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

[andyofborg]

it seems to me that titanic99 is running this show

 

i'm the ringmaster of this show, tit99 is the clown

[andyofborg]

Supporting failed banks,

 

sorry to deflect the discussion but here's an exceptional view of the current problems in the city

 

 

which is all the more awesome in that it was written 30 years ago.

 

some extra bits

 

[tonkatoy]

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.

 

Or the council can no longer afford to employ 100 people because of the financial mess the last government left behind. So the council has to manage with 95 people when they really need 100. It is what the private sector has had to do for years.

 

Welcome to the real world..

[wellyman]

Three MPs, and a Lord of the Tory Party if you dont mind.

This is a man given an unelected mandate to rule the country, using his grace and favour payments and accommodations to even further feather his own nest.

At least the other are only commoners.

 

No 4 Labour MPs facing fraud charges like I said.

 

Elliott Morley

David Chaytor

Jim Devine

Eric Illsley.

 

That makes 4 when I was at school. Perhaps you should check your facts before attemting to correct others.

[Cyclone]

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.

 

In reality they could probably make full use of 110, but they are now going to have to make do with 90 and services will be cut.

[espadrille]

The issue is not local authorities overspending. It is that they set their budgets (and including the number of people they employ and stuff they chose to buy etc) based on figures set by central government. Each year central government provide a load of money and local government spends it. They are expected and required to spend it. As a country, we have been spending more than we earn and so were not in a good position to cope with a turndown in the economy. We now have less money to spend. As a result, central government will be allocating less money to local authorities, among them Sheffield MDC. It is nothing to do with the political persuasion of the local government, but is to do with the economic performance of the previous central government, which was putting the country further and further into the red (on the expectation of continued boom), even before the bust occurred.

 

A refreshing honest post

 

Thank You!

[espadrille]

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.

 

Spelled out simply.

Thanks

 

It is also true that Sheffield has seen its lowest council tax rise ever as a result of the current Lib Dem administration, but of course the core funding comes from central govt.

Central Government has been The Labour Party for the last 13 years so I cant see why Titantic is unable to understand simple factual information..

[mossdog]

If that is

the case, how is a short term unmandated 'government'such as this shambles going to rectify it?

 

Cameron and his gang of druggies and boozers couldnt run a good time in a brothel.

Well you sad demented old leftie! sounds like you might know what a good time in a brothel's about,anyway, they could try tapping up that great Socialist hero Blair for a few quid from his millions! the missus has made millions out the job too,so she's worth a tug...............if no result try the Kinnocks!

[Bedders]

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?

 

Try a £240 million pound investment by Labour run council in Sheffield (at the time) that didn't catch on & had to be sold for £1.15 million & the rest had to be funded by council tax bills in all of South Yorkshire. It left us in serious amounts of debt that we are still paying back & that's why they are being made redundant through Labour's sheer incompitance!

 

The other money pit that failed to make the figures add up (yet again) under Labour's rule of the council was the World Student Games. Idiots who have run up debt...that will take generations to pay off...with services suffering as a consequence.

 

If you don't belive me do your research look up Sheffield Supertram, Don Valley Stadium, Sheffield Arena to start off your research. Look the various accounting / estimates for the projects, & the actual revenue that they have sold for or achieved. That is our DEBT that we are paying back in council tax & loss of services hence redundancies. Simples.

[Titanic99]

Spelled out simply.

Thanks

 

It is also true that Sheffield has seen its lowest council tax rise ever as a result of the current Lib Dem administration, but of course the core funding comes from central govt.

Central Government has been The Labour Party for the last 13 years so I cant see why Titantic is unable to understand simple factual information..

 

Well I think I understand it perfectly but perhaps you can confirm whether or not the following is a fair factual representation of the discussion.

 

Most Councils are run by Tory/Libdem administrations, over the recent years the Heads of Departments have determined that an x number of employees are required to enable their department to function.

 

Now a new Government is in place and they have determined that the same Heads of Department only require between 90-95% of the previous staffing levels, in order to perform the same functions.

 

But not content with the damage this will cause to the people who will lose their jobs, the same Government has determined that the previous Government should be held responsible for the need to reduce staffing levels, when as acknowledged previously it has been Libdem and Tory administrations that has determined how many staff were needed previously.

 

So put simplistically, the Libdem/Tory Central Government is blaming the Labour Central Government for Libdem/Tory councils employing more people than what was needed to perform the functions of Local Government. (Bizarre but keep defending them)

 

Now I hope my understanding is acceptable to you, please feel free to correct any aspects of my interpretation that you believe to be wrong.