http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30537288
Seems like the Labour voting areas have been worst hit - more misery for those areas suffering from unemployment, deprivation and poor health 👿
Seems as if the tories are deliberately trying to loose the next election, they dont really stand a chance do they.
Probably think it's a sure-thing when they look at the opposition
It's easier for MP's to cut things by forcing local councillors to make the cuts rather than make them in parliament.
1.8%? That's the biscuit budget gone then. 25% would be a better start.
Edit: they cut bin collection by 50%. That should be the target.
25% !!
Haha I know! it's funny when the poor and vulnerable are hit hardest! Lets have more of it!
I heard on the radio this am that since cuts to elderly care budgets ambulance trips to a&e by old people had shot up. False economy.
Good job theres a statesman like strong opposition leader [img] 
[/img]
Many commentators and councillors are saying the full force of the initial cuts have yet to be felt. Still at least the national debt is going down...... Oh wait
Battering strong labour areas makes tactical sense for the Tory party as they are unlikely to ever win a seat and supported by the current crop of TV documentaries (benefits street, skint etc) which are often set in these areas the Tory party will gain support in marginal seats due to the disgust and loathing created in the Daily Mail readership - I live in the north of england (just)and my local council Richmondshire are just quietly going about cutting services and not making a fuss after all wouldn't want to upset William Hague would they, the reality is that most people who vote Tory don't really suffer from the cuts, if you want a prediction I think the Tories will win the next election easily - cheap petrol, diesal, Oil keeps the Tory faithful happy, low interest rates and no one gives a s**t about how much money any government borrows - no one can see the difference between the two main parties including me and they all seem to take their political guidance from UKIP - I would like to think we deserve better than this but you know what we probably don't.
Still at least the national debt is going down...... Oh wait
So I'm surmising that you don't really understand the link between debt and deficit. I'm guessing you want to see the debt itself shrinking, but haven't considered that the cuts required for that to happen would make the current climate of "austerity" look like a socialist free-for-all utopia.
You have to tackle the deficit first, you can't just go straight to paying off the debt. Or you could just keep on borrowing and making it exponentially worse.
What would you be happy with?
I absolutely understand the fiscal position of this country, my observation is that most people don't really care - they view it as someone else's problem - the root of our deficit is lack of tax take from a combination of 23% of the workforce on minimum wage and/or tax credits + most large organisations paying around half (at best) of the true corporation tax bill (incidentally how many business owners on here get accountants to "manage" their tax bills - legally I might add)
The more zero hours minimum wage jobs we create drives down tax take and benefits spend up - all the political parties understand this (most of them have a degree in economics) No political party is this country is going to rock this boat as the cost to their personal wealth now and in the future is just too great.
I have no doubt when the Tories get back in they will really get stuck in and chop loads of stuff and poor people will suffer it's the way of the world - someone said (think it was a Geordie) we dig their coal, build their ships, fight their wars and get discarded when times are hard.
Just driven past the council offices actually
Lights still on, glow of VDU screens evident where they weren't
whole place floodlit from the outside
Still, I''m sure they're just working late.... Either that or austerity hasn't hit the councils electric bill yet!
Hmmm, coffee smell nice this morning!
Why is there any surprise here? Massive cuts in gov spending coming irrespective of who is in power. Local authorities will take the hit when central gov bottles it.
The real austerity is still to come even if politicians will all lie about it.
Seems as if the tories are deliberately trying to loose the next election, they dont really stand a chance do they.
Who in their right mind would really want to be in office ?
Tories must wish they'd not won the last one!
Did not fully catch the story, however there was a lady from Shap in tears on the radio today describing how she would be affected by cuts in Cumbria's budget.
Latest mori polls has the Tories ahead.
Ed x 2 have had their central arguments taken away from them and they haven't got long to create another one.
On the other hand, one of the polls had Labour 5 pts ahead and the Tories below the magic 30%.
Plenty of my work mates starting to look at what else they can do as we know we'll be virtually wiped out if the Tories get back in. They've as good as said so.
Did not fully catch the story, however there was a lady from Shap in tears on the radio today describing how she would be affected by cuts in Cumbria's budget.
No buses in the village [ stopped November] and she had no left it for 2 weeks due to this and felt trapped.
