Council Cuts
 

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/te...verage-8312323

So how is this fare - most councils are getting a huge cut in funding, yet Surrey get an extra £27m :mad:

Still not worth living there though...

But very odd...

Stockbroker belt ?

Is it completely out of the realms of possibility that demand for council services there has grown a lot, because the better-performing economy there has attracted so many new residents? I personally wouldn't rule it out.

A rather more likely bet is that the Tories are rewarding councils which do what they say, and punishing councils which don't. It's not like they don't have previous for this.

Most of the councils losing out are in the North and unsurprisingly Labour controlled.

The Tories don't care about the North, in fact I doubt most of them know anything outside of the South East and the sh1thole that is London!

And Lying Labour, of course, did?

Blair used to lie (there's a surprise) that there was no more north-south divide.

It's deeper every year, it's becoming the have nots and the haves.

So that would mean the Tories are giving Labour some free votes.

I know they say don't believe what you read so i say this with a pinch of salt but the North is supposedly doing better than the south, specifically Manchester.
Manchester has seen a bigger rise in the housing market and the biggest growth in jobs, not to mention we live here.:)

im presuming is calculate in some way, not just random figure plucked out the air. That artical gives no explination about how or why they figures are what they are. Makes you wonder why doesnt it.

A good map on the BBC here that shows visually the cuts (or benefits)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30537288

Although I am struggling to find the criteria used, as mentioned I doubt they just plucked the figures out of the air or that someone is deliberately targeting Northern councils.

Living in Surrey I do have a view (that isn't blinded by my political prejudices) if that helps. For a couple of years, at least, our yearly council marketing sent with the Council tax demand has stated that Surrey has been underfunded from central government for several years compared to other councils. Perhaps this (for Surrey at least) is making up for it.

That would explain Bimingham Council's issues.

Mind you, the've intentionally been difficult owing to most of the council being deeply intrenched with Labour supporters. At this rate they'll be bankrupt before the elections.....maybe that's their aim?

Add to the to mix their inability to manage and control funding as well a scandals involving wage equality, running over budget on a new libary that wasn't needed and being unable to run it....

And having the sticky fingers involved in teh operationsof the NEC, which is probably reposnsible for the NEC losing massive and lucrative venues - like the INternational Motor Show...

And operating catering stalls at teh London Olympics and completely f**king it up at huge costs (losses)...what purpose does Birmingham coucil have operating food stalls at London? The mind boggles.

And Operation "Trojan Horse" be it true or not, they were intentionally igonorant to it until the media forced their hand.

And the piste de la resistance: "Service Birmingham", a well dodgy venture associated with capita with a contract costing roughly £120million, despite the council's severe budgeting issues...Whilst they pay themselves £63000 A DAY in dividands (totalling £23,000,000 in 2013) from taxpayer's funds. How this is allowed to continue stuns me.

Local councils are mostly now as corrupt as national government.

We could do something about it at a stroke by removing POLITICS from local government, and making councillors do the job as school governors do: expenses only, and all those to be written.

Sadly, too many thieves with their noses in the trough now......

ask someone in the know and got this,


There is a complex formula with numerous variables - size of area, level of poverty, and so on. Crudely speaking, the last government tweaked the formula so that poor areas got more help and rich areas got less

There was a chap on Radio 5, last night, pointed out that between them local authorities have £21,400,000,000 in bank accounts as an "emergency reserve". That's YOUR tax money they are sitting on and not spending, but cutting services instead, or giving back to you.

Council near me, Bracknell Forest, are all cock-a-hoop at the moment as they have discovered they have an extra £14 million to spend, and are now looking around for nice-to-haves to splurge it on, rather than cutting tax rates or avoiding cuts next year.

Birmingham council are facing large cuts because they spent decades acting illegally and have to pay back-dated wages to all the women they discriminated against.

The current Tories are cretins, but they are quite correct in cutting what LGAs are getting until they spend what they already have, and start spending what they do get correctly.

Just my personal opinion. :-)

I agree....but when can we expect the politicos who run our councils do do something that might benefit their voters, rather than to benefit some political ideology?

If councils used the money sensibly rather than wastefully as they do now they could easily afford to cover these cuts.

My local council wants to close our library and said it had no money to cut our grass verges this summer.

Yet it could afford to spend £120,000 on new gates to our local crematorium, lay a new tarmac road (£40000)in our local allotments even the the allotment society hadn't asked for one.

And this:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/lo...s-home-2033893


Even now 30 months after this article was written the building is still empty, apart from the staff that sit on their fat arses doing naff all in there every day at our expense.


Fukcin idiots the lot of them.

It doesn't end there. The first claims that were made by employees for claiming back unfair wage amount were rewarded £54K each. Yet claims today are getting roughly £30K even though they had the same job position and initial salary.

So the next scandal will be the inequality in payouts; You can't award someone £X amount and then award the next person who is in the exact same position and circumstance less without any valid justification.

Also the money awarded is skewed by the fact that some employees were on higher wages than what would be considered as normal for that position. In other words some guys were getting an extra few grand a year above what their job position should be earning them.

Logically speaking the employees having a over-inflated "above-normal" salary should be paying it back to fund the ones that were under-paid.

Councillors eh? Gotta love 'em.

Some of the old Lying Labour guys here are amazing, thick as the proverbial....but what does that say for those who KEEP voting for them?

That there are no real alternatives who to vote for, so just vote for who they voted for previously as they probably feel much like the rest of us; who they consider are the best out of a bad bunch. But at least they vote.

