:cry: :cry: Yesterday (2/45/02) 27 tearful and angry parents watched an incredible event in the Council Chambers, bringing shame to our city, and highlighting the heavy handed and arrogant approach of the LEA.

These parents were given firm written and verbal promises of school places for their children at Lydgate School. Because of a major management bungle, the LEA got their numbers wrong, and this promise was broken. Instead of apologising and admitting that they "screwed up" Labour councillors have reacted insteading by heaping abuse on parents. 27 parents were told yesterday that they cannot understand English or comprehend the verbal information provided by the LEA and its representatives.

This is a massive management bungle, and an almost exact clone of the bungle only a few years ago. Unfortunately small children (aged 7) have to bear the brunt of this. We observed the spectacle of Labour councillors voting to smash these parents with small children, in an action which was as immoral as it was almost certainly illegal.

Anone who wonders why Sheffield has the problems it has, and the status it has (compared to Manchester or Leeds for example) should visit a council meeting and watch the circus. 27 parents watched with disgust while Labour councillors told crude jokes and ate sweets while dispensing their injustice.

Our Labour council do not seem to posess enough concern about just and moral principles to realise that they are cutting the ground from under their own feet. Fighting against discrimination and for the "little people" seems to be a forgotten principle of this administration. Labour cannot afford to alienate its core supporters. If our Labour Council fight against descrimination, racism and the usual evils of our society they deserve our support. But that is not what they are fighting for anymore.


Sick sick sick!! :( :( :cry:

I for one will never vote Labour again.

You have my every sympathy.
They are as laughable as ever.

(Lydgate parent of 1997)

This sounds intriguing. Not being a native Sheffielder - the way it's council works is obvisouly alien to me.

May just have to find out about these meetings.

Moon Maiden

This is a sad day for Sheffield. Councillors seem to have forgotten their role. The role of technocrats such as the LEA is to do the Councils bidding. In this case, the LEA screwed up, and parents were shafted.

Instead of seeing that the right thing was done, Labour council members concentrated instead on protecting a bungling LEA against criticism, and forgot completely about

I would guess that this issue and its aftermath are going to become a defining event for this administration. No wonder folks don't bother to vote. The anger out there amongst parents I have spoke to is intense.

Pity I missed this council meeting! From previous encounters I presume much was made of the global good of Sheffield (stuff individual people).

Right on. Thanks for the support!

ShefEd, I'm a journalist. If you can message me your contact details I might be able to help you out.

Cheers, and obviously confidentiality guaranteed.

The council has always been pro public consultation but only took notice if the outcome was what they wanted. In the 1980's they balloted all parents of school children in the city on whether to make the wearing of school uniform compulsory. The exercise must have cost a fortune and came up with an overwhelming YES vote. So what did the council do? Totally ignored the vote result and abolished school uniforms.

So nothing new here.l

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

While ever the standard number of children for the infant’s school was higher than that of the junior school it was never going to be possible to accommodate all of the children from the infant’s.

As a parent I have received prospectuses for schools and it always say a place cannot be guaranteed a child and there good reasons for that because cannot legally guarantee a place.

To just place a mobile on the site to accommodate these children would not be right for all the cities children, including the particular children concerned. The school is not built to take more children and their education and that of other children in the school would suffer. To provide extra accommodation at this school would not fair to surrounding schools which have spare places and as a consequence would suffer.

While I can understand the parents would like their children to carry on their education at what is an excellent school there are schools much closer to where many of these parents live, for example Walkley Primary which in itself is a well thought of school. And in my experience children make new friends at that age very easily and would have the advantage of living near their new friends.

Sometimes Politicians have to make hard decisions for the benefit of all and on this occasion Cllr Angela Smith has in my opinion made the correct one in dealing with this problem and sorting it out once and for all, making sure that parents in the future will not face the same problem, something that the previous Libdem Cabinet Member for Education failed to do 3 years ago. If anyone is to blame for this mess it is the Libdems for giving the impression 3 years ago that all would alright when clearly it could never be.

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

While ever the standard number of children for the infant’s school was higher than that of the junior school it was never going to be possible to accommodate all of the children from the infant’s.

As a parent I have received prospectuses for schools and it always say a place cannot be guaranteed a child and there good reasons for that because legally cannot guarantee a place.

