We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Poll: Who Will You Be Voting For In The Next General Election?
Comments
-
Just a flavour (from a district council, so bin collections "ours", but potholes are county)
Leisure centres - cut
Public conveniences - cut
Tourist advice - cut
CAB - at risk
Yep, those are some things Councils could cut if they really had to. Many already have.
What else... evening classes, christmas lights, business advice services, cheap community centre hire for voluntary groups, CCTV and safety patrols, cycle paths, day centres for the elderly or disabled, supported work schemes for people with learning disabilities, support services for people quitting drugs, alcohol or smoking, home insulation grants, collection of large waste items, flower beds, school breakfasts, school buses, truancy officers, local newsletters, noise pollution enforcement, alcohol licensing enforcement, charity grants, library book purchases, local history centres, football pitches, playground equipment, firework displays, and youth councils.
I reckon legally a council could probably cut most of that lot. For a London Borough I think it would shave about 5% off the budget, so 15% off the council tax, call it £3 a week on average. The government would go spare, and a lot of people would be angry, but if anyone wants to stand as an Independent Taxpayer and see what happens, it might be interesting to find out.
It would also raise some costs for schools, the NHS, and the police, but hey, different organisation, different budget, pocket the cash and blame them for their rising costs...Hurrah, now I have more thankings than postings, cheers everyone!0 -
i totally agree, some people do have short memories and although the labour governement are not brilliant, the conservatives will be far worse should they get into power. they have done a lot more for pensioners, the working man and families than the conservatives ever did.
You're having a laugh!! Either that or you're not taking your Omega!
Pensioners are now living on a pittance under this government and have to choose between putting their heating on or paying the HIGHEST council tax in history!
The working men as you like to call them don't work! There's NO JOBS! Families are living beneath the poverty line and every single soul is suffering!
Where do you live? Under a stone?0 -
chris_spackman wrote: »With all that is going on we have to look at a few things.
Brown said no more boom and bust. Blair started a spending spree on troops and ammo for a war which very few wanted apart from a redneck in America.
Labour took on good books from the tories and have just ripped all the pages out and replaced it with dribble, debt and numbers people can not work out.
Trade unions have once again caused problems and the membership of these are going up so it won't be the credit crunch thats going to do us, it will be stikes when people are asked to take a pay cut, the same people who will go on strike are the same people who voted these waste of space in.
We pay too much to Scotland in health and education, fact. This needs to be stopped NOW. A drop in VAT is a joke. The council tax needs to be dropped to a fair price, councils need to save money and stop spending on complete !!!!. My council in Bournemouth spent £2m on adverts, £80k on an outside firm to help them save money when they pay someone £100k in house to do the same bloody thing. This is where money can be saved so we can not pay too much thus we have money to spend. What is going to happen to those who can not afford to pay things such as the TV License, another bloody tax or the council tax in full each month. MP's and those fat !!!!!! in town halls should have their (OUR BLOODY MONEY AGAIN)expenses stopped, i mean poor souls having to travel to and from work, what about me and the train fare increase etc? This country needs a radical sort out, declare it bankrupt, kick out all the waste and start again.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Terrible attitude to have.Matched betting profit since Feb 14th 2009: = £638.59
:www: Joint Savings for a house deposit - £3424.14 \ £10,000 (34% of target reached)
:starmod: Personal savings for insurance \ car \ holiday etc - £2765.63 \ £3000 (92% of optimal running balance)0 -
Pensioners are now living on a pittance under this government
For poor pensioners, the original point was fair.
The least a single pensioner on their own can get this year is £126 a week.
In 1996-7 the basic pension was £62.50 a week.
However much inflation there's been, prices haven't doubled overall.Hurrah, now I have more thankings than postings, cheers everyone!0 -
reduce the burden of reporting/compliance/continually changing dictat from central government and give the councils some independence.
Performance indicators - what an absolute waste of time and money:-
At best - promoting dishonesty in trying to meet them (e.g. bending A & E figures by moving patients into assessment wards or keeping them in ambulances).
At worst - utterly dangerous (e.g. targets for reducing numbers of vulnerable children on 'at risk' registers, leading to unsafe decision-making).0 -
MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »People in the north east where I live will vote Labour.They would vote labour if you put a monkey up for election.