Latest mori polls has the Tories ahead.
There has been only three in the last three years [ the last two this year and dec 2011] to have the tories ahead. I think you might be cherry picking/overstating with that claim. Its both true and yet not the whole picture. I would be surprised if you were unaware of this.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/107/Voting-Intention-in-Great-Britain-Recent-Trends.aspx?view=wide
To repeat:
Latest mori poll has the Tories ahead
Very simple, no ifs or buts, just the facts.
Well central government could start by reducing the £8.4 million spend on special advisers.
Cameron apparently has 26 working for him and even Clegg has 20, including his Director of Communications who is paid £105k. Does anyone analyse these people's performance because on any objective assessment Clegg's Director of Communications should be getting his P45 and joining the dole queue. When I read this I thought I was reading something from the Daily Mash, but apparently I'm not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30541478
The older Yougov polls have us on a Labour majority right now. As they have done for the majority of the time over the past month.
I think it's going to be a very close run election again.
Indeed very, very close.
Minority parties to have undue influence?
I think some of the minority support will melt away when push comes to shove. Hard to predict though.
It's only going tp get worse, our aspirations for the standard of living for those earning the least doesn't tally with the amount we're prepared to take from those earning the most. Trouble is simply taking more from wealthier end is not going to create a sustainable long term future, you end up with a lot of unhappy people reliant on the state for their way of life and the wealthy minority squeezed ever harder to pay for it.
We need to be more subtle with how we manage the way we live, curbs on lending (finally coming in but far too late), minimum wage is good, reset expectations of lifstyle etc. Won't happen as it rdverses the political trend of many years of telling people they are entitled and have choice over their lives when supported. A luxuary we can't afford. It's al fa, ling apart now but the politicians are still being political and claiiming we can still have utopia on a shoestring.
I think some of the minority support will melt away when push comes to shove. Hard to predict though.
I think this is likely. UKIP are a shambles organizationally and struggle for any policy credibility on anything other than EU. I can see SNP support will fall back a bit too, but Labour will still struggle more than ever before in Scotland. Green party are considered too niche for a general election although they have a broader policy base than just green issues, albeit pretty radical compared with mainstream uk parties
I still think if Labour had picked Alan Johnson or someone similar as leader- not least as a contrast to Tory "toffs" - the Labour would be well ahead.
But the point about the Tory cuts as per Autum Statement - they will not hit until well after election. Budgets are set for r 15/16 already. Whether the threat of cuts is enough to swing voters sufficiently is questionable.
ninfans post above could of come straight off the pages of the Mail 😆 lights left on shocker, wasteful council waste light etc etc
Truly pitiful post, please explain what point you are trying to convey
No one is going to vote for Labour whilst they have Miliband and a load of inept career politicians, why would would you? It's all centre space policies but seen as less likely to do anything about immigration which is the single issue that overrides (rightly or wrongly) all others.
The Tories will make the right noises but not do anything because business demands a constant flow of cheap labour. They also appear to be quite incompetent even at being Tory ****s and amateurish internationally.
Some will vote UKIP because they're the only party that clear on immigration but that'll be disaster for just about every other bit of the countries administration.
Greens have some radical ideas but are still too sandals and elderflower juice.
In short there's not even a least worse option, think I would rather just leave it up to the EU to run the country and get rid of Westminster altogether and give the budget direct to unitary councils.
Even for this shower of *s, what they're doing is incredibly cynical.
Notice how Gideon has suddenly developed a very new-found interest in 'devolving power to the regions'. In reality they're doing nothing of the sort. What he's actually doing is devolving blame, for the coming decimation of public services, particularly in areas that wouldn't elect a Tory Mp in a million years. It wasn't us guv. Its those useless local (non-tory) politicians you keep electing. They must think we've all just fallen out of a *ing tree!!!
If you were in any doubt about how politically motivated the cuts are, then this tells you everything you need to know
[img] 
[/img]
They're feather bedding the rich, while hitting the poorest areas the hardest. As you'd expect. *s!!! Utter utter *s!!!
I don't agree with everything the tories have done but I am behind the idea that we need to reduce the deficit somehow, I think if labour had stayed in we would have been in an even bigger mess trying to spend our way out of a recession.