To just place a mobile on the site to accommodate these children would not be right for all the cities children, including the particular children concerned. The school is not built to take more children and their education and that of other children in the school would suffer. To provide extra accommodation at this school would not fair to surrounding schools which have spare places and as a consequence would suffer.

While I can understand the parents would like their children to carry on their education at what is an excellent school there are schools much closer to where many of these parents live, for example Walkley Primary which in itself is a well thought of school. And in my experience children make new friends at that age very easily and would have the advantage of living near their new friends.

Sometimes Politicians have to make hard decisions for the benefit of all and on this occasion Cllr Angela Smith has in my opinion made the correct one in dealing with this problem and sorting it out once and for all, making sure that parents in the future will not face the same problem, something that the previous Libdem Cabinet Member for Education failed to do 3 years ago. If anyone is to blame for this mess it is the Libdems for giving the impression 3 years ago that all would alright when clearly it could never be.

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

Originally posted by "Mo"

The council has always been pro public consultation but only took notice if the outcome was what they wanted. In the 1980's they balloted all parents of school children in the city on whether to make the wearing of school uniform compulsory. The exercise must have cost a fortune and came up with an overwhelming YES vote. So what did the council do? Totally ignored the vote result and abolished school uniforms.

So nothing new here.l

Agreed - I know this isn't quite on topic, but I've seen virtually nothing of the results of the 'public consultation' that took place on Fargate last year about the proposed city centre developments. And LEAs seem to be a universal menace - they're inefficiently run and make decisions based on their own prejudices against schools.

Originally posted by "tug"

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

Originally posted by "tug"

As a parent I have received prospectuses for schools and it always say a place cannot be guaranteed a child and there good reasons for that because legally cannot guarantee a place.

Originally posted by "tug"

While I can understand the parents would like their children to carry on their education at what is an excellent school there are schools much closer to where many of these parents live, for example Walkley Primary which in itself is a well thought of school. And in my experience children make new friends at that age very easily and would have the advantage of living near their new friends.

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Labour Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

This really isn't the point. You should consider standing as a Labour Councillor TUG. There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between getting promised something in great detail over and over again and then not having delivery of that promise, and simply expecting something that was not promised.

These parents made detailed life-decisions based on the promises. Some chose where to live, where to place other children, and where they could afford to work. Just as a rather simple example, some are renting just outside the catchment area - had they known the promise was not going to be fulfilled they could simply have moved down the road, might have found another school from the start, or might have chosen not to live in Sheffield at all.

School prospectuses are also irrelevant - the information we were given totally over-rode any statments in any prospectus.

There is a fundamental issue of justice here, and if you believe that the good-of-the-many (and an easy ride for those paid to carry out Councils wishes) automatically takes precedence over a great injustice done to a few, then we clearly have a problem. Presumably this is the way our Labour Councillors think?

By the nature of what happened here, these parents who are being abused here are (on the whole) alraedy pretty vulnerable. Many have moved recently to Sheffield (directed to Lydgate by the LEA), quite a few do not own their own homes, are students, or have very complicated childcare arrangements which enable them to work. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of individual schools.

Angela Smith is absolutely and totally wrong. Strangely enough these parents are (or at least were) almost all Labour voters (not that this is relevant either).

The other major issue is the whole way in which this was done, the reason this was done, and the timing of the deed. It is largely based on treating individual children as numbers in an accounting exercise, and I guess this drove the last minute notification of reversal of the promise.

If Angela smith had simply said "Sorry, we screwed up badly, lets work together to get this thing sorted out" it would have been a lot better. Instead the parents have been abused, have been accused of "not understanding" the very straightforward and very explicit verbal and written information we were given (how condescending!), and have not had any apology at all.

This whole story stinks, and no amount of this sort of "do the greatest good for the most people" will get around this.

I'm glad to see that a few people voted in the poll to say that "the council does not have to keep promises it makes" - this shows how far we have sunk.

Originally posted by "tug"

TUG Wrote: .... sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few...

So much of what you say is wrong TUG, I just don't know where to begin. This was the philosophy of Hitler.

Originally posted by "tug"

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

You must be a Labour Councillor TUG. Truth indeed. That is what this whole sorry issue is about. The Liberal Democrats have at least stood by the parents, even though they were to blame in at least a small part. It is however clear who deserves the blaim for the last years of this and most importantly the entirely horrendous way in which parents have been betrayed. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Originally posted by "tug"

While ever the standard number of children for the infant’s school was higher than that of the junior school it was never going to be possible to accommodate all of the children from the infant’s.

