Labour in bid to save front-line services
12:00pm Saturday 16th February 2013 in Latest News
Coun Jim Grant
THE Labour group at Swindon Council is making a last-ditch bid to reallocate about £1m in the budget to save some front-line services.
It also aims to boost funding to tackle potholes and unemployment.
The group will table a motion to amend the Conservative administration’s budget proposals, which aim to plug a £15 budget gap, when full council meets to set the budget for 2013/14 at the Civic Offices, in Euclid Street, on Thursday, February 21.
The Conservative’s plans include £3.4m of savings from cutting about 100 council posts.
Labour plans to re-allocate about £1m by cutting senior management costs, consultants’ costs and the cost of councillors, using the money to increase spend in areas it considers a priority.
The party would reinstate £70,000 to the community transport fund, £190,000 to children’s centres, and £200,000 in bus subsidies. It also agrees with the Conservatives’ decision not to slash the £20,000 for Threshold Housing Link.
Labour would increase the road maintenance budget by £220,000, specifically to address potholes, boost the adult learning budget by £100,000 and add £100,000 to the Plan 500 budget for extra apprenticeships for youngsters.
The party would also use £100,000 to create a new council tax hardship fund to help households struggling as a result of changes to council tax benefit.
Labour group leader Coun Jim Grant said: “We don’t believe that it’s right that the council’s consultants budget increases while frontline services like social care, child protection, pothole filling and street cleaning are being cut back so dramatically.
“This budget amendment won’t be able to save every frontline service proposed to be cut and some might be disappointed that we have chosen to save another service rather than theirs.
“But we have prioritised those services that serve the town’s most vulnerable people and value for money services, like road resurfacing.”
Coun Grant acknowledged that Labour had not proposed to reverse the Conservative’s proposal to save £99,000 by reducing staffed opening hours at libraries, but said there was a limit to what could be credibly delivered.
Coun Rod Bluh, the council leader, accused Labour of dealing in headlines, not facts. He said: “I would think it’s a predictable, opportunistic budget. They’ve only amended £1m of the savings , they’re accepting £14m of our savings.”
Coun Stan Pajak, the Lib Dem group leader, said he would consider Labour’s plans but the group intended to table its own amendment, particularly around maintaining funding for Localities.
Comments(63)
stu2010
says...
12:39pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Localboy86
says...
12:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Localboy86
says...
12:59pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Hmmmf
says...
1:46pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Big of 'em. Can't Jim just borrow the fifteen quid and just add it to the billions in debt Brown ran up?
Tim Newroman
says...
2:52pm Sat 16 Feb 13
That would immediately free up £30,000 towards those all important front line services for the vulnerable.
Davey Gravey
says...
3:23pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson
says...
3:33pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Cutting the union jobs immediately is sensible. They do not provide any service to the public, they act as consultants to their members.
The Labour party bang on about consultants, so lets see a couple of them go.
Hangbrownhigh
says...
3:59pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Davey Gravey wrote:Prime ****.
Looks the right thing to do to me. Cutting costs elsewhere to preserve public services. The Tories destruction of public services needs to stop. Roll on election time where they will get trounced.
Davey Gravey
says...
4:10pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson wrote:How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?
There are front line services and there are jobs, saving jobs does not mean saving services. Cutting the union jobs immediately is sensible. They do not provide any service to the public, they act as consultants to their members. The Labour party bang on about consultants, so lets see a couple of them go.
Oliver_Donachie
says...
5:16pm Sat 16 Feb 13
http://swindonlabour
check.com/index.php/
42-2/
http://swindonlabour
check.com/index.php/
42-2/
Leave it for reader to decide.
Oliver_Donachie
says...
5:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Why does Mr Grant feel the need to lecture anyone on budgets?
Davey Gravey
says...
5:42pm Sat 16 Feb 13
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
Oliver_Donachie
says...
5:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Perhaps it will sound better coming from them directly?
http://archive.audit
-commission.gov.uk/a
uditcommission/press
office/pressreleases
/Pages/swindonboroug
hcouncilhasundergone
aradicaltransformati
on.aspx.html
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.
