Why should Council workers face cuts when most are Tory/Libdem?

[Cyclone]

How does the fact that budgets have to be cut now to save money imply that previously the councils were overspending?

This fundamental fallacy is the basis of all Titanics argument here, and it simply makes no sense.

[Ms Macbeth]

I'm not sure of your point, your statistics show my point to be accurate that most Councils are Libdem or Tory, so given that fact are you saying these Councils haven't overspent and don't deserve to have any cuts.

 

In England. Lets not forget the whole of the UK will be facing cuts - and in Scotland, (where I believe their parliament get more per head from the govt than the rest of the UK?) the majority of councils are Labour controlled. We can't just talk about England when it suits.

[evildrneil]

It seems that Local Government workers are going to take a big chunk of the cuts that the Government plan introducing.

 

Presumably the thinking is that there’s considerable wastage in these areas and that they can withstand the likely cuts in pay and numbers.

 

The problem is of course that these cuts are being blamed on the previous Government, yet from what I can recall most Councils have been under the control of either the Tories or Libdems.

 

Take Sheffield for example, this council has been run by the Libdems for a while now so why should Council workers in Sheffield be expected to have its share of cuts when the money has been spent by the Libdems.

 

So why are Council workers going to have to have cuts in their pay and numbers?

 

Could it be because the public finances are so fundamentally screwed that everything is having to be squeezed? Do I win a lolipop!?

[Titanic99]

How does the fact that budgets have to be cut now to save money imply that previously the councils were overspending?

This fundamental fallacy is the basis of all Titanics argument here, and it simply makes no sense.

 

What word would you choose to use for a Head of Department that employs 100 people, when only 90-95 were needed?

 

Clearly either 100 people are needed and the new Government have got it wrong, or 90-95 are needed and the Head of Department has errored in employing 100 people.

[Eater Sundae]

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that Local Authorities have been spending all of their money unnecessarily over the last few years, which kind of supports my viewpoint that the Libdem/Tory councils have been responsible for the overspending in the Councils they control, yet they are forcing the people who work there to pay for this now,whilst blaming Labour for having to do this.

 

You are wrong, and I am happy to correct you. I have not said that local authorities have been overspending. What I said was very different. They have been spending pretty much what they are required (by central government) to spend. If they spent more, they would be bankrupt, as they don't have the money to pay for their overspend. The money they receive is allocated as agreed. The money received from central government is already allocated.

[Eater Sundae]

The bankrupting, if bankrupt the country is, was not done by anyone but the city bankers and their hangers on.

(The only evidence we have BTW is a joke note left by a former clerk for his replacement)

It was Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae who started it all.

How can this be laid at the feet of our erstwhile government?

It is international capitalism, and its cohorts that caused this problem.

 

Now, thanks to the voters of this country voting in the running dogs of these people, we will have to pay for their terrible errors.

 

Voting Tory at the last election was like Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Murdoch, and his cronies told you to, so he would not have to pay.

Now you will pay his bills for him.

 

The government were spending more than the country was earning, and therefore getting further into debt, well before the current banking crisis.

[Eater Sundae]

You mean like they haven't been doing over the last decade in Sheffield!

 

Of course they have been cutting the cloth etc every year for over the last decade. What is about to change is that the money they will receive in future will be reduced. As a result, the public services provided at local level will be reduced. All this is outside the control of local authorities. It doesn't matter whether they are Labour, Lib-Dem or Tory.

[trevordnc]

it seems to me that titanic99 is running this show

[Eater Sundae]

At last you are starting to see the point to my argument.

 

If you are correct (and that is a big if), then surely as most Councils are run by the Tories/Libdems then they must mostly be running efficiently and therefore there isn't the scope to cut jobs and pay as suggested.

 

You can't have it both ways, if they've been running efficiently then they should be left alone, if they haven't then blame the Tories/Libdems in most cases.

 

Regardless of whether they are being run efficiently, there is going to be less money available for them to spend in future.

[Eater Sundae]

What word would you choose to use for a Head of Department that employs 100 people, when only 90-95 were needed?

 

Clearly either 100 people are needed and the new Government have got it wrong, or 90-95 are needed and the Head of Department has errored in employing 100 people.

 

Using your numbers. I do not know whether the job requires 100 people or 90 to 95, but in terms of your question it doesn't matter. Up until now the government have provided enough funding to employ 100 people. From now on there will only be enough money to employ 90 to 95. Its nothing to do with whether the department needs 100 people or only 90 to 95 to do the job. The point is that we do not have enough money available to carry on paying for 100. In fact, much of the problem is that in the past we were paying the wages of 100 people, but we were only earning enough to pay 90 to 95, and so we have been running up debts. Economics is pretty simple really. Mr Micawber had it sussed.