Do you actually know what happened here TUG? The LEA was charged with maintaining the numbers. They didn't. - whether due to mismanagement or for reasons relating to the budget of Lydgate Infants, who knows. This is a bit like saying :

"this hospital was never designed to take 200 patients. It was never allowed to take more than 200 patients. You were the 100th patient. 250 more patients entered after you. You died. Tough."

This is such and absurd and irrelevant argument it is hard to counter.

Originally posted by "tug"

While that is no comfort to these parents, I would always say be careful of promises given by Politicians near elections sometimes they little more than mere words.

What truth. Why you think they lie only before elections is hard to say.

Originally posted by "tug"

While I feel for the children and parents who are in this situation sometimes it necessary to put the needs of the many before the needs of the few, unfortunately for these parents this is one of those occasions.

Children aren't numbers, and every child only has one shot at their education. Why do you think it's beneficial to the many to screw it up for the few? Who do you think the many is made up of if not the few?

Originally posted by "tug"

The truth of the matter is that it was the previous administration that fudged this issue 3 years ago.

Tug - it seems very obvious that you're an active member of one of the political parties in Sheffield from the way you're writing. If not, then you're doing a remarkably good impression of the tit-for-tat arguing that wastes so much space in the Sheffield Telegraph. If you are a councillor then please reveal your identity a little more - there are a lot of us here interested in talking to you!

I suspect TUG is the same person who attacked parents on another local newsgroup (www.upmystreet.com).


The response to him there from Babs Smith-Broom is copied below:

Originally posted by "Babs Smith-Broom on www.upmystreet.com"

I can only assume that David C is either:

a) a Labour Councillor;
b) definitely not a parent;or
c) a parent who lives in the Lydgate catchment area and does not care about his son/daughters friends who may be left out, as long as he/she is ok.

I'll tell you what is detrimental to pupils David, and that is being wrenched away from the friends they have made over the past 3 years and dumped in an unfamiliar school with shattered confidence. That will soon banish that joy of learning they have also built up at over the past 3 years, then what are you left with? Disengaged children who will never get back on to the education track that's what. What Labour are doing in the long term is not only destroying these innocent children's lives but adding to future dole queues. I shall certainly think twice about voting for someone who blatently mismanages the education system for the children of Sheffield.
Babs Smith-Broom, April 4, 2003, 5:48 pm from Sheffield S6 (3 miles from this conversation)

Originally posted by "ShefEducation"

There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between getting promised something in great detail over and over again and then not having delivery of that promise, and simply expecting something that was not promised.

These parents made detailed life-decisions based on the promises. Some chose where to live, where to place other children, and where they could afford to work...

This is the core issue here. Whose failures led to this situation arising will no doubt become clearer with time. The attitude of Labour councillors towards these parents is however not very good (I was also at the council meeting where they told jokes and treated parents with such disrespect).

I suspect that this problem is just the tip of the iceberg. The council cannot get to grips with the idea of freedom of choice and meeting the wishes of parents. They do not appreciate that each child has one chance of an education and that parents will fight like tigers to give them that chance. I was lucky, my kids went to very good schools in the city and did well.
Could the other parties do better, I'm not sure, but May and the local elections are coming up. Votes for the other side are the only things these people are afraid of.

I really feel for the parents involved in this. I know that they did get a promise, and that promise was broken. They have been let down. I hope that whatever happens to them, that this is not allowed to happen again.

Originally posted by "Jess"

May and the local elections are coming up. Votes for the other side are the only things these people are afraid of.

Democracy rules! It will really stick in my throat to go over to the Lib Dems, but I would be really afraid if I was a Labour Councillor because I think a lot of folks are thinking this way. This whole Lydgate fiasco really was an eye opener for me.

Readers of the stories here might like the website of the

"Campaign for Real Education"

http://www.credyork.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm

C

There has also been discussion of the Lydgate school fiasco at

http://forums.upmystreet.com/

(search for conversations near S10)


This really is a serious business. I'm amazed that the local press have not run with this story which is serious for us all (can we trust our City leaders to do what they say they will). The local press in Sheffield often present the blandest, laziest most non-judgemental view of the news possible ("the parents say this, the council say that") without looking at the issues.