To me, they are the best of a (very) bad lot at the moment.
I have worked for and with several local authorities and I am afraid to say there is so much waste, you would not believe it.
I am now in the private sector and if I think back to how it was in public, I would say there are 3 times more people than needed in some areas. Purchasing is a mess, they pay far too much for goods, vendors are paid for services that are not delivered or not adequately delivered, far too many managers who all need to agree every single detail on everything which means hours and hours of meetings and projects taking years to complete.
Some (not all) areas could use a real shake up or possibly doing away with altogether and doing the service regionally rather than each local council re-inventing things themselves.
It's a 1.8% reduction in spending - hardly the end of the world. "Labour" areas are hit harder because they tend to be more deprived and thus have bigger budgets in the first place - so it's hardly surprising that in cash terms the number is bigger.
[i]I have worked for and with several local authorities and I am afraid to say there is so much waste, you would not believe it. [/i]
Unfortunately this was also my experience of the NHS after a life-time in the private sector (and, thank god, back there again).
If you were in any doubt about how politically motivated the cuts are, then this tells you everything you need to know
How are the cuts being calculated. I think it's a far stretch to assume it's some bloke going 'labour, cut loads out thier budget', there must be a system, and it's likely related to amount spent on certain services, which I suppose in labour areas might be more prominent?
The national debt is measured as a proportion of GDP. If GDP grown, the debt relatively shrinks. The defecit is the difference between government spenditure and borrowing. Defecit and debt are not the same thing. I wish people understood this concept more. This is partly why the oil price drop will seriously hurt the economy.
My local police station emailed me a flyer saying overall crime had reduced by about 15% in 2014. They have done this with cuts to their budget, so whats the problem here? Or am I missing something?
Labour councillors want to make the public feel hard done by so they can blame the tory government for the hardship. Thus, in my opinion, its no surprise the population living in local authorities where labour are seated feels the pinch first.
I detest labour and that comical couple Balls and Milliband.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
I think some of the minority support will melt away when push comes to shove. Hard to predict though.
Normally true AA, but this time I think it really is different. The main parties have lost their grip on the electorate and do not know how to deal with the protest parties. I am shocked at how many people I know are being fooled by UKIP (truly depressing but hey, ho that's democracy for you) but it nearly always a negative decision not a positive one.
I wish that it was a clear choice between T and L for one simple reason. We need to have a proper and open debate about the state of UK finances. At the moment, both major parties are effectively misleading the electorate and that is at best dishonest. Their arguments are also being distorted by their attempts to counter the threats posed by UKIP, SNP etc. Sad that the two most dishonest minority parties are having a knock on effect everywhere.
There needs to be complete clarity on
1. What are the targets for the fiscal balance and level of public debt
2. What will be the relationship between tax increases and spending cuts to achieve this
Both parties have work to do to explain this in simple terms. The Tories are slightly better placed but their tax reduction claims simply do not stack up. Labour are playing silly games with budget definitions but will essentially cut the same as the Tories so should not be allowed to claim otherwise.
I doubt that we will get clear answers to either. Why because the public don't want to face the truth. They would rather have UKIP's nonsensical claims that it's the fault of outsiders or the SNP's sugar coated fairy tales.
Either way, local authority budgets will get slashed. It's just a question about who will be less dishonest about it. Sad state of political affairs. No wonder people even listen to the likes of Russell Brand!!
"Labour" areas are hit harder because they tend to be more deprived and thus have bigger budgets in the first place - so it's hardly surprising that in cash terms the number is bigger.
You dont seem to understand how percentages work and it is indeed surprising that the areas with the greatest deprivation take the greatest hit - ie it has taken , disproportionally, from the MOST needy rather the the LEAST needy
Very simple, no ifs or buts, just the facts.
Just the facts you wanted to present though that cited in isolation to all , that refute your claim,means it was somewhat misleading. I note you failed to deny or engage on the point made. Polls wax and wane but the broad trend is Labour ahead.
You also need to ignore the other polls showing Labour ahead
One already cited and you gov as well
They're feather bedding the rich, while hitting the poorest areas the hardest. As you'd expect. *s!!! Utter utter *s!!!
