Councils had Money In Icesave... doh! Millions!

PasturesNew

treliac wrote: »

What hopes now for a decent pay settlement :mad:

You already get £60/week more than somebody in the private sector - and £150 in pension.
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/08/11/47061/public-sector-staff-paid-more-than-private-sector-employees.html

And you're more likely to keep your job and have longer holidays and more bank holidays than those in the private sector.

Gorgeous_George

Is it time to assemble a Task Force and set sail for Iceland?

GG

mewbie_2

Just pondering - if these councils had all that money then instead of getting what 6% interest on it, why didn't they invest in building some social and affordable housing to rent out, instead of paying landlords hundreds of pounds a week for emergency housing.

The answer IMO is because they are generally clueless and nepotistic in the way they run their 'business'.

mr.broderick

mewbie wrote: »

Just pondering - if these councils had all that money then instead of getting what 6% interest on it, why didn't they invest in building some social and affordable housing to rent out, instead of paying landlords hundreds of pounds a week for emergency housing.

The answer IMO is because they are generally clueless and nepotistic in the way they run their 'business'.

I wonder if this will be used as an excuse to increase council tax.
Looks like our council didn't invest.

treliac

PasturesNew wrote: »

You already get £60/week more than somebody in the private sector - and £150 in pension.
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/08/11/47061/public-sector-staff-paid-more-than-private-sector-employees.html

And you're more likely to keep your job and have longer holidays and more bank holidays than those in the private sector.

Try telling that to, classroom assistants, dinner ladies, cleaners and the vast numbers at the bottom of the income pile. Most wouldn't recognise those figures quoted. The only high earners are those in senior management posts.

Jobs are often not secure, as mentioned in an earlier post.

Pensions - yes but OH is in a far better scheme than LGPS, working for a large retailer. Pensions used to be a benefit offered by many employers. It's not the fault of local govt employees that others have lost this option.

Denigration of council workers is a popular sport but frequently not based in reality.

olly300

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

Is it time to assemble a Task Force and set sail for Iceland?

GG

So we can get beaten by fishing vessels again?

Actually now they have a lot of Russians on their boats so we may have a chance.

lynzpower

mewbie wrote: »

Just pondering - if these councils had all that money then instead of getting what 6% interest on it, why didn't they invest in building some social and affordable housing to rent out, instead of paying landlords hundreds of pounds a week for emergency housing.

The answer IMO is because they are generally clueless and nepotistic in the way they run their 'business'.

No because they have to have a lot set aside for emergencies, as was discussed on the radio earlier today. I know from sitting on an emergency panel for social services in London, as to what money needs to be set aside in the eventuality of a major evacuation need given terrorism or chemicla warfare. A few years ago we were on red alert for this, and one of the things we needed to prepare for was how on earth we would if needed evacuate vulnerable residents, and thier care needs met, house them etc . Other LAs have to set aside cash for flooding and other major distasters.

mewbie_2

lynzpower wrote: »

No because they have to have a lot set aside for emergencies, as was discussed on the radio earlier today.

Hmmm.

Chemical warfare.
Terrorism.
Flooding.
Unspecified Emergencies.

Somewhere in that list could fit lack of affordable housing maybe. I do take your point, but I also understand they are sitting on millions / billions of pension investments. Maybe some of that money could be invested into housing which then provides an income through rent, and saving on the scam between councils and private landlords for emergency accomodation?

Please note I am not knocking the ordinary council employee, but I believe, just as goverment is rotten and incompetent through and through, so is the top tier of these authorities.

olly300

mewbie wrote: »

Just pondering - if these councils had all that money then instead of getting what 6% interest on it, why didn't they invest in building some social and affordable housing to rent out, instead of paying landlords hundreds of pounds a week for emergency housing.

The answer IMO is because they are generally clueless and nepotistic in the way they run their 'business'.

They also as I stated before get penalised for every property they build. Councils get money taking away from them by central government for every property they build to house local residents.

Central government doesn't want council housing in any form hence the bribes for council tenants to vote for HAs to take over their properties.

So whilst Wandsworth council goes on and on about the number of homes it's build it's Hidden Homes Scheme it has only developed about 230 properties.

lynzpower

olly300 wrote: »

They also as I stated before get penalised for every property they build. Councils get money taking away from them by central government for every property they build to house local residents.

Central government doesn't want council housing in any form hence the bribes for council tenants to vote for HAs to take over their properties.

So whilst Wandsworth council goes on and on about the number of homes it's build it's Hidden Homes Scheme it has only developed about 230 properties.

Totally.

The bottom line is that the legislation guiding LAs encourages/ forces the private sector to take on every non- stat role.