Maybe this sort of thing is so commonplace that it is not regarded as news any more.

Oh Well - Ballot boxes next week - I know which Labour candidates are going to get the kick from me. Politicians who lie so easily we can all do without.

As one of the parents of the children abused by our city council as part of this, I was thinking about doing some election campaigning to make people out there aware of the moral principles (or lack of) guiding their candidates. Anyone know about the legalities of doing this (eg. leafleting in competition with parties). Clearly leaflets have to be factual, but parties operate on a maximal allowed budget etc I believe, and operate according to other rules. Would some rules apply to individuals?

Originally posted by "SheffieldLady3"

As one of the parents of the children abused by our city council as part of this, I was thinking about doing some election campaigning to make people out there aware of the moral principles (or lack of) guiding their candidates. Anyone know about the legalities of doing this (eg. leafleting in competition with parties). Clearly leaflets have to be factual, but parties operate on a maximal allowed budget etc I believe, and operate according to other rules. Would some rules apply to individuals?
If you are not standing as a candidate and are not endorsing a particular candidate then I am almost certain that the maximum spend rule does not apply. If you do put out leaflets then don't forget to include an imprint at the bottom saying who has printed and published it (this is a requirement for election leaflets but it would cover you in case you were challenged).

Go for it. We could do with some independent minds on the council.

There are no rules for individuals handing out leaflets. As long as they are not libellous you're pretty free to do as you wish.

Do remember though, that if this is about Lydgate School, put in that it was the Lib Dems who promised that all children would be accommodated knowing this to be untrue. There are a finite amount of places in each school and the Lib Dems knew that this would be exceeded.

Putting extra places in at Lydgate would have meant redundancy for teachers at the other schools which had spare places, such as Westways.

Decisions such as this are hard, the Lib Dems failed consistently to make any decisions and so were chucked out of the Town Hall after a short period in power.

Originally posted by "maxt"

There are no rules for individuals handing out leaflets. As long as they are not libellous you're pretty free to do as you wish.

Do remember though, that if this is about Lydgate School, put in that it was the Lib Dems who promised that all children would be accommodated knowing this to be untrue. There are a finite amount of places in each school and the Lib Dems knew that this would be exceeded.

Putting extra places in at Lydgate would have meant redundancy for teachers at the other schools which had spare places, such as Westways.

Decisions such as this are hard, the Lib Dems failed consistently to make any decisions and so were chucked out of the Town Hall after a short period in power.

All of this may be true, but is pretty much irrelevant to the parents involved. The fact is that they got a promise and acted on that. There is clearly a huge difference between simply hoping that something might happen, and planning your life based on a firm promise. Whoever gave the promise, the responsibility for not carrying out the actions that would have allowed the promse to be kept (ie. to manage the numbers properly according to the LEA's own plan) is the LEA and the current council. Most importantly, the responsibility for the absolutely shameful way in which these parents have been treated following this bungle clearly lies with Labour. Given a choice between incompetent politicians, I hope that Labour get what they deserve in the elections today.

Good luck to all those parents involved in this bungle by the LEA. Appeals and court in two weeks - I watch with interest.

Yes this will be truly fascinating. I was shown a secret letter send last week from the LEA to the headmistress of Lydgate infants admonishing her that under no circumstances should the school be supportive of these parents, and the the only people who should deal with it are the LEA.

Typical LEA response - trying to do anything they can that means they come out of the other end of this mess unscathed.

Originally posted by "Amazed14"

I was shown a secret letter send last week from the LEA to the headmistress of Lydgate infants admonishing her that under no circumstances should the school be supportive of these parents, and the the only people who should deal with it are the LEA.

Astounding stuff. Hope some heads roll at the end of this all. Pay yer tax, and get abused by a bunch of bumbling self serving cynics.

Maybe it would be worth someone sending this story to Private Eye?

Originally posted by "Amazed14"

Yes this will be truly fascinating. I was shown a secret letter send last week from the LEA to the headmistress of Lydgate infants admonishing her that under no circumstances should the school be supportive of these parents, and the the only people who should deal with it are the LEA.