Common narrative, but one that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Look at who has benefited under the Tory-led coalition and who has lost (without leaping to any causation necessarily), it's all there in the income inequality stats, and then follow up with how the reductions in local authority spending have impacted others:
From the Glagow and HW Uni joint study on this:
substantial savings have been generated by the case study authorities....which do not impact directly on the level and quality of front line services.....the cuts have been concentrated on services which are used by the better off, together with some services used a bit more by the less well-off, while spending has been increasing in some services, particularly, social care, which are more focused on the less well off
Bloody coalition, eh?!
Still with 30% cuts coming in real terms, this may all change looking forward. Hold on to your hats!
When I look at what's coming to my service, what's happening to others and how the current mob use fear and greed to bring people in to line I wonder who in their right mind would vote Tory.
I then read threads like this and I understand, which makes me sad.
Saying that, plenty seem to want to vote UKIP as they'll fix those naughty immigrants that cause all the problems so nothing should suprise me.
chestrockwell - Member
When I look at what's coming to my service, what's happening to others and how the current mob use fear and greed to bring people in to line I wonder who in their right mind would vote Tory.
No idea what you do but MrsT is in the Scottish civil service and we have the occasional discussion around the wasteful practices and excesses of what goes on. I point out to her that what is currently happening is the same as industry has gone through over a fair number if years.
There is a whole raft of wasteful practices going on that need sorting but too many jobsworths and people protecting their little empires 🙁
As for "fear & greed" that would seem to be prevalent in many workplaces nowadays, nothing to do with politics(unless you are one of the 55 😉 )
The fear and greed directly stems from what's said, suggested and done by those in power imo. The fear at the moment comes from years of us being told how f***ed the country is, how you're lucky to even have a job or house and from those in power saying there's no other way. The greed from the impression that the only way to get on is as an individual and **** who stands in your way. The notion that anyone below you deserves to be there and probably lies/cheats/steals to suppliment their megre living or even worse, are not from this country! Those above should be praised and be held up as what can be achieved if you work hard and do what has to be done and what you're told. The brainwashing to think you should blame those most affected by the actions of the Tories whilst aspiring to be the people that actually caused the mess. It makes me puke.
I'm in the Fire Service btw. Yes, I'm having the pension I signed up to in good faith stolen but compared to the huge cuts coming to the front line (Cameron before the last election 'there will be no cut to front line services') the pension debate is small fry. This has nothing to do with turning lights off but everything to do with services that save your life, protect your property, transport your loved ones to hospital and that you've taken as a given for years simply not having the ability to proved the service you expect in the future.
There was fat to be trimmed and it was already being under Labour. The difference is the ideology.
Fire service was bound to be cut though, whoever was in charge.
Years of massive investment in safety, tighter regulations and concentrated investment in prevention through use of fire retardant materials, smoke alarms, reduction in smoking, vehicle safety etc. have seen a constant drop in fires and callouts.
Not as much as they would have you believe, no where near.
Simple fact is/will be that if you need us you will more then likely have to wait longer, in some cases much longer and the weight of response will be heavily reduced.
I am not sure if people understand the potential perfect storm that could arrive for the North East of England - Tory victory in next election + English votes for English MPs = no requirement to fund any public sector in the North East
Dave and Gideon can gain a level of power/control that Thatcher could only dream about - think this won't happen? But then again if you are south of Birmingham do you give a s**t (open question)
The Tories seem intent on destroying the North. Because we don't vote for them. Sensibly. Turkeys don't generally vote for Christmas
The aim is to cut northern metropolitan councils back to the point where they only have the funding available to empty the bins once a month, and not much else. The South East will of course remain unaffected.
Simple fact, local authorities are wasteful. The point is how they manage the cuts that they will have to make...councillors' expenses or school crossing patrols, there's never a shortage of people wanting to be a councillor
Simple fact, local authorities are wasteful.
Do you have any proper evidence of this.
Historical evidence?
The study I quoted before plus the annual pwc report on local authorities. Last one concluded
Our third annual survey finds that local authorities have once again successfully delivered against an ambitious programme of financial savings over the last year, [b]without any marked reduction in the quality of frontline services. [/b]
So how do LAs manage this if there were not inefficiencies in the system? So far, so good. The challenge comes when proper austerity kicks in. There is little doubt that in the future, the relationship between local authorities and those they serve will need to change. Expectations have to change first, but politicians are scared to tell it as it is. On top of that, the national audit office (while supporting the above) concludes that govs have little actual understanding of the impact of cuts. Hit and hope - well there's a surprise from govs!