Well it looks like they got exactly that then...0 -
Performance indicators - what an absolute waste of time and money:-
At best - promoting dishonesty in trying to meet them (e.g. bending A & E figures by moving patients into assessment wards or keeping them in ambulances).
At worst - utterly dangerous (e.g. targets for reducing numbers of vulnerable children on 'at risk' registers, leading to unsafe decision-making).
The Home Office did a big one at the start of the decade, and the ramifications are still being felt today.
As Carnwath LJ stated in the Court of Appeal:
On 1 January 2001 a new factor came into play. A "Public Service Agreement" (PSA) between the Home Office and the Treasury set a target requiring that 60% of applications lodged on or after 1 January 2001 should be decided within 60 days.
In order to meet the target, the Home Office decided to ignore all older asylum cases and only to decide new ones. The Court of Appeal decided this was an unlawful application of policy:
It is clear from Dr Mclean's evidence (as it has been from many cases coming before the courts) that the government was faced with a crisis in 2001, and it needed to take drastic measures to deal with it. Had those measures been based on a principled assessment of the issues and implications, no legal complaint could have been made. However, Dr McLean, fairly and frankly, makes no attempt to justify the decision in that way. On his evidence, the postponement of the old applications was an arbitrary decision, dictated only by the perceived need to meet the targets for dealing with new applications laid down by the agreement with the Treasury. In my view, that was unlawful, and (if it is necessary so to hold) an abuse of power....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0 -
We really had to.Yep, those are some things Councils could cut if they really had to. Many already have.What else... evening classes, christmas lights, business advice services, cheap community centre hire for voluntary groups, CCTV and safety patrols, cycle paths, day centres for the elderly or disabled, supported work schemes for people with learning disabilities, support services for people quitting drugs, alcohol or smoking, home insulation grants, collection of large waste items, flower beds, school breakfasts, school buses, truancy officers, local newsletters, noise pollution enforcement, alcohol licensing enforcement, charity grants, library book purchases, local history centres, football pitches, playground equipment, firework displays, and youth councils.
I reckon legally a council could probably cut most of that lot. For a London Borough I think it would shave about 5% off the budget, so 15% off the council tax, call it £3 a week on average. The government would go spare, and a lot of people would be angry, but if anyone wants to stand as an Independent Taxpayer and see what happens, it might be interesting to find out.
It would also raise some costs for schools, the NHS, and the police, but hey, different organisation, different budget, pocket the cash and blame them for their rising costs...
Absolutely. I agree that most of those services are valuable. They might not all be affordable, particularly if you do want all of them. The trouble is, as you say, people would cut them and then ask "why are we still paying so much?" - unaware of all the statutory stuff.
On which point - I'll get back to reading a weighty tome on cutting costs in our planning function in preparation for council tomorrow. Of course most people around here would want to do away with the whole thing, until:
1) no investment through section 106s
2) the government says "tough, you've got to build anyhow"
3) some chap builds a monstrosity but we've done away with the enforcement officer.
Incidentally, we also did some maths on relative cost of bin collection compared with some chap who was offering (elsewhere in the country) to do the "other" fortnightly collection, to allow people to pay to get an effective weekly collection. From memory, we (North Dorset DC) were a quarter of the price. There are economies of scale to be had.0 -
Performance indicators - what an absolute waste of time and money:-
At best - promoting dishonesty in trying to meet them (e.g. bending A & E figures by moving patients into assessment wards or keeping them in ambulances).
At worst - utterly dangerous (e.g. targets for reducing numbers of vulnerable children on 'at risk' registers, leading to unsafe decision-making).
We have had to let good people go from a team that was performing better than target, as that was a more palatable cost saving to try and invest in areas where we were under target. Sometimes that would make sense, but targets remove the judgement of local members/officers, often resulting in absurd behaviour.0 -
Incidentally, we also did some maths on relative cost of bin collection compared with some chap who was offering (elsewhere in the country) to do the "other" fortnightly collection, to allow people to pay to get an effective weekly collection..
In Camden, far from fortnightly rubbish collections, we get almost 2 a day....much enquiry having been made concerning a gentleman, who had quitted a company where Johnson was, and no information being obtained; at last Johnson observed, that 'he did not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but he believed the gentleman was an attorney'.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards