Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Coalition Strikes Back


Recommended Posts

They're bound to want to cut the front-line jobs first, any Labour council at least, and probably most of the LD ones too.

Those are the cuts people see and care about, and councils want to stir them up against the Nasty Tories. Local elections are coming up in May after all.

This is all about politics and power.

...council lies and deception .... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

75% from government, eh? Then they have to power to bl00dy well make the cuts, end of.

I've ALWAYS wondered just how much of our council tax actually goes toward services (I hate the umbrella word), and how much goes to salaries/pensions.

We get a leaflet from the council telling us where it all goes.

Some of it goes on the leaflet, of course...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come back here in one year with a list of these new private sector jobs. <_<

I expect a rise in debt collector vacancies. Can't think of much else that's on the up.

300,000 new jobs in the last quarter (just mentioned on question time)

1,000,000 jobs being advertised in the job centres across the country

The coalition have to start somewhere and stimulating business by cutting taxes is a bloody good start

Link to post
Share on other sites

And who are these decent lenders? Not the RBS or BOS guys, that's for sure.

....that is a separate thread and avoids the issue.... :rolleyes:

"I don't have a mortgage" is a pointless statement in this context unless you are saying that you have never had one. As I already said, you think that your borrowing to spend money you didn't have was OK because your financial projections worked out and you paid your debts.

.....borrowing against financial projections, asset security and insuring against illness death etc is the norm for mortgages.....Nulabour showed no control or projections ...just like your own thin ideas about finance.... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question is illogical!

I could have put money on a reply like that.

When people rattle on about the money that gets borrowed or spent by governments and councils using this "they never asked me if that's what I wanted" nonsense they fail to grasp how time consuming it would be for them if they all had a say in every pound that was spent. They also fail to grasp how expensive it would be if everything was purchased locally by small groups or individuals. For example, I predict that the GP control of NHS money thing will turn out to be an unmitigated disaster. Another thing that is never properly grasped is just how many things there are that would not be provided at all.

You get people who resent "their money" going on schools and education purely because they have chosen not to have children. They are idiots. Pure and simple. And 99% of the other arguments for not spending on this or that are just as self centered, short sighted and stupid.

Funny how the sell off of the forests gets canned just because shed loads of Tory voters objected on mostly illogical and emotional grounds. We can cover the costs in order to ensure that country folk still have somewhere to ride their horses but we can't afford stuff that really matters. The whole austerity thing is an idealogical crusade that comes from the very core of the Tory party and the financial situation is the excuse they needed to do it, not the reason why. Like most crusades it is based on faith and philosophy and a very narrow blinked view. Also, like all crusades it is doomed to fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole austerity thing is an idealogical crusade that comes from the very core of the Tory party and the financial situation is the excuse they needed to do it, not the reason why....

....your general awareness is short of the 'full shilling'.....Labour were going to make cuts ....the old cry of "not as much and not so fast" can be heard from the listless ....but it proves cuts are necessary and not an "idealogical crusade"...unless that means sensible financial planning...which in not in Labours dictionary.... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

300,000 new jobs in the last quarter (just mentioned on question time)

1,000,000 jobs being advertised in the job centres across the country

The coalition have to start somewhere and stimulating business by cutting taxes is a bloody good start

Have you ever looked at the type of jobs on offer in a Job Centre?

I did once. :lol: Never went back......actually, I have been back but not to look for a job. Their office was in the same building as the Tax office so I used to have an occasional look at the boards and the standard of job on offer was and still is low. The reason why there are a million jobs advertised there is because they are all the jobs that can't be filled going back at least six months. The reasons why they can't be filled are the reasons that you would give for not taking any of them if they were offered to you. I think I can trust you to fill in the blanks on that one. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folk who make comments like that just reveal that they have no real understanding of how modern capitalist economies work....or don't work if you prefer.

It's all about spending money you don't have. A mortgage to buy a house would be just one of many possible examples. Borrowing in order to expand your business is another.

I would prefer it if things like that didn't happen. Houses would be much cheaper for a start. But things like that do happen and will continue to do so.

I suspect that, like most people, you think it's OK if it's you borrowing from the bank to fund something that you deem to be needed or "sensible" and I'm sure you will be able to provide a list of reasons why your borrowing in order to "spend money you don't have" falls into an entirely different category. <_<

Wrong.

You borrow against something you have; it might be an asset or more likely it's a believable promise. No problem in borrowing against a credible promise.

You see where the trouble is coming from with an endlessly exponentially growing public sector deficit don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

....your general awareness is short of the 'full shilling'.....Labour were going to make cuts ....the old cry of "not as much and not so fast" can be heard from the listless ....but it proves cuts are necessary and not an "idealogical crusade"...unless that means sensible financial planning...which in not in Labours dictionary.... :rolleyes:

And there you identify exactly why I will never vote Tory as long as I have a hole in my backside.

Labour will make cuts when they are unavoidable and will do so reluctantly.

The Tories will cut with enthusiasm whilst claiming to be doing it for our own good. Fair enough if that was the real reason....but it's not.

