Cuts Raise Risk Of Council Collapses, Mps Warn

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22801759

"Multiple" local authorities are facing financial collapse due to government spending cuts, MPs have warned.

The Public Accounts Committee said ministers should be drawing up contingency plans to cope with councils in difficulty.

The worst-affected authorities, often in poor areas, may be be unable to meet their statutory requirements, the committee said.

The government said every council had to "do its bit" to save money.

The central government grant to local authorities is being cut by £7.6bn - or 26% - in real terms between 2011 and 2015, as part of the effort to reduce the budget deficit.

I wonder how many of those worse affected area's have multiple directors / executives paying paid what they are worth on six figure salaries?

I'm guessing none of these important and essential council workers will take a paycut to ensure councils are sustainable.

[winkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22801759

I wonder how many of those worse affected area's have multiple directors / executives paying paid what they are worth on six figure salaries?

I'm guessing none of these important and essential council workers will take a paycut to ensure councils are sustainable.

No, they don't cut the pay they cut back on the people........they preserve their cash and the bill is transferred to another department to pay, the unemployment department.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

No, they don't cut the pay they cut back on the people........they preserve their cash and the bill is transferred to another department to pay, the unemployment department.

Today we have:

Tomorrow we will have:

Asked for a comment they said:

[Bloo Loo]

we are all in this together.

the servers are cutting back on the services they provide, while taking no cuts themselves..

the served are likely to suffer to keep the servers in clover.

I say...50% cut in emoluments above 25K and pensions cut 50% above 12K.

not index linked.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Bloo Loo

[TheCountOfNowhere]

we are all in this together.

the servers are cutting back on the services they provide, while taking no cuts themselves..

the served are likely to suffer to keep the servers in clover.

I say...50% cut in emoluments above 25K and pensions cut 50% above 12K.

not index linked.

+1

Well said.

The trouble is, the whole country is dependent on the public sector.

If I make a comment on the Northants local rag website slagging on the public sector then I get dogs abuse.

[bristolhunter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22801759

I wonder how many of those worse affected area's have multiple directors / executives paying paid what they are worth on six figure salaries?

I'm guessing none of these important and essential council workers will take a paycut to ensure councils are sustainable.

The likelihood of local governments ceasing to be able to operate their statutory duties is vanishingly small - what would surprise people is just how limited those statutory duties are - basically refuse collections, an 'efficient and comprehensive library service', some children's services. If they cut back to purely the statutory duties, they'd have money left over, and a furious population. The financial crunch comes trying to operate all the services people expect (or operating the legally required services at a level people expect - they could be cut down substantially and still meet the statutory requirements, but no longer meet popular expectation).

(West Somerset is a particularly extreme example - I'm not immediately familiar with any others that have the perfect storm they do of large geographic area, tiny population, low levels of economic activity which basically conspire to give them tiny income and to make their statutory services very expensive to provide - the suggestion a few years back to make Somerset unitary would have been a godsend for them)

Edited June 7, 2013 by bristolhunter

[thecrashingisles]

I wonder how many of those worse affected area's have multiple directors / executives paying paid what they are worth on six figure salaries?

Oh but they're worth it because 'equivalent' people in the private sector earn the same. The fact that private sector business have to persuade customers to part with their money voluntarily seems to escape their attention.

[thecrashingisles]

The likelihood of local governments ceasing to be able to operate their statutory duties is vanishingly small - what would surprise people is just how limited those statutory duties are - basically refuse collections, an 'efficient and comprehensive library service', some children's services. If they cut back to purely the statutory duties, they'd have money left over, and a furious population.

You really think so? Somehow I can't see people on the streets chanting, "What do we want? Diversity support officers! When do we want them? Now!"

[Bloo Loo]

You really think so? Somehow I can't see people on the streets chanting, "What do we want? Diversity support officers! When do we want them? Now!"

Of course not....they'd have a series of vital key meetings working together and in partnership.

