observer Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Councils are taking up to a 10% cut in Gov funding; but the good news is, with less money, Council's are "free" to spend the money they have, in anyway "they" wish. SO; what needs cutting and what needs funding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted December 13, 2010 Report Share Posted December 13, 2010 Warrington could probably stand a reduction of 20% in the upper reaches of Council Management without noticing the difference and could make a 50% cut in Councillors and improve things. At the sharp end, reductions could be made in the number of employees out in the yellow council vehicles who only sit and watch their mates working. I don't know their actual hours of work but there is a convenient "hideaway" near me that regularly sees breakfast from 9 til 10, lunch from 12 til 1 and afternoon kip from 2 til 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Durnim Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 While watching BBC local news at lunchtime (Monday) Cumbria Council was thinking of introducing ideas for revenue, one idea was to introduce a fee for ?on street parking? for most streets around the borough, I don?t thing that this would be a vote winner. I thought Warrington Council have already been reducing/cutting back on council departments/staff, will this new cut in funding just been announced be on top of what has already been identified for cost savings. Shouldn?t the redundancy axe swing at the top first, where wages are the highest, then the front line the very last, where wages are the lowest, however, ideally it would be nice to see no loss of services or redundancies at the council. Would it be more beneficial to see ALL bonuses the banks are paying to its staff , stopped, and redirected to the public sector who seemed to paying a heavy price for the failings of the last government and finance sectors? As for keeping outsourcing of work local is a good idea in principal (Warrington First ? MP Helen Jones), however if all councils did that, what would happen? Not all services can be provided by the local businesses and I have no doubt local business in Warrington do business with other councils in the northwest and beyond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 Would it be more beneficial to see ALL bonuses the banks are paying to its staff , stopped, and redirected to the public sector You will get locked ip for treason suggesting such a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 Most Councils have been trying to rein in spending for years; problem is, you can give a dog a bone, but then try taking it back! But they could start with all the mickey mouse jobs, and mickey mouse projects - most of which have arisen from central Government dictats or failiures - EG Equal Opportunities Officers, Translation Services, Dance Development Officers etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 14, 2010 Report Share Posted December 14, 2010 Obs, you should know that you cannot get rid of all of the nonsense jobs because they are all an off shoot of being in Europe. We need to lose the big EU shackles before we could even start to cut away at the crap it has created over here..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Durnim Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 According to the recently announced funding cuts to local councils, the map on the link below, Warrington Council has escaped quite lightly by having a modest reduction of between 2% - 4% to budgets, compared to other councils of between 4% - 8.9% . Compared to other local authorities, Warrington Council must be doing something right. Hopefully there won't be as many cuts/loss of staff or departments as first thought? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/14/local-council-cuts-data Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 Nothing to do with how well a council is doing or St Helens who achieved a higher score in performance would have had a smaller reduction in cuts, likewise with Halton. From the colours on the map it does seem to be strong labour councils that will suffer most and it is significant that the only councils who receive a rise in grants are Tory councils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverlady54 Posted December 15, 2010 Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 On the news they were explaining that the councils classed as 'deprived areas' (based on children entitled to free school dinners) were having their extra grants for this reduced, which is why other areas have fared better. Cheshire does not have so many entitled to free meals so didn't have as much grant in the first place and thus less to lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 15, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 15, 2010 It's been on the cards since this "austerity" saga began, any cuts in State expenditure will disproportionally affect those most dependent on it - IE the poorest. With a VAT rise, masking added price rises, inflation is on the up and up, meaning with wage feezes. most Plebs will be taking wage cuts. Meanwhile, unlike the Irish Gov, who have effectively stopped Banker's bonuses, OUR (State owned) Banks are continueing to pay out (with OUR money) bonuses to the very folk who've brought this mess upon us in the first place. Justice? Ask Santa for some! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.