In our area there's the town wards and the country wards.

Most put up independent candidates.

Yet you could dress a monkey in red and town ward voters would vote it in. (The monkey would probably be brighter than most Lying Labour councillors).
Likewise, you could dress a monkey in blue and the country wards would vote it in. (And it would likely be more honest than Tory Tossers).

Is this how the likes of Ed Balls keep getting in for the general elections?

I can't think of any other reason to explain it, bar corruption.

Yes. Places like Scunthorpe hate anything right wing cos of the whole Thatcher mine/steelworks/privatisation thing. Half our population is in the "something for nothing" band, so simply vote for who gives them more here/now with no consequence, rather than a long term plan (not saying that's Tory - just putting it out there).

I find Labour locally to pander to said something for nothing's - rattling on about those nasty Tories - rather than offering alternatives, hence why I personally vote Conservative (best of a bad bunch).

You'll generally see the left post up Mirror/Guardian drivvle on social media, and the right post up Daily Mail/Telegraph drivvle :D

I can see your point, Andy, to a certain extent.

But as one who has had need of the "safety net" provided by the socialists, first hand, rather than as I have, for my sons, I'd have thought you might be a LITTLE more lenient towards them?

If anything Jeff, there was bugger all safety net there for me was there? Without going into detail all I got was £47 a week dole. I managed to swindle £22 a week for year on industrial injuries disablement benefit after jumping through hoops.

However as I was in my own house, had no kids, did ok at school and didn't have an addiction, the system gave me sod all aside from the above. That's why I'm not lenient and date I say very bitter towards many who claim everything and sundry. Ofcourse plenty of cases are genuine, ridiculous of me to suggest otherwise, but even half my family are benefit shirkers themselves as the labour system pandered to them.

The hatred I have for labour and anything namby pamby left wing runs quote deep. Maybe cos I got nothing and others did? Or because I hated seeing the system abused to easily... but of both mate :)

That's my 'heart on sleeve' opinion, Jeff, and why I vote Conservative pretty much.

In my opinion, they created a safety net system that could easily be abused by the feckless, sidelining the honest people that were in real need and grouping them into the same category.

Anyone with a shred of self respect wouldn't want to be associated with the dregs of society and I would say be a lot more virulent toward those that put them into that same category, or worse, forced them to into that situation.

:)

Again, I do see both your points, but aren't we, led by the media, pointed in the "right direction" by Tory governments, apt to label all those in NEED of the safety net as feckless, lazy, sit-on-their-arses-in-front-of-their-55"-plasma-TV shysters?

As I have pointed out on here ad infinitum, firstly they ARE NOT all like that, the country is filled with folk who would love decent, full-time permanent jobs that would allow them a decent standard of living,
and secondly, it is VERY easy to point the finger from the relative comfort of what they haven't got: security.

Be careful: you do the devil's work on behalf of a government who couldn't care less for the man-in-the-street.

I never said they ALL are, Jeff. Infact I commented there are plenty of genuine cases; cases where more should be available. I don't need the press to make my mind up, I've seen the good, bad and ugly enough to make my own mind up mate.

Ali summed it up well for me with what I quoted him on.

And let's be fair here, Jeff, Labour certainly aren't a party looking after the man on the street, either :lol1: I'm not saying that's what you suggested but we'll get some balance here thinking it's always the 'nasty' Tories. Unfortunately, the average Scunthonian seems to believe Labour can do no wrong... A very dangerous thing indeed. I do not trust left wing politics.

Anywho this thread isn't about me or my ideals - as you were :)

I don't know, its hard not to be influenced in one way or another.

As an example, one thing in my area that bothers me is the sheer quantity of young single mothers, thats not in the media (well, not of recent), its just something that exists round here. Now before anyone starts I'm from a single parent family myself so don't think I'm attacking all single parents here.

However this is just not divorced/split up 20 to 30-somethings with one or two kids, its a bunch of 18yr olds onwards with multiple kids and no sign of a father(s)...ever. Have they worked? Will they ever work? Where's the father(s)? Who's paying for their accommodation? Why do they keep having kids? Why are they running around causing problems? What will they grow up into? I could go on. The crux of it all is they ARE in need of welfare support, its something that cannot be denied. Its difficult to judge between those who have ended up where they are from falling on hard times and the opportunists who purposely steered their life in to this situation.

Myself knowing someone who did work in housing, there was certainly a time before the cuts that being single with children would bump you up the list, and in that person's opinion, some of those there had fatherless kids purely to maximise their benefit. The cuts in Birmingham hit the housing department hard, this has created a social housing catastrophe. Because these people are still having the kids, but now can't get the housing.

To tie it with the council thread topic, we have these kids with kids and fragmented families, and we have councils that have (or had) the ability to house and pay benefits to these, they still had inept social services, even at times when they DID have funding. I go back to Birmingham council (again) about their social services failings (again) - before the cuts.

Because our welfare system is engineered to look after the worst the most, no matter how good intentioned, it meant it was open to abuse and became overwhelmed, much like many other welfare benefits. The problem is no tough method was implemented to spot and eradicate abuse of the system. That's Labour's fault. Its also the Tory's fault too as they haven't set any direction in social reform, one just ploughs money in in hope it would fix the problem. The other take its it all out again in hope it'll fix the problem.

Neither have learned that money alone never solves anything. They can throw money at anything they like it will never fix it.