So the situation is simple, you can either listen to:
A: A party who has repeatedly frozen council tax whilst raising our standards from "failing" to good or excellent.
OR
B: A party who's budgetary and services planning was so dire central government threatened to put them into administration.
Who do you listen to?
Davey Gravey
says...
6:13pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Empty Car Park
says...
6:19pm Sat 16 Feb 13
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.
Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is not because of some selected ancient numbers.
Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member.
Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably,
Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)
Empty Car Park
says...
6:21pm Sat 16 Feb 13
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.
Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is not because of some selected ancient numbers.
Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member.
Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably,
Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)
Oliver_Donachie
says...
6:35pm Sat 16 Feb 13
1: They have frozen council tax whilst also finding 15 Million pounds of savings, whatever your political leanings that in itself deserves merit.
2: The Conservative council is clearly doing something right if it is able to simultaneously, freeze council tax for years, raise the quality of our town in annual audits, and save tens of millions in operational costs.
3: Mr Grants proposals would make a minor amendment to the existing 15 Million the Conservative council has already identified, although welcome, this does show the difference in approach between the Labour party who have shown a history of taxing the people of Swindon to tackle this kind of problem and the Conservatives who are a party of low taxation and have shown this through year on year council tax freezes.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
6:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Tories are aiming to save 3.4million by cutting 100 posts.
Labour are looking at reallocating 1million by cutting senior management "costs" and reducing consultancy spend.
Assuming that the 3.4 million from the Tories is a genuine saving required to meet the black hole, how the hell are labour addressing that by moving money around, but not saving anything.
They are not talking about the same thing and once again Labour are avoiding the requirement to fill a funding black hole.
Where have we seen that before....!
Oliver_Donachie
says...
7:01pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Empty Car Park wrote:I see you have 0 comments about the nature of the article itself, so I am not sure what you are trying to add, but to answer the points you make.
Oliver Donachie says
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.
Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is not because of some selected ancient numbers.
Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member.
Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably,
Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)
1: The figures are not ancient, many Labour Councillors who oversaw the disastrous mismanagement of our town are still in exactly the same seats today, although you would expect a mass resignation over such a high profile event as a town nearly being put into administration.
2: What Labour takeover? They remain in the minority because the people of Swindon continue to reject the nature of the politics they run and have done for nearly a decade.
3: The only concern to me and my family about Labour "taking over" the council (if it ever happened) would be to have to live through another catastrophic raise in council tax and presumably a return to a failing rating within audits.
4: I was delighted to have stood against the leader of the Labour party, my only surprise was that as a novice in the Labour "stronghold" of Swindon up against people who had been in the seat for decades I managed to secure 850+ votes largely off the back of the residents who feel utter apathy at the "service" they receive from their Labour Councillors.
5: I am Oliver Donachie, I have and use one login, it is called Oliver Donachie.
Empty Car Park
says...
7:04pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently a conservative cabinet member.
Morsey
says...
7:17pm Sat 16 Feb 13
So what would you call the state of play under Tory control as everything has been cut and cut again and services have failed miserably?
All this bull about the previous Labour administration upping Council Tax to help finance the statutory authority and pay pensions to former county employees, plus collect the necessary funds, which the Tories spent on the library ... yes that's right, you want, they finance, but then it is used as a political football.
THE BIGGEST LAUGH IS THAT THE TORY COUNCIL HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN IN THE SH1T EVEN WITH THE LABOUR INCREASES IN COUNCIL TAX TAKEN EVERY YEAR, WHICH THE TORIES SAID WAS NOT REQUIRED!!! And, they still bring it out in so many posts ... the excuse had no grounds and displays a certain naivity ... any votes given to a Tory will always bring the same ways of running the show ... Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts ..... but where can they strike next, nothing is safe as long as the cuts don't hurt their followers!
Morsey
says...
7:27pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Oliver_Donachie
says...
7:35pm Sat 16 Feb 13
You have an opinion that services are bad under Conservatives.
I have an opinion that services are bad under Labour.