[bristolhunter]

You really think so? Somehow I can't see people on the streets chanting, "What do we want? Diversity support officers! When do we want them? Now!"

That's actually a statutory duty - councils have the Public Sector Equality Duty

Perhaps I needed to be clearer; there are a number of getout clauses in many of the duties. Nebulous, undefined words like "efficient", "comprehensive", and "periodically" have no clear meaning, and many have never been tested in the courts. It would be entirely possible for a council to cut back to the bare minimum of its statutory duties (e.g. monthly refuse collections, 1 library in the centre of the district staffed by volunteers and stocked with donated comics, a parking meter that's checked if it's working every decade) and still argue it was technically meeting them with the public profoundly disagreeing. There's a duty to "promote achievement of children" - which some could interpret as an annual press release saying 'kids rock, do good', while the mothers at the school gates howled that the authority next door was giving kids exam answers.

The waste collection duty is "to provide a service to domestic premises" - no comment at all on how often, or what they have to pick up (although they do have to collect at least 2 types of recyclables - again, with no comment on frequency).

Edited June 7, 2013 by bristolhunter

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

council pension liabilities would be a nice place to start cutbacks

By pension liabilities you are referring to the deferred pay workers agreed to take in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

You know... when workers agreed to work for less in exchange for a pension, instead of demanding 50% more and making their own pension provision.

Thanks to the fiddling of inflation, even the money they were promised will mean a pretty meagre retirement in the long term.

How do you expect these people to eat or heat their homes after 40 years service? Or should we euthanise these people?

(I'm a famed boomer basher, but also a realist... somehow these people still need to be housed and fed... simply refusing to pay them the money doesn't solve this problem.)

[Bloo Loo]

By pension liabilities you are referring to the deferred pay workers agreed to take in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

You know... when workers agreed to work for less in exchange for a pension, instead of demanding 50% more and making their own pension provision.

Thanks to the fiddling of inflation, even the money they were promised will mean a pretty meagre retirement in the long term.

How do you expect these people to eat or heat their homes after 40 years service? Or should we euthanise these people?

(I'm a famed boomer basher, but also a realist... somehow these people still need to be housed and fed... simply refusing to pay them the money doesn't solve this problem.)

Easily fixed...cut all Public sector pensions by 50% above 12K.

[thecrashingisles]

a parking meter that's checked if it's working every decade

Now that would be a popular cut!

[pjw]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22801759

I wonder how many of those worse affected area's have multiple directors / executives paying paid what they are worth on six figure salaries?

I'm guessing none of these important and essential council workers will take a paycut to ensure councils are sustainable.

Exactly - if they can't meet their statutory requirements while not cutting their own pay - the solution is obvious.

[pjw]

we are all in this together.

the servers are cutting back on the services they provide, while taking no cuts themselves..

the served are likely to suffer to keep the servers in clover.

I say...50% cut in emoluments above 25K and pensions cut 50% above 12K.

not index linked.

Bloo Loo, I would vote for you! please stand for office!

[pjw]

That's actually a statutory duty - councils have the Public Sector Equality Duty

Perhaps I needed to be clearer; there are a number of getout clauses in many of the duties. Nebulous, undefined words like "efficient", "comprehensive", and "periodically" have no clear meaning, and many have never been tested in the courts. It would be entirely possible for a council to cut back to the bare minimum of its statutory duties (e.g. monthly refuse collections, 1 library in the centre of the district staffed by volunteers and stocked with donated comics, a parking meter that's checked if it's working every decade) and still argue it was technically meeting them with the public profoundly disagreeing. There's a duty to "promote achievement of children" - which some could interpret as an annual press release saying 'kids rock, do good', while the mothers at the school gates howled that the authority next door was giving kids exam answers.

The waste collection duty is "to provide a service to domestic premises" - no comment at all on how often, or what they have to pick up (although they do have to collect at least 2 types of recyclables - again, with no comment on frequency).

