range of sporting facilities really (only?) a middle class subsidy. Pure gym provide gym access in central locations. I don't see the private sector providing sports facilities (useable by small children through to pensioners) in Gracemount, Wester Hailes and the like. It falls to the Council to provide these facilities and I support it. I see it as investment in metal and physical health. Probably saves the NHS a small fortune.
I'm not overly worried about the well-off retired people. I imagine they will find another venue for their hobbies. However, once these places go it is the less well off that are likely to be deprived of access to sports facilities. I would prefer to campaign for concessions to be extended, rather than removed from the people that currently enjoy them.
I don't envy the Council's position though - budget cutting is a very tricky business.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Back in 2010, Audit Scotland showed that Edinburgh invested less in physical recreation per head of population than any other council in Scotland, and less than a third of the commitment in Glasgow. I doubt that this has shifted much since and, if the funding cuts go ahead, budgets will be back to where they were in 2001, when visits to facilities were far less than now.
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Council tax is a regressive tax."
Don't think it's quite as simple as that. The Council Tax is more progressive than the poll tax but, without discounts and benefits accounts for a greater proportion of the income of poor households than it does of high income households. It is made less regressive by single adult discounts and council tax benefits but more regressive by a failure to extend the upper bands and to revalue the bands and the ratios between bands.
But that's no excuse for the much more regressive impact of the council tax freeze, which gives the largest savings to the wealthiest households and lowest benefits to poor households, while also potentially resulting in cuts to services which overwhelmingly benefits poorer households. In cutting leisure (depending on how they apply it) the council may well be making the best of the Government's bad job. If they target the savings geographically and in terms of services, they might at least ensure that low income beneficiaries of particular leisure services feel the least impact.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think council tax fulfills the definition of a regressive tax.
There may be other taxes that are more regressive the poll tax of course being one, as unlike council tax which has some correlation to income, the assets price where owned or not has a relationship to the rent.
The fact that is regressive could be an justification for the freeze. As the freeze saves the poorer people a higher percentage of their income than richer people even if the money figure is less. The council tax benefits, that are classified as benefits may go the very poor. But working minimum wage have to pay the full-bill etc.
A regressive tax taking a proportionally larger share of income from poorer people.
But even the absolute money figure or the percentage of income, misses declining utility of money as income increases in meeting basic needs.
A richer person does not proportionally drink more milk to their income etc. For quality of life meeting the basic needs can have disproportionate effect even if for example took a lower percentage of income from poor groups unlike the council tax. A lower sum and a even a lower percentage can still have a bigger effect on quality of life if means basic needs can not be meet.
I suppose the argument would be do poorer people get get more benefits from saving in council tax than the services they lose through the freeze.
In respect to Edinburgh leisure I am not sure about this.
In respect to some Edinburgh leisure centers thats fees are too high for pooer people I think the benefits would be greater from the freeze as can not afford to use anyway.
I am not sure about other edinburgh council services, services free at the point of use may typically benefit poorer people I guess but even then would depend on who uses it.
Also I suppose if was an academic exercise would need a qualification as to who is poor.
My opinion is based primarily on my own personal experience of using the faculties which may not be representative.
In respect to low income I suppose would need to break income in to groups then put an estimate on benefits from the council to those groups and see if get more benefits than cost in respect to council tax free to no freeze, this may depend on what units choose in respect to poor how broke down groups, and how weight the benefits classifications and weighting. How choose to measure poor, and how choose to measure benefits could allow enough flexibility to have to opposite conclusions.
Sure if someone one got told to show it is worse with a freeze or better with a freeze could choose groups and weight benefits in a way that may demonstrate this may be. As quite an abstract this could choose measurements or set the frame in a different way. But to objectively find an out, not sure, relativism may be.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"...invested less in physical recreation per head of population..."
If the goal is keeping the population fit and healthy I wonder how different the figures would be if active travel provision was included in the figures.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Is that the same kind of imagination as Tesco used when forecasting profits?
Posted 9 years ago # -
finally wrote some of this up
http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/13-of-13-not-worth.html
Posted 9 years ago # -
At the triathlon club AGM there was some concern that we might lose one of the sessions that we have in an Edinburgh Leisure pool. I think the conclusion was that it is unlikely. However the comment was made that there's a big demand from clubs for swim lane space and it is really hard to get it. All our sessions (E.L. pools and elsewhere) are really busy. The man who runs the morning session at Leith Victoria said that it would be good to have a third lane but they can't get it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Edinburgh is not alone in spending cuts. With a shortfall of ~£70M Fife is cutting school times by 30 minutes per day for Primary school children. Teachers are suporting a short Friday instead of closing 30 minutes earlier each day.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Teachers are suporting a short Friday instead of closing 30 minutes earlier each day."
You have a "long" Friday? Not finishing at 12.25pm then?
Posted 9 years ago # -
a short Friday
I like the idea of a short Friday (not just with schools, but for work as well). I suspect that productivity would not suffer too much of a hit in all but the most process-based workplaces, and think what we could all do with that extra 5 hours of economic activity...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Crowriver, no school closes at the same time every day in Fife.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well then, half day Friday would bring Fife into line with Edinburgh: and it's been like that for years here, as long as I can remember. Some inconvenience for parents, to be sure, but after school clubs can help take the pressure off working folk.
Case solved!
Posted 9 years ago # -
@fimm interesting - I had noticed that the various clubs had started staying in the Commie longer of a morning. Until September or so they were usually out by 0800 and there'd be a quieter hour or so of laned swimming for regular punters and half open water for everyone else.
Now the clubs stay beyond 0900 and there's only 2 lanes for non-club swimmers after 0830, the remaining 2 lanes being open water. I don't have a problem with the clubs but open water when there is clearly heavy demand for lanes is a waste of the facility IMO.
I wish Edinburgh Leisure would charge more for laned swimming and actually deliver on the promise. Pretty sure they can't be making much out of me with an all-you-can-eat swim membership for 35 a month.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I do not have children but do hear people complaining about additional cost when schools were on closed for bad weather etc.
It always seems quite unfair on the public that pay for a service through tax and council don’t deliver, think the schools should have to pay compensation if close for strikes or bad weather. As schools close when weaher is not so bad that buiness closes etc.
The teachers lobbying etc public sector a science teacher or arts teacher gets paid the same rate, even with a glut of arts graduates. If the council paid the going rate for teachers may be would be able to afford to keep the school open, or if did not pay 2/3 final salary pensions etc. Seems normal public sector entitlement culture.
Like GPs, senior officals etc that are in public sector unions, when the people who clean the school or are on low wages on zero hour contracts contracted out, low pay with no pension etc so unions for the better off , its unions agreements for the better off at times at the expense of the of the less well off, less well of parents that use the school having to pay more costs for childcare.
If a teacher strikes because they are not happy on their 30k, with subsidised pension and long holidays, someone, on low wage working in asda has to pay more childcare costs for a service already paid for in council tax.I wonder what is the cost of closings schools early to parents, having to pay for additional childcare etc. The school buildings are already there already warm etc, how can be it be efficient to close early then pay for another child-minder.
Just seems typical council type decsion to consider closing schools earlier, which passes costs on to low income people for the benefit of interest groups etc.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