We are not going to agree, but thats fine because we have an answer in the form of the independent Audit Commission so you and I do not have to argue about it, the facts they have presented are absolutely crystal clear:
Labour raised council tax by 43% they had a rating of 0 (failing)
Conservatives have frozen council tax they have a rating of 2 (good)
That is the facts of the situation. Not mine, not yours, the audit commission. The people who are paid to deliver just facts not opinion.
With regards to the wider point about cuts, I am sure that the Conservatives would love to be swimming in money but the simple fact is after the Labour government accrued 1.1 TRILLION pounds of debt and sold off virtually all our gold reserves at all time record lows we the nation have no money left.
Again dont take my word on the above go and research it from independent sources, you will get exactly the same facts every time.
That leaves us with one inescapable conclusion, the Council has to cut or tax.
If you have any other proposals I would genuinely like to hear them.
Empty Car Park
says...
7:52pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Not as if they'd waste it on wifi, feasability studies for dead end ditches, pointless inefficient road alterations, overpriced giant patios, etc
Oh wait a minute...
They do
I still suspect your main concern for a Labour takeover of SBC is that your wife is currently a conservative cabinet member of the council
Peter Mallinson
says...
8:14pm Sat 16 Feb 13
The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service.
If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower.
In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.
Oliver_Donachie
says...
8:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Can you please calculate the cost of the Labour parties rise in council tax by 43% to the nearest Million vs the cost of everything you raise above?
Once you do, you have my answer.
To repeat my key point from another other threads you keep spamming in a desperate attempt to divert attention to anything other than an analysis of Labours mismanagement of Swindon.
"I am not entirely sure what my partner having being anything to do with politics has on this discussion Swindon, but as you seem so energetic I am happy to point out how silly you are, a few facts:
1: In my house my entire family was raised to think independently of each other meaning we are more than welcome to talk about anything we wish in any manner we wish, I appreciate this may be different in your home and differ from how you were raised.
2: I do not have a wife. I am not married.
3: My partner is not on the Council.
Can the grown ups continue to talk about budgets now?"
Empty Car Park
says...
8:32pm Sat 16 Feb 13
I didn't realise your partner had left or been removed from Swindon Bourough Council
That must be very recent
Oliver_Donachie
says...
8:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Empty Car Park wrote:My partner is a Councillor.
I do apologise.
I didn't realise your partner had left or been removed from Swindon Bourough Council
That must be very recent
Some Councillors are selected to be on the Swindon Council cabinet.
My partner has never been on Council cabinet and can therefore not leave it or be removed from it.
Can the grown ups continue to talk about budgets now?
Oliver_Donachie
says...
9:10pm Sat 16 Feb 13
"I still feel that the main objective of your sudden surge of input is that your wife is a conservative cabinet member on the council."
Would it not be more constructive to discuss the 43% Labour council tax rise in comparison to the Conservative tax freeze as opposed to trying to spread disinformation in an attempt to create a smokescreen from Labours factual shameful legacy?
Empty Car Park
says...
9:14pm Sat 16 Feb 13
8:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13
3: My partner is not on the Council.
Oliver_Donachie says...
8:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13
My partner is a Councillor
Is this another pedantic grammar correction.
I get plenty of those from Tim Newroman :-)
Oliver_Donachie
says...
9:19pm Sat 16 Feb 13
You assert my partner is a cabinet member in your previous. I responded and missed "cabinet" at the end of the post.
My apologies.
To confirm however, the assertion you make that my partner is a cabinet member is entirely false in the first instance.
Davey Gravey
says...
9:30pm Sat 16 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson wrote:Trouble being that job cuts heap unrealistic workloads onto those left who then struggle, so the services decline. It's not managed properly so doesn't work but a good idea in theory.
Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?"
The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service.
If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower.
In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.
TinkeyWinkey
says...
11:34am Sun 17 Feb 13
Every week it's job losses or cuts in budgets or services. Personally I don't think we've heard the end of SBC's cuts around the Borough. If it's not more job losses you can bet your bottom dollar something else is going to go.
house on the hill
says...
3:52pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?"
The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service.
If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower.
In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.""""