The appeal board are going to be considering this issue (19th and 20th of this month I believe). I only hope they put there thinking caps on and try to find some way out of this mess, and show compassion for the parents and children involved. It really reflects very badly on Education management in our city (and many of the affected parents are newcomers to Sheffield) and will taint relations between parents and the LEA for years top come if this gets dragged through the courts.

Unfortunately I suspect no heads will roll.

Thank you to all the kind people who have been so supportive. There are so many children involved in this bumbling inept episode that the appeals are running over two days.

We had recently moved to Sheffield when we applied for a school place. We were renting a property at that time and are continuing to rent the same property. We were advised by the LEA that Lydgate Infants had available spaces, as did Hallam school. We were clearly concerned that transfer to Lydgate Junior might be problematical, and enquired about this. We were told by the acting headteacher at Lydgate Infants that places at the Junior School were guaranteed for all children in this school year including children out of catchment, and that there was a written agreement confirming this. This was widely understood to be the case, and was reiterated at parent’s meetings. We were also in receipt of the written public statement from the LEA and governors confirming this promise. This guarantee was also confirmed by direct telephone call to a member of the primary admissions team at the LEA. All other affected parents were aware of this promise. We could not possibly have been expected to understand the verbal and written information provided as anything other than a firm promise. This promise clearly superceded all information in the school prospectus, and according to the public statement was not predicated on anything else.

We would NEVER had accepted this place had we known that this promise would not be upheld. We could alternatively have moved to a different rented property in the catchment area while awaiting house purchase, but were told that there was no reason to do this because of the written agreement. In fact, we would probably have decided to leave Sheffield altogether.

At no time prior to February 2003 did we receive any information to suggest that a continued place at Lydgate Infants/Junior would not be available.

As the Director of Education was a signatory to the LEA statement, we viewed it as the definitive position on the transfer promise. The statement contains the assurance that “..all pupils in Lydgate Infant School current Year 2, Year 1 and Reception and those in Reception in the year beginning September 2000 to progress to Lydgate Junior School, if parents and carers so choose.”

Projected admission numbers for the two schools were illustrated in the Public Statement, endorsed by the Director of Education. The promise was NOT predicated on these admission numbers, and parents could not be expected to keep track of these internal arrangements. The LEA has patently failed to carry out their duty to deal appropriately with the mismatch in admission numbers, and it is not clear why our child should be punished for this.

The public statement from the LEA was recirculated to all parents six months after it was originally produced, and this reinforced the understanding of involved parents.

We have made a number of other important decisions based on the assurances given, including our choice of home (details given)

The LEA and its representatives have clearly grossly mismanaged the transfer process between the schools, and their communication with parents has not been appropriate. Parents were entirely justified in forming a reasonable expectation that their children would progress to the linked junior school.

We have yet to receive any apology or explanation.

Judging by what u say it looks like a fine example of councillors extremely confident of their position in that they will never be voted out by the electorate. They have been (as a Party) in power too long. It can happen to any party which is in power too long. Power corrupts etc...

Originally posted by "gtx958"

Judging by what u say it looks like a fine example of councillors extremely confident of their position in that they will never be voted out by the electorate. They have been (as a Party) in power too long. It can happen to any party which is in power too long. Power corrupts etc...

You think 13 months is too long for a party to be in power? What do you suggest a week at a time?

Originally posted by "maxt"

Judging by what u say it looks like a fine example of councillors extremely confident of their position in that they will never be voted out by the electorate. They have been (as a Party) in power too long. It can happen to any party which is in power too long. Power corrupts etc...

You think 13 months is too long for a party to be in power? What do you suggest a week at a time?

Might the problem be the councillors, and the attitude they have towards the people they rule (oops... should they be serve) rather than the parties? We need a system that allows a lot more independents to become involved. I recently attended a council meeting, and the infantile unintelligent attitudes displayed were depressing to say the least. Granted the Lib Dems didn't have enough of a chance to do much good (or bad), and perhaps they were infected with the same "stuff-you" approach.

Originally posted by "Carynne"

Judging by what u say it looks like a fine example of councillors extremely confident of their position in that they will never be voted out by the electorate. They have been (as a Party) in power too long. It can happen to any party which is in power too long. Power corrupts etc...

You think 13 months is too long for a party to be in power? What do you suggest a week at a time?