My feeling, right or wrong, is that Labour have a more "family" style approach to running the country whilst with the Tories it's just another business venture geared towards profits for the already wealthy and bugger the rest of us. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do the councils get their money from? Our council tax? Or from Government? Who has the say here?

Mostly from central government (who have the final say)...

'Local government in England':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_England#Funding

Funding

Local councils are funded by a combination of central government grants, Council Tax (a locally set tax based on house value), Business Rates, and fees and charges from certain services including decriminalised parking enforcement. The proportion of revenue that comes from Council Tax is low, meaning that if a council wishes to increase its funding modestly, it has to put up Council Tax by a large amount. Central government retains the right to "cap" Council Tax if it deems it to be too much.[citation needed] This is an area of debate in British politics at the moment, with councils and central government blaming each other for council tax rises.[citation needed]

Council Tax is collected by the district-level council. Authorities such as the GLA, parish councils, county councils, passenger transport authorities, fire authorities, police authorities, and national parks authorities can make a precept. This shows up as an independent element on council tax bills, but is collected by the district and funnelled to the precepting authority. Some joint ventures are instead funded by levy.[citation needed]

Aggregate External Finance

Aggregate External Finance (AEF) refers to the total amount of money given by central government to local government. It consists of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG), ringfenced and other specific grants, and redistributed business rates. A portion of the RSG money paid to each authority is diverted to fund organisations that provide improvement and research services to local government (this is referred to as the RSG top-slice). The majority of these organisations are those that form the Local Government Group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

You borrow against something you have; it might be an asset or more likely it's a believable promise. No problem in borrowing against a credible promise.

You see where the trouble is coming from with an endlessly exponentially growing public sector deficit don't you?

With a mortgage you generally borrow to get something that you don't already have and can't actually afford. That has always been the case and never more so than now. The fact that you can afford the payments does not change the fact that you could not afford to buy the house outright.

As far as the public sector deficit goes the one thing I can absolutely promise you is that this government will not sort it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And there you identify exactly why I will never vote Tory as long as I have a hole in my backside.

Labour will make cuts when they are unavoidable and will do so reluctantly.

The Tories will cut with enthusiasm whilst claiming to be doing it for our own good. Fair enough if that was the real reason....but it's not.

My feeling, right or wrong, is that Labour have a more "family" style approach to running the country whilst with the Tories it's just another business venture geared towards profits for the already wealthy and bugger the rest of us. <_<

...you are just one big chip sitting on a shoulder.....you would back Labour the people who wish to ruin the country and take you down with it...?.....not very bright..... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you can afford the payments does not change the fact that you could not afford to buy the house outright.

...you are so simplistic..... :rolleyes:

As far as the public sector deficit goes the one thing I can absolutely promise you is that this government will not sort it out.

....it's progress to reduce which will put us in the right direction .....until Labour get back in ....then we are doomed..... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Game on.

Thing is, for the very top positions, you could almost try to justify a high salary, you know for a head of a very difficult council, huge budget a rare person for a rare task etc..

But over 1,000 people on more than £100,000 a year ! That's just a nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

Most real work done by councils is now carried out by contractors or agency workers on very low pay, this leaves plenty of your taxes left over to pay for all the bull$hit roles, the parasitic management class and the chief executives, not to mention the private service companies that now feed off the public sector's inability to draft decent contracts.

There is now a class of people in local authorities that set their own market and outbid themselves, they demand FTSE style pay to carry out public duties, despite the fact there are never any consequences for failure, because they set their own targets and can simply dump any mistakes on the rate payer and then blame "the system". Even when they fail in the worst way possible and are in rare occasions sacked (they never resign or take responsibility) they still cash in.

In reality most town halls could function with a fraction of their current work force, they could function as a procurement service with the actual work being carried out by mutuals, workers co-operatives and private contractors, you'd just need a handful of oversight people ensuring work is carried out and getting maximum value for money. However, this will never happen for various reasons.

As you've seen, there's lots of vested interests, petty politics, dodgy deals, and what amounts to blatant corruption in these thiefdoms; all feeding off the same host (you). They are almost entirely "producer lead" which means self-interest comes first and the public interest is an afterthought. I feel sorry for the frontline workers that are the first thrown overboard just so a bunch of crooks can try and score some cheap political points and protect their own pay and numbers.

It looks like the Manchester City Council chief exec (>£200k per annum + benefits) is setting himself up as the new Bob Diamond, his calculating cynicism has kind of backfired, ugly piggy.

Edited by sillybear2
Link to post
Share on other sites

75% from government, eh? Then they have to power to bl00dy well make the cuts, end of.

I've ALWAYS wondered just how much of our council tax actually goes toward services (I hate the umbrella word), and how much goes to salaries/pensions.

Well, the reality is that most will go to salaries and pensions. The question is how much of that is spent do doing things that people actually want like say bin collection versus how much is spent on totally irrelevant back office activities. A lot of the problem is that the people in the back office are the people making the decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folk who make comments like that just reveal that they have no real understanding of how modern capitalist economies work....or don't work if you prefer.