Historical evidence is historical.
What you present could just show that the effects kc the cuts havent kicked in yet as investment in future provision has been cut.
I would like to see direct evidence of wastefulness which is shown to be worse than a private company doing a similar thing at a similar scale. More rhetoric is not helpful.
Part of the problem is that for years, councils have been sitting on the gravy train of unending government funding rolling in and they've made no effort to maximise any alternative revenue streams, in fact they've cut back on things like parking fines because it's "unpopular".
So when the plug is suddenly pulled on the cash flow, they're a bit ****ed. Doesn't help that town halls are usually the big old historic buildings that look lovely but are astronomically expensive to heat and maintain. Various other factors such as general wastefulness, huge salaries for top council executives, old final salary pension schemes and it's suddenly all catching up with them.
I don't think blaming government cuts is the full story at all, its just made an already difficult situation very critical. That said, councils should have seen this coming from about 2009 onwards...
evidence is historical
FTFY....by definition.
LAs in fact should be congratulated for managing such a stark reduction in their funding and for not letting this affect services so far.
But, now is time for some honesty from their central gov masters. Future cuts will be even more severe and the nature of service provision will have to change significantly. The planning for this is pretty poor so far.
without any marked reduction in the quality of frontline services.how do LAs manage this if there were not inefficiencies in the system?
they cut other services where they dont have a statutory duty to deliver Unless of course you wish to argue say the Connexions service [ no longer in existence], youth clubs , youth workers, libraries and other non statutory services have been slashed. I am not sure many folk would call these service inefficiencies. They also do much less in other areas. Again I am not sure this can be called inefficiency.
FWIW the following sentence after your "supportive quote" , to make a paragraph is
However, there is a significant drop in confidence about being able to continue to protect the frontline and nervousness about the 2013 Spending Review and the impact of welfare reform. With significant challenges still ahead, there must be no let-up for local government transformation.
If you follow the report link from that page to here
http://www.pwc.co.uk/government-public-sector/local-government/publications/the-local-state-we-are-in.jhtml
Note how i include links rather than take quotes out of context and omit the bit that does not support my argument.
Beyond 2013/14, confidence in meeting savings targets falls with 57% of Chief Executives saying 2015/16 will be the toughest year to come.Nine out of ten Chief Executives and Leaders now believe that some local authorities will get into serious financial crisis or fail to deliver the essential services that residents require within the next three years.
THM will of course ignore this as he considers my presentation of facts from his links to be trolling.
In terms of cuts IMHO there is no excess fat [ non essential services] left to cut and we have reached the point where some council will struggle to deliver statutory obligations never mind things like libraries. This is what they think will likely happen as well.
EDIT: most of that is redundant and you seem to have moved to say basically what the report said anyway
Future cuts will be even more severe and the nature of service provision will have to change significantly. The planning for this is pretty poor so far.
You are correct about this but, IMHO, its cowardice on the part of elected MPs to drive through the cuts by forcing local councillors and Chief executives to make the hard decisions, It is their job and they should do it and be held to account for it. We should also be having a national debate about what we want provided locally and how.
I think we will end up with things like libraries being voluntarily run or possible even subscription based and everything else being just the statutory duty. If you have youth club volunteers do it, playground maintenance being minimal etc grass cut less often etc. I think to go on about wastefulness in the public sector is just to say you are Tory tbh.[ quite possibly showing my own bias there]
Anyway off out now and away for the solstice
Hope you all enjoy the festive season and you and your gods be they Druidic. Abrahamic or alcoholic smile on you at this time
Welcome to The Technetronic Era ...
Yawn. The real answer is that (1) we don't know as much as we should and, as stated several times before, the outlook is much more severe. The NAO keeps it simple, the recent period which has been marked by a fall in unit costs (efficiency) is coming to an end. The next stage involves a more radical rethink of how services are delivered.
PWC has interesting observations on this too as indicated earlier.