Very true and you have hit the nail firmly on the head. One of the main reasons that services are having to be cut is the sheer inefficiency of the council red or blue. If you employ 4 people to do the work of one person, 3 to make the tea while the other one actually does the work, then you can get rid of 2 of them, have the other one not doing anything actually work and you have saved money and increased services.
There are 3 sets of people in Swindon, those who have never worked at the council, they may have friends there or have read a few things but have no real first hand experience of what really goes on. The second set are those who have only worked at the council or other councils and have no experience of a competitive customer driven environment who think complacency is the norm and having a final salary pension which at today's rates costs the employer in excess of 15 percent of their salary, 30 days leave, 6 months on full sick pay and never having heard of performance related pay is how it all works and they have never experienced the workloads and pressure of the private sector. There are some ho truly believe they wok hard and o a good job, because they know no different.
The third group are those who came from the private sector to the council nod couldn't believe their eyes when they see the inefficiency, the waste, the general complacency, staff making errors again and again with no consequences, managers spending more time in endless meetings than actually doing nothing productive usally with the same people talking about the same things again and again. Endless sickness, coffee drinking, chatting etc, managers who have no idea where their staff are and vice versa. Staff who are not where they are supposed to be and get away with it again and again with no Come back from inept managers scared of their own shadows.
You may think that is a joke but sadly as many in this town know it isn't. The real problem is the inefficient way the council is run. How many other businesses would have 115 out of 1500 staff on over £50k ad many mone on over £30k with little on no real responsibility. Yes you can blame politics and that will always have an effect, but the underlying workforce, most of whom wouldn't last more than a week in the private sector (as evidenced by the number that come back and get their old jobs back after failing outside in the real world and yes I kid you not).
This council could shed jobs if they picked the right people to get rid of and actually be more efficient! Bring in proper managers who know what they are doing and do away with consultants who are mostly employed to cover up the fact most managers can't do the jobs they are paid for, introure performsnce relstedbpaybto reflect the responsibilty the council has to spend our money efficiently and get rid of the profit driven partners who haemorrhage our money and jobs that they take out of Swindon, and run an efficient value for money service. Oh no, that pig has just Flown past the window again!!!
Peter Mallinson
says...
5:00pm Sun 17 Feb 13
When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.
Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.
This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.
As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
Davey Gravey
says...
6:33pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson wrote:Rubbish. It has seen people pushed to breaking point beyond what they can cope with,decided by pen pushers in massive wages with no idea what they are doing. It's been dreadfully managed and I am staggered how anyone with your attitude was a member of the labour party. Hang your head and prepare for your ousting next election.
Davey Gravey,
When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.
Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.
This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.
As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
Tim Newroman
says...
6:45pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Davey Gravey wrote:Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.
Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.
Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Davey Gravey
says...
6:57pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
Davey Gravey wrote:Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.
Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.
Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Morsey
says...
6:58pm Sun 17 Feb 13
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
7:11pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Davey Gravey wrote:And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back.
Tim Newroman wrote:Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
Davey Gravey wrote:Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.
Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.
Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid.
Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it.
I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.
Wiltshireman
says...
7:27pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Cut some of the freebee giveaways that the council (labour or tory) do and you can save even more.
I also note that SCS who do the road repairs / resurfacing there are always members of staff leaning on shovels or something. If they can do that then the job has been overpriced and I would suggest that the contracts are looked at more closely for pricing but I very much doubt if there is anyone in the council with Contract Costing experience.
Davey Gravey
says...
7:30pm Sun 17 Feb 13
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:Didn't labour rebuild the mess left by the ousted Tories? Rotting schools, health centres and other community services. The kind of things they will have to put right again when they win the next election at a canter. These things cost money which the Tories wont owns as it doesn't effect the wealthy. Bring on the 10% tax and the rich getting stung. Good times ahead
Davey Gravey wrote:And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back.
Tim Newroman wrote:Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
Davey Gravey wrote:Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.
Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.
Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid.
Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it.
I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
9:07pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?
Empty Car Park
says...
10:02pm Sun 17 Feb 13
It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well
It certainly doesn't.
Especially where the Conservative cabinet of our Tory led Swindon Borough Council are concerned.
Perpetually wasting money on grandiose dreams of wifi, dead end canals, and playing with the traffic (road junctions)
It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well[
Davey Gravey
says...