Might the problem be the councillors, and the attitude they have towards the people they rule (oops... should they be serve) rather than the parties? We need a system that allows a lot more independents to become involved. I recently attended a council meeting, and the infantile unintelligent attitudes displayed were depressing to say the least. Granted the Lib Dems didn't have enough of a chance to do much good (or bad), and perhaps they were infected with the same "stuff-you" approach.

I agree that we need to have a system that encourages independents as party politics corrupts what would otherwise be meaningful and democratic assemblies in our town halls. Councillors are elected to represent different areas of Sheffield, but their voting reflects the fact that they merely represent one or other party. Only independent candidates can be truly representative of the wishes of the people they are there for.

And on Carynne's post about how long Labour have been in power - Labour are acting as though they've never been out of power (with the exception of now having someone else to blame their mistakes on). They're still the same people as they were three years ago so any meaningful reform that could have taken place had they been out longer hasn't had the chance to happen.

Chris apparently can't accept that the people of Sheffield trusted Labour with full 'power' again, having seen thru the Lib Dems, because they could already see the result of the new attitudes & policies. It's called democracy - unfortunate for those who don't like the result. Fortunately it doesn't take everyone over 3 years to learn from their mistakes - just the Lib Dems apparently.

More independent councillors sounds like a nice idea but in reality leads to nothing getting done. If each councillor is only looking out for their own constituents then the likelihood of achieving consensus on any issue is negligible. With party politics, a manifesto is presented to the electorate as a whole and a party is elected based on this and judged on it throughout the year.

As was seen this year the electorate of Sheffield saw fit to trust Labour with full power. Whether or not this happens next year when there is a full election of all 84 councillors remains to be seen.

Judging on the strength of views expressed on this and other threads one or two contributors will be standing as independents. Alternatively, can I suggest that if you feel strongly enough about something join a main stream party which most closley reflects your views and work to change the system from within?

Originally posted by "maxt"

More independent councillors sounds like a nice idea but in reality leads to nothing getting done. If each councillor is only looking out for their own constituents then the likelihood of achieving consensus on any issue is negligible. With party politics, a manifesto is presented to the electorate as a whole and a party is elected based on this and judged on it throughout the year.

Judging on the strength of views expressed on this and other threads one or two contributors will be standing as independents. Alternatively, can I suggest that if you feel strongly enough about something join a main stream party which most closley reflects your views and work to change the system from within?


Sorry maxt but I thought that was why we elected councillors so that they could look after our interests as constituents. I know that if I have a spineless councillor who doesn't or won't speak up for my area then that area will get sod all.


Been there done that. I was a member of a mainstrean party for 25 years and believe me that party is dictated to from the top. If you think that it can be changed then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. All oppostion is squashed one way or another usually by arranging a deselection or marginalisation.

I have banged on enough on this forum about candidates standing as Independents many times. I stood at the last election and was within 41 votes of taking the seat (had I taken some from the established councillor). Believe me Independents are gaining seats everywhere because people are pig sick of their interests being put AFTER the interests of party politics.

Originally posted by "chrisb"

Chris apparently can't accept that the people of Sheffield trusted Labour with full 'power' again, having seen thru the Lib Dems, because they could already see the result of the new attitudes & policies. It's called democracy - unfortunate for those who don't like the result. Fortunately it doesn't take everyone over 3 years to learn from their mistakes - just the Lib Dems apparently.

Erm - you're not doing the concept of party-based councillors any good there! When council dealings are as transparent as treacle it's difficult to say who is to blame for what, hence I'm well aware the Lib Dems are not necessarily any better or worse than Labour. This leaves me, and most of the population, with little to go on when voting for our councillors though - the sniping that goes on within the local press and the self-congratulatory party fliers (the two most visible forms of party 'advertising') are hardly helpful.

As it is, if I'm going to make a decision based on anything, I'm likely to take as a starting point the fact that Labour councils have had decades in power - if they're so capable of sorting the city's problems then why didn't they do it eons ago? Given no strong feelings either way I'm prepared to vote for change to see what happens - but it would be helpful to see that change stay in place over a long enough period of time to make useful judgements on whether it was worth doing. Given such a dearth of information many people will vote against change, though, for fear that it'll make their lives worse, and bearing in mind the miserable state a lot of Sheffield is already in that's not surprising.