AA, it's a good question. How many companies would have coped with a 28% decrease in real funding without a deterioration in service levels? Hence the comment on congratulating. Of course, the counter argument is if it was possible, why did it take a crisis to trigger such efficiencies - but that's a general observation!
EDIT: most of that is redundant and you seem to have moved to say basically what the report said anyway
A self pawn, brilliant. 😉
Do you have any proper evidence of this.
The most cursory of google searches will provide you with current, empirical evidence of the millions and millions of pounds wasted by Edinburgh Council. From criminally overpriced vanity projects (Edinburgh Tram Project) to the obscene sums spent attempting to justify and subsequently defend the indefensible (Statutory Notice Scheme) to the decision to outsource that legal defense (by the council bigwig who used to work there) instead of using their own award-winning legal team. The waste is there for all to see.
I don't for a minute think Edinburgh Council are alone in their blasé attitude to what are considered appropriate uses for public funds.
And yet, ENVE rims and carbon Santa Cruzs' are still selling.
AA, it's a good question. How many companies would have coped with a 28% decrease in real funding without a deterioration in service levels? Hence the comment on congratulating. Of course, the counter argument is if it was possible, why did it take a crisis to trigger such efficiencies - but that's a general observation!
Massive cuts to the arts and libraries are just two examples of real cuts to services. To suggest the cuts to funding have not led to cuts in services is just wrong and a piece of slight of hand worthy of a minister.
Do you have any proper evidence of this.
My LA took a junction that averaged 1 reported injury collision every year for 10 years and changed it
Over the next year 11 injury collisions were reported
They changed it back and the collision rate dropped to previously reported levels (over a much shorter period, but the trend is certainly there)
They don't say how much this pointless exercise cost in full to the LA, police, ambulance, local business, etc.
And that's just one junction
Fine complain to the independent bodies who are responsible for the conclusions.
And don't forget, when this gets unnecessarily political, my earlier post on who have been hit hardest on the selective cuts so far. Bloody Tories, cutting the services to the better off!!! B***tards. The next thing we will see is income inequality narrowing, oh wait a minute.
Of course as we ring fence the most efficient/inefficient consumer of funding (you decide) other areas get hit. Hence the nonsense that is the current ring fencing strategy. At least that gives UKIP something to exagerate.
So there's less money to spend on more people, that still doesn't expalin why on one hand the reductions aren't equal or on the other provide confidence local authorities operate efficiently.
On general wastefulness and budgets, I have just watched a private sector entity award a large contract on v high fees simply because they wanted to spend all the 2014 budget. So much for the profit-maximisation motive!!! Spend the bloody budget or it will be cut next year, amazing!
My point THM is that those reports no doubt had caveats at the start about the types of services looked at. The 28% hasnt all been absorbed real losses have taken place already, i expect future investment has dried up so either those reports are wrong, which I doubt or you have interpreted them wrong by quoting things out of context.
Read them and then complain to the relevant bodies. If the National Audit Office isn't doing it's job effectively or efficiently remember it's your money they are spending! Also read the Glasgow/HW study that I quoted first about where the impact has hit hardest.
Re, the out of context bit, even "ykw" couldn't sustain that one!!!
TBF, the NAO did comment on difficulties in measurement and management. But guess what happens to things that you can't measure or manage?
Massive cuts to the arts and libraries are just two examples of real cuts to services. To suggest the cuts to funding have not led to cuts in services is just wrong and a piece of slight of hand worthy of a minister.
Putting libraries aside for one moment, do we reallt think that it is the role of local authorities to subsidise ballet and theatre?
Sure, it's a lovely thing to have, but so is the cinema, and I don't think for one second that council tax should be contributing towards my ticket at the local multiplex - nor for that manner am I enamoured by the council spending money on sculptures etc. (I have less of a problem with lottery funding for artwork as Nobody is forced to pay towards it)
Finally of course, the council is free to fund these projects, they can up the council tax and spend as much as they like in fact, they just need to hold a local referendum on the issue, which means that it's actually the democratic will of the people to pay for and provide these things... I think it says a lot that not a single council has yet held one.
The problem with lottery funding is that it is highly regressive form of taxation. Fooling people who don't know better, is pretty poor really. But at least they have a choice in the matter. Swings and roundabouts.