10:12pm Sun 17 Feb 13
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:The mess I mentioned already. Not to mention the nhs etc, etc.
Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all.
Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?
Scott Thunes
says...
10:15pm Sun 17 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson wrote:You have no idea what 'efficiently run services' are. You ruined Homecare by outsourcing it, and you know it. What time did the sacked workers finish on handover day eh? Shame on you. You will never be re-elected.
Davey Gravey,
When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.
Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.
This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.
As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
8:12am Mon 18 Feb 13
Davey Gravey wrote:You still haven't addressed fiscal responsibility and how all this stuff should be paid for though?
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:The mess I mentioned already. Not to mention the nhs etc, etc.
Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all.
Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?
Previously it was paid for by unsustainable debt..... Remember? Or do your rose tinted glasses not allow you to see that?
If you have a sustainable plan to pay for stuff (that makes sense), I'll vote for you.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:13am Mon 18 Feb 13
Davey Gravey wrote:No, Labour simply borrowed us into recession with no thought for the future. They encouraged the public to get into massive debt.
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:Didn't labour rebuild the mess left by the ousted Tories? Rotting schools, health centres and other community services. The kind of things they will have to put right again when they win the next election at a canter. These things cost money which the Tories wont owns as it doesn't effect the wealthy. Bring on the 10% tax and the rich getting stung. Good times ahead
Davey Gravey wrote:And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back.
Tim Newroman wrote:Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
Davey Gravey wrote:Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.
Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.
Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid.
Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it.
I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.
All of this gave the illusion that people were well off and that the nation was doing well.
Sadly, all the money they borrowed and chucked at public services, including the NHS, failed to deliver any improvements - in many cases services got worse. Have you not been reading the woes of the NHS recently? Have you not seen how children are leaving our schools barely able to read and write? All of that 'investment' came to virtually nothing, and yet - especially via PFI - we will all be paying for it for generations.
Anyone can go out, get a massive loan and blow it all for the high life for a couple of years. The problem is then the 20 years it takes to pay it all back. Not only do you have no money to spend for decades, but you live on the breadline with only memories of your short period of 'wealth'. Of course, it's not wealth at all, it's other people's money that you now have to give back, many times over.
Gordon Brown ruined this country more than anyone other than Tony Blair. Both are now discredited to the point that Brown rarely even attends Parliament, despite still (somehow) being an MP.
You are correct that Labour will win the next election. They'll hammer the 'rich' (ie, successful) and will give out more money to their core voters (of which they created an additional few million by forcing them onto benefits).
The Left will revel in the nation being finally, once and for all, flushed down the toilet. You clearly share that delight.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:17am Mon 18 Feb 13
Empty Car Park wrote:Good to see you got a mention of Wi-Fi in. Shame that didn't help your lot back in May.
Tim Newroman says
It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well
It certainly doesn't.
Especially where the Conservative cabinet of our Tory led Swindon Borough Council are concerned.
Perpetually wasting money on grandiose dreams of wifi, dead end canals, and playing with the traffic (road junctions)
It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well
Overall, though, I actually agree with you on this: taxes should be lowered across the board. People have had enough of working hard only to have their money stolen from them and their families to be squandered on the nonsense that both local and national government seem hell bent on wasting our money on.
Let us decide for ourselves what we want to do with OUR money.
house on the hill
says...
1:47pm Mon 18 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson
says...
2:49pm Mon 18 Feb 13
The reason the Adult social care department was closed was because the staff were only delivering 25% of the agreed care hours.
The average per staff member was 8 hours per week.
Where other than the council can you find a job that gives you a full weeks pay for 8 hours work ?
That is why it all changed and we are the better for it.
If an example is needed of over manning and poor performance you need look no further.
As for re election, I am proud of what I did and care not what you may think about my chances if I decided to try again.
When this department had to close I was the person willing and able to do it and I would do it again if I had to.
sn5
says...
4:33pm Mon 18 Feb 13
Scott Thunes wrote:scott,
Peter Mallinson wrote:You have no idea what 'efficiently run services' are. You ruined Homecare by outsourcing it, and you know it. What time did the sacked workers finish on handover day eh? Shame on you. You will never be re-elected.