It's all about spending money you don't have. A mortgage to buy a house would be just one of many possible examples. Borrowing in order to expand your business is another.

I would prefer it if things like that didn't happen. Houses would be much cheaper for a start. But things like that do happen and will continue to do so.

I suspect that, like most people, you think it's OK if it's you borrowing from the bank to fund something that you deem to be needed or "sensible" and I'm sure you will be able to provide a list of reasons why your borrowing in order to "spend money you don't have" falls into an entirely different category. <_<

Borrowing makes sense if you can afford to repay the borrowing and are better off after doing so than you would have been had you not borrowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

View PostNickolarge, on 18 February 2011 - 12:12 AM, said:

Folk who make comments like that just reveal that they have no real understanding of how modern capitalist economies work....or don't work if you prefer.

It's all about spending money you don't have. A mortgage to buy a house would be just one of many possible examples. Borrowing in order to expand your business is another.

I would prefer it if things like that didn't happen. Houses would be much cheaper for a start. But things like that do happen and will continue to do so.

I suspect that, like most people, you think it's OK if it's you borrowing from the bank to fund something that you deem to be needed or "sensible" and I'm sure you will be able to provide a list of reasons why your borrowing in order to "spend money you don't have" falls into an entirely different category. <_<

Borrowing makes sense if you can afford to repay the borrowing and are better off after doing so than you would have been had you not borrowed.

+1

Borrowing to by a house generally makes sense. But if you have to borrow to pay this months gas bill you are in trouble.

Thanks to gordo, the UK will have to borrow to pay the interest on the equivalaent of last months gas bill & will be doing so for quite some time.

Its how it always ends with Labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

"Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat"

Wtf? The 80's is over guys, let it go. Looks like some crusty old marxist is creating some plush non-jobs for their old CND friends. :rolleyes:

Borrowing makes sense if you're using the proceeds to invest in assets or infrastructure, borrowing to consume like paying for the ****** you see above is the road to ruin, it doesn't pay for itself.

Even if their worst fears were realised I think they'd find a large thermonuclear device would actually improve many parts of Manchester. The Russians would later send them a bill for "services to redevelopment". :P

Edited by sillybear2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat"

Wtf? The 80's is over guys, let it go. Looks like some crusty old marxist is creating some plush non-jobs for their old CND friends. :rolleyes:

Borrowing makes sense if you're using the proceeds to invest in assets or infrastructure, borrowing to consume like paying for the ****** you see above is the road to ruin, it doesn't pay for itself.

Even if their worst fears were realised I think they'd find a large thermonuclear device would actually improve many parts of Manchester. The Russians would later send them a bill for "services to redevelopment". :P

Funnily enough, the Climate Change Officer could reduce the impact of the council on the planet by recommending a 50% cut in salaries, and/or mass sackings and removal of non-essential services, as that would prevent a lot of excessive and pointless consumption.

Edit: Just noticed this is only for Braintree District Council. Notwithstanding my personal beliefs that this is a load of hoo-ey, why isn't this a function of a county council rather than just Braintree? Goes back to what nickolarge was saying about small groups doing things much more expensively than large groups...

Edited by bobthe~
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality most town halls could function with a fraction of their current work force, they could function as a procurement service with the actual work being carried out by mutuals, workers co-operatives and private contractors, you'd just need a handful of oversight people ensuring work is carried out and getting maximum value for money. However, this will never happen for various reasons.

It will never happen because the experience is that the outsourced services result in a poorer service with little actual control once the contract has been awarded.

It works for a few things like bin collection but for social services (by far the biggest expense) it has been a disaster.

I've been involved in at least 3 council projects to outsource IT to the likes of Serco and in every case it has come back in house as it is all about SLA's rather than doing the job they are required to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2

It will never happen because the experience is that the outsourced services result in a poorer service with little actual control once the contract has been awarded.

It works for a few things like bin collection but for social services (by far the biggest expense) it has been a disaster.

I've been involved in at least 3 council projects to outsource IT to the likes of Serco and in every case it has come back in house as it is all about SLA's rather than doing the job they are required to do.

Why isn't there more co-ops, mutuals, charities? There used to be many trusts and service providers before the local authorities swallowed everything up.

Serco is a joke, they basically act in league with chief executives to extract as much money out of tax payers as possible by providing the minimum back in return. If councils are stupid enough to sign these contracts you can hardly blame them for cashing in, the same way you can hardly blame people for applying for non-jobs if the council was daft enough to create them. If these leaders were really worth their salt then it wouldn't be allowed to happen, but their interests do not align with ours.

I think these apparatchiks have shot themselves in the foot, now the money has stopped flowing the choices are stark. Just abolishing a couple of useless posts is more than enough to save a library, so do you prefer a CND nutter or something useful? To govern is to choose, if they can't decide for themselves then put it on a ballot.

Edited by sillybear2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.