Not as regressive as using poor people's taxes to subsidise middle class people's trip to the ballet...
While local authorities have tried to protect service users, there is emerging evidence that funding reductions have led to a fall in service [b]volumes.[/b] Local authorities have tried to protect spending on core areas such as adult social care and children’s social care, and to make savings [b]through efficiencies rather than reducing services. [/b].....[b]However, a reduction in the volume of activity does not necessarily imply a worsening in the quality of provision or outcomes for service users[/b]
From the national audit office. Of course, they too could be simply making all the evidence up or taking out of context!! 😉
The thing when talking about local councils is, somewhat unsurprisingly, you can't generalise. Any more than you can with say, energy companies, or shoe shops. Some will be good. Some will be dreadful.
When I was a freelancing designer, I worked for stints with 2 northern city councils at opposite ends of the M62. They couldn't have been more different. Manchester was as slick, professional and efficient as any top level design agency, and their output was of an extremely high standard (despite my input). As aManchester Council tax payer myself, I was impressed with how my money was being spent.
The other end of the M62? Sweet Jesus! I've never seen anything like it! It was truly gob-smacking! People sat around doing absolutely **** all all day! A total absense of leadership or direction! Shambolic'management'! Useless staff! The higher up the food chain you went, the worse it got! Breathtaking inefficiencies! Appallingly amateurish output! It was absolutely staggering! I did a week, where I achieved absolutely nothing, invoiced them, and politely declined all their further offers of work. If that'd been my council tax paying for that, I'd be apoplectic!
But guess which the press report on? What does Eric Pickles highlight? They've no interest in councils like Burnley, who are imaginative, genuinely entrepaneurial, actively pro-business and ruthlessly efficient (not my words - the CBI's), being phenomenally successful at attracting investment, and high skilled, high paid jobs, they want to talk about children's services in Rotherham.
Because this all serves their slash and burn, privatising agenda!
How many companies would have coped with a 28% decrease in real funding without a deterioration in service levels?
Are you really claiming that service levels at councils have not been cut ? They deliver exactly the same before the cuts? Are you claiming the reports state that ?
Not even AS would try that one.
You are being ridiculous now no one would claim there have been no cuts made to service no one. To say complain to them is just your way of refusing to discuss it or admit it.Fine complain to the independent bodies who are responsible for the conclusions.
A self pawn, brilliant.
If I cared I would have removed it with my edit.
It s still true that you quoted selectively and stopped at the bit where it no longer agreed with the point you were making and the relevant bit to this debate - ie Future cuts. You are highly selective with what you quote to the point it misleads.
Ps i think you are meant to turn the other cheek or forgive me or something. I am not sure he preached much about being smug but far be it from me to help you with your fairy tale at this time of the year.
You are still right that we need to discuss what local councils deliver and , equally importantly, dont deliver anymore as there are no more "efficiencies" to be made.
here is your full quote
Lets look at what you ommitted eh and see if we can work out why
While local authorities have tried to protect service users, there is emerging evidence that funding reductions have led to a fall in service volumes. Local authorities have tried to protect spending on core areas such as adult social care andchildren’s social care, and to make savings through efficiencies rather than reducing services. [b]Nonetheless, and despite increased demand, provision of core services such as homecare and day care for adults and residential care for adults and children has reduced since 2010-11. Levels of reduction in services tend to be greatest among authorities facing the highest funding reductions.[/b] However, a reduction in the volume of activity does not necessarily imply a worsening in the quality of provision or outcomes for service users (paragraphs 1.15 to 1.18, Figures 3 and 4)
THM cherry picking again
Why do you do this when we can just google your quote and get it all?
56% metropolitan and unitary councils that local auditors are concerned will not meet medium-term savings targets.
Its not great news is it?
They have managed so far, with reductions and efficiencies, but few think they will manage any further without issue. That is what we need to discuss assuming funding wont change
WOOSH!