Davey Gravey,
When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.
Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.
This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.
As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
if you care about adult social care, try finding where sue bates & her side kick benfield are & ask them why, under them, adult social care (& education) were taken off the council!
itsamess3
says...
4:36pm Mon 18 Feb 13
The problem with your claim is that the Council still has to mantain some staff on services and pay heavily for the new suppliers at over the odds pricing--is that true?
Peter Mallinson
says...
6:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13
The department was budgeted for £1.3 million, this paid the weekly staff costs, but because of their low 25% output another £900,000 had to be paid to outside bodies to fulfill our statutary duties.
If the council staff had worked as per the contract their costs per hours would be £13 but they only produced 25% so the true costs for the council staff was £13 x 4.
The ouside agency costs to cover the shortfall were £900,000 @ £15 per hour.
This was a big saving.
This is what I mean by being efficient and having the courage to do what is necessary.
It is the duty of everone employed by the council to give a fair days work and it is the duty of managers and councillors to see this is done.
itsamess3
says...
7:06pm Mon 18 Feb 13
Well done Peter.
Empty Car Park
says...
10:04pm Mon 18 Feb 13
Just because someone points out that "your lot" continue to waste money, does not mean that person belongs to "the other lot"
house on the hill
says...
8:38am Tue 19 Feb 13
6:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13
No
The department was budgeted for £1.3 million, this paid the weekly staff costs, but because of their low 25% output another £900,000 had to be paid to outside bodies to fulfill our statutary duties.
If the council staff had worked as per the contract their costs per hours would be £13 but they only produced 25% so the true costs for the council staff was £13 x 4.
The ouside agency costs to cover the shortfall were £900,000 @ £15 per hour.
This was a big saving.
This is what I mean by being efficient and having the courage to do what is necessary.
It is the duty of everone employed by the council to give a fair days work and it is the duty of managers and councillors to see this is done.”"""
Couldnt agree more. Whilst there are a few in the council who do work hard (as there are lazy useless people in the private sector) but the numbers are very small. far too many are inept, lazy, complacent or know exactly what they are doing and do as little as they can get away with and bend all the "perks" of flexi time, mileage, sickness and being trusted to work away from the office to their limits and often beyond. Anyone who has come into the council from outside will tell you it is a complete shambles and could be run far more efficiently for far less money with the right people in the right jobs. And yes they do have a responsibility to deliver this to the tax payers who are required by law to pay for their services whether they receive good value for them or not. perfomance related pay for all council workers, get rid of Crapita, Swindle Cowboy Services and Backward Swindon and all the other consultants an non jobs and get managers to actually do the work they are paid for and you might stand a chance. Not holding breath!
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
6:09pm Tue 19 Feb 13
Absolutely.
Wiltshireman
says...
5:56am Wed 20 Feb 13
Peter Mallinson
says...
10:26am Wed 20 Feb 13
What is needed is good contract writing and very strict controls on performance.
This is something the council are not good at.
It all comes back to what is most efficient and value for money.
Taxpayers will never get efficiency by using council manpower directly to provide services.
house on the hill
says...
2:14pm Wed 20 Feb 13
The responsibility to provide services lies with the council and it should be down to them and them alone to provide it. Far too many jobs and resources have been lost from Swindon to our "partners" already and you can argue all you like that it saves us money, but that is a very narrow short term view. The loss to Swindon as a whole of those jobs and the money that would have been spent in and around Swindon by those employees coupled with the ones who are probably costing the tax payer money as a result of not having these jobs far outweighs whatever savings Crapita would have you believe they make. Sadly, the bigger picture is not something politicians are very good at, mainly because they dont have the time in post to see long term plans happen and have to look at short term fixes to make sure they get re elected which is usually their primary goal.
Peter Mallinson
says...
5:01pm Thu 21 Feb 13
Penalties should be there so that any failure to deliver on contract is immediately acted on, this is only as good as the people who monitor it.
How can a council monitor and penalies itself. Who will do it, the same department that fails to deliver?
stu2010 says...
12:34pm Sat 16 Feb 13