Originally posted by "Chris"

I'm likely to take as a starting point the fact that Labour councils have had decades in power - if they're so capable of sorting the city's problems then why didn't they do it eons ago? Given no strong feelings either way I'm prepared to vote for change to see what happens - but it would be helpful to see that change stay in place over a long enough period of time to make useful judgements on whether it was worth doing. Given such a dearth of information many people will vote against change, though, for fear that it'll make their lives worse, and bearing in mind the miserable state a lot of Sheffield is already in that's not surprising.

The problem is that the Liberal Democrats have now disappeared completely into the woodwork. They need to be seen to be out there fighting for people. They were very vocal about the injustice done to the Children at Lydgate before the election, but where are they now the lazy sods?

Originally posted by "Amazed14"


The problem is that the Liberal Democrats have now disappeared completely into the woodwork. They need to be seen to be out there fighting for people. They were very vocal about the injustice done to the Children at Lydgate before the election, but where are they now the lazy sods?

They have. The Lib Dems are shameful opportunists. Real people with real problems get stuck between petty politicians. The Lib Dems caused this problem in the first place, Labour failed to carry out councils recommended solution to the problem and lied to parents. The Lib Dems then came in as the big saviours, lost the election, and have now disappeared.

Good luck to all those parents out their with your appeals today and tomorrow - the truth always wins! (well usually).

Well, after hearing 2 days of evidence the appeal board agreed wholehearted that what happened to these parents was plain wrong wrong wrong. There were no mitigating factors.

Some very serious questions now need to be asked about how this could ever have happened in the first place. We also need to ask some serious questions about the honesty of local government in Sheffield. How did it come to pass that all labour councillors were railroaded into voting against a motion that was so obviously just and moral, without any evident understanding of the facts? What are councillors for? We need a lot more independent (and moral) voices in local government, and a lot less of what we have at the moment.

Originally posted by Carynne
Well, after hearing 2 days of evidence the appeal board agreed wholehearted that what happened to these parents was plain wrong wrong wrong. There were no mitigating factors.

Some very serious questions now need to be asked about how this could ever have happened in the first place. We also need to ask some serious questions about the honesty of local government in Sheffield. How did it come to pass that all labour councillors were railroaded into voting against a motion that was so obviously just and moral, without any evident understanding of the facts? What are councillors for? We need a lot more independent (and moral) voices in local government, and a lot less of what we have at the moment.

You should stand at the next local election. I'm sure if a lot more independents stood, campaigned on some real issues, and worked hard, they would get elected. A lot of people are fed up with politicians lying through their teeth.

Bugsy

The council is the whipping boy for the electorate.

Originally posted by halevan
The council is the whipping boy for the electorate.

I've got to agree with you Halevan. The council, both elected officials and officers, are just ordinary members of the public. They are no different from you and I. They reflect society in the same way that posters to these fora do.

Originally posted by maxt
I've got to agree with you Halevan. The council, both elected officials and officers, are just ordinary members of the public. They are no different from you and I. They reflect society in the same way that posters to these fora do.


I'm not sure that is what Halevan meant. In any case, I hope the council are not representative of us. They certainly don't represent us (as this Lydgate fiasco has shown only too clearly). The pity is that they are not representative of us either - which is why we need some independent brains, and not party lackeys and demagogues. If they were representative of us, they would feel comfortable on these fora. Read the postings on this fora (including this thread) and decide.

Originally posted by Bugsy12
which is why we need some independent brains, and not party lackeys and demagogues.

Not sure about the "demagogue" bit. Demagogues are "Popular orators who appeal to prejudice and passions of the mob" (Collins Dictionary). Prejudice maybe .....

Agree about the need to get local politics away from party politics however.

oh for goodness sake, these children are at the beginning of their school life, they will make new friends, they will be fine. Stop fighting over supposidly 'elite' schools and accept that they can't take everyone.

Originally posted by caustic101
oh for goodness sake, these children are at the beginning of their school life, they will make new friends, they will be fine. Stop fighting over supposidly 'elite' schools and accept that they can't take everyone.

This may or may not be true. However I don't think this is why so many people have their knickers in a knot over this. I would be interested to read the appeal board report. I gather that they felt that (despite the fact that the school in point is overcrowded) the issue was one of natural justice given that the parents had been told lies or had been severely misled, and had made decisions based on this.