Councils also fund a lot of the smaller charities that have to pick up the pieces when the latest Government initiative or policy is introduced. A charity I am involved with has seen a massive increase in the number of people wanting to use its services, and an increase in the complexity of the cases it sees. Many of the staff are bogged down dealing with the outcomes from changes in things like the Bedroom Tax, Employment Support Allowance, Personal Independent Payments etc. all imposed by the current Government without a thought as to how it would impact on the ground. I have seen people who are seriously ill having to live off next to nothing whilst they appeal against decisions made by the DWP and its agencies such as the inept and private company Atos.
We have had no additional funding for 3 years from our council, so staff (who aren't particularly well-paid anyway) have had no wage increase yet are expected to pick up and solve the mess Ian Duncan Smith, Osborne, Cameron et al have created.
Philby, hate to break it to you but if you are funded by the council to provide a service you are not a charity, you are a supplier. You might not be profit making , you might be registered as charity but you are just an extention of the council. As such you have no more special status than any other supplier regardless of moral superiority of your work. If it's deemed the service you provide can't be afforded then it won't get funded.
I'm in the Fire Service btw. Yes, I'm having the pension I signed up to in good faith stolen but compared to the huge cuts coming to the front line (Cameron before the last election 'there will be no cut to front line services') the pension debate is small fry
my pension that I signed up to in good faith has been stolen to keep your water bills down
we are going through the five yearly headcount reduction with 20% of some teams getting axed
How many companies would have coped with a 28% decrease in real funding without a deterioration in service levels?
I wouldn't drink the water in Bristol in five years time if that's your logic
binners - MemberThe Tories seem intent on destroying the North. Because we don't vote for them. Sensibly. Turkeys don't generally vote for Christmas
who is your MP? who is the MP for the constituency directly North of you?
Putting libraries aside for one moment, do we reallt think that it is the role of local authorities to subsidise ballet and theatre?
our failing council also fund a football club
Not read the rest of the thread but...
I'm a teacher and the latest lot of cuts are grim. No money for books, hardly any working computers in the school and no money to replace them, getting told not to print or photocopy, every pencil a prisoner. And then to cap it all the usual drive to improve results year on year from the same group of people pushing the cuts through.
We all just want the best for our pupils but delivering this is getting harder and harder. As a result morale in teaching is at an all time low.
[i]"I'm a teacher and the latest lot of cuts are grim. No money for books, hardly any working computers in the school and no money to replace them, getting told not to print or photocopy, every pencil a prisoner. And then to cap it all the usual drive to improve results year on year from the same group of people pushing the cuts through."[/i]
Funding for education has increased year on year faster than inflation over the course of the current parliament - it's risen 10% in 5 years and appears reasonably stable in real terms.
See data tables on page 20.
Putting libraries aside for one moment, do we reallt think that it is the role of local authorities to subsidise ballet and theatre?
Thats a debate I have had with my partner who runs a small arts council funded theatrre company. We have agreed to disagree!!
The point that THM's assertion that services havent been cut is clearly wrong as I know of services that have been cut by Reading Council.
Funding for education has increased year on year faster than inflation over the course of the current parliament - it's risen 10% in 5 years and appears reasonably stable in real terms.
If that's the case I've got no idea where it's all going because all I've seen for the last few years has been cuts. Class sizes have risen because staff have been made surplus to cut costs, teachers are on a wage freeze, funding for extra curricular activities has been cut, funding for CPD has been cut and whole school and departmental budgets have been cut by 1% or 1.5% every year for the last 3 years. The local authority where I work has targeted education for further cuts with one councillor saying publicly that education had been a 'sacred cow' for too long and couldn't expect to escape the cuts.
The point that THM's assertion that services havent been [b]cut [/b]is clearly wrong
Now I know the hairy one has gone briefly, but no need to take his silliness on......as you say, please find "evidence" in this thread for YOUR exact assertion here.
And while you are doing this, think why I used the COMPARATIVE when talking about future cuts. Future cuts compared with what do you think.......?
And the very stupidest thing about the cuts to public services is that the private sector companies who take advantage of cuts in direct provision invariably get into trouble. They're less efficient, they're corrupt, they're found with snouts in the trough, and they end up failing so catastrophically that the state is forced to pick up the pieces again. Think G4S, SERCO, Care UK, Capita, etc.
But poor people rarely vote Tory (indeed rarely vote, and looking at Labour who can blame them) and can usually be demonised and blamed for their own poverty and vulnerability.............