There shouldn't be an equality duty in a free society. In fact, equality-mongering is based on the idea that protected minorities are SUPERIOR. The best way of achieving equality is to sack the diversicrats and let people find their own level in society. So - no - there is no statutory duty to employ diversicrats.

[the shaping machine]

(West Somerset is a particularly extreme example - I'm not immediately familiar with any others that have the perfect storm they do of large geographic area, tiny population, low levels of economic activity which basically conspire to give them tiny income and to make their statutory services very expensive to provide

But why does West Somerset have to provide the same services as everywhere else.

[bristolhunter]

But why does West Somerset have to provide the same services as everywhere else.

? Everywhere has the same statutory duties, that's the nature of statutory services. If you've got a population of 90k spread out over thousands of square miles, it costs a lot more to run a bin lorry to all of them than it does if you've got them all living in a tightly clustered estate.

[the shaping machine]

? Everywhere has the same statutory duties, that's the nature of statutory services.

Yes but why?

[bristolhunter]

Yes but why?

I don't understand. Are you unfamiliar with law (everyone in a country is subject to the same ones)? Or are you subtly and tangentially advocating a reform so different councils have different responsibilities to take into account their different natures? (in an extension of the existing county/district/unitary setup, harking back to the old rural/urban districts of the 19th century - especially given that the urban districts were deemed to have more problems, and thus given higher funding, which would worsen this particular issue)

[the shaping machine]

Are you unfamiliar with law (everyone in a country is subject to the same ones)?

That's not really true (NI, Scotland and Wales all have local laws, and the town by-law is not a new idea).

Or are you subtly and tangentially advocating a reform so different councils have different responsibilities to take into account their different natures?

I didn't think it was that subtle. I see little point in even having local authorities if all the big decisions are made in Whitehall. The UK is not a homogeneous lump and the taxes/services provided need not (and probably cannot) be the same everywhere.

Of course for such a reform to take hold it may be necessary to lock up every BBC presenter who uses the clichéd term 'postcode lottery'.

given that the urban districts were deemed to have more problems, and thus given higher funding, which would worsen this particular issue)

Why do you assume that funds must come "down" from central government, and not "up" or "across" ?

[bristolhunter]

That's not really true (NI, Scotland and Wales all have local laws, and the town by-law is not a new idea).

Sure, but all English Districts have the same requirements, all English Counties do, all London Boroughs do - within themselves, they're consistent.

I didn't think it was that subtle. I see little point in even having local authorities if all the big decisions are made in Whitehall. The UK is not a homogeneous lump and the taxes/services provided need not (and probably cannot) be the same everywhere.

Of course for such a reform to take hold it may be necessary to lock up every BBC presenter who uses the clichéd term 'postcode lottery'.

The way you wrote it it came across as a suggestion that the authorities unilaterally ignore their legal duties. It was entirely unclear if you thought they could just pick and choose what to do.

Why do you assume that funds must come "down" from central government, and not "up" or "across" ?

I don't assume that they must, it's a reality that they currently do, and historically have.

[I ♥ spreadsheets]

I work in local government and the cuts are very real, I can assure you. Every year the budget is slashed and more and more redundancies are made, despite our best efforts to lower costs by renegotiating contracts, change working practices etc. Managers and directors are leaving and not being replaced, as you would expect.

I'm not moaning, rather responding to those assuming that public sector workers aren't doing their bit.

[pjw]

I work in local government and the cuts are very real, I can assure you. Every year the budget is slashed and more and more redundancies are made, despite our best efforts to lower costs by renegotiating contracts, change working practices etc. Managers and directors are leaving and not being replaced, as you would expect.

I'm not moaning, rather responding to those assuming that public sector workers aren't doing their bit.

I'm glad to hear the cuts are biting - I'm sick of funding you lot!

[I ♥ spreadsheets]

I'm glad to hear the cuts are biting - I'm sick of funding you lot!

Look, we don't push pens for free you know! In all seriousness, in my area (IT) we've gone through some vastly overdue modernisation. We are starting to lose staff to the private sector again now, which is noteworthy.