Lambeth in a pickle over council posters

vivatifosi

AndyGuil wrote: »

That is a lot more efficient than it is run now, it would save money and could improve their output.

It's something the private sector has done for years. Integrate another business in under the same CEO. I do think that there is a point at which an organisation can get too big - the NHS for example must be a nightmare to run - but there must be an economy of scale in there somewhere. Maybe one CEO per circa 1m of population. There are currently about 30 London boroughs.

A._Badger

AndyGuil wrote: »

He is Labour...

To be deserving of an exceptional salary someone in this position must be exceptional themselves. If they are good at their job they shouldn't be taking a pay cut. Generally the issue is not how much someone gets paid it how much they contribute and add value and this is what warrants their salary. That is the question, are they good at their job and do they add value?

Oh, come off it! Damned nearly £270,000 for a town clerk?

As they once might have said in Lambeth - yer 'aving a larf.

ILW

AndyGuil wrote: »

He is Labour...

To be deserving of an exceptional salary someone in this position must be exceptional themselves. If they are good at their job they shouldn't be taking a pay cut. Generally the issue is not how much someone gets paid it how much they contribute and add value and this is what warrants their salary. That is the question, are they good at their job and do they add value?

It is Lambeth that is putting up posters asking for suggestions on which front line sevices they should cut. No mention of which management and admin functions could be cut.

A._Badger

ILW wrote: »

It is Lambeth that is putting up posters asking for suggestions on which front line sevices they should cut. No mention of which management and admin functions could be cut.

Nor the 'services' which few want and yet which are foisted on us by political campaigners, notably eco-loons, race, disability and gender hustlers.

How about better pothole filling, proper waste collection and open libraries, in place of street football co-ordinators, gay and lesbian outreach workers and five-a-day advocates?

And while we're at it, town clerks who earn £100,000 a year more than our prime minister (however clueless he may be).

Strange how it's a question never asked at election time, isn't it?

patman99

This all harks back to the 1980's when the then Govt. decided to sell-off all our public services as they cost more to run than they made in income.
Such near-sighted policies have left this once great country of ours in a position were we will always have a debt over our heads.

A far-sighted Govt. would have looked at each nationalised industry and made the neccessary changes to ensure that each part made a profit for the tax payer.

You should think yourself lucky you do not live in Colchester. The previous Tory administration held a vote about whether or not it should spend £14m on a new art centre. 80% voted 'no', so they built it anyway. The final cost will be £29m + £350k p/a subsidy from the tax payer.

A._Badger

patman99 wrote: »

This all harks back to the 1980's when the then Govt. decided to sell-off all our public services as they cost more to run than they made in income.
Such near-sighted policies have left this once great country of ours in a position were we will always have a debt over our heads.

Let me guess. You read that somewhere, didn't you?

It's barely credible that anyone who was a tax-paying adult during the 1960s and '70s could believe such twaddle.

patman99 wrote: »

A far-sighted Govt. would have looked at each nationalised industry and made the neccessary changes to ensure that each part made a profit for the tax payer.

Such as? The history of nationalised industries has been that they squander tax payers' money and only ever make a profit through monopolistic extortion.

Need I remind anyone about the horror that was Post Office Telephones? Or the disaster called British Leyland?

patman99

Strangely, France's nationalised energy company EDF is doing quite well, as are Renault (own 20% stake in Mitsubushi and Nissan and all of Honda). France Telecom (another nationalised industry) turns a nice profit thanks to it's aquisition of Orange and T-Mobile.

When it comes to taxes, there was a 'Tonight' program on 2 years back where they asked the question "Under which Govt. did you pay the highest taxes?. The Lab. Govt. of the '70s, the Con. Govt. of the '80s/'90s or the current Lab. Govt.?".
I guessed at option 1. Turns out that in reality the Lab. Govt in the '70s only took 33p in the pound of your earnings, whilst the Tories took an ave. 44p (at one point it hit 48p) and the last Lab. Govt. took just 36.7p. These figures take into account all the thinks you buy that are vat rated, your Council Tax, Car Tax etc.
It was quite an eye-opener.

michaels

Renault own Honda - if you say so.

And French consumers pay less for mobiles and energy than we do?

And personal taxes are much lower in France too I believe?

A._Badger

patman99 wrote: »

Strangely, France's nationalised energy company EDF is doing quite well, as are Renault (own 20% stake in Mitsubushi and Nissan and all of Honda). France Telecom (another nationalised industry) turns a nice profit thanks to it's aquisition of Orange and T-Mobile.

France's nationalised industries have been allowed by the EU to take outrageous advantage of the supposed rules on competition. They thrived and became cash-rich in just the protected monopolistic markets that I described and have been encouraged to scoop-up the foreign competition, which you have saved me the trouble of naming. With the exception of Honda which (mercifully) remains free of the dead hand of Renault. I'm not sure where you got that imaginary factoid from. The BBC, perhaps?


That is why you pay more for your electricity than the same companies charge their French customers.

This isn't a justification for nationalisation, it's (as if it were needed) an example of how France has manipulated the EU to its own advantage and our disadvantage.

Small wonder, It's one of the two reasons it was created.

Your taxation argument is so full of holes I could strain rice in it. We have a high tax rate now. Why? Because we are trying to repay the wreckage bill from a previous Labour government.

History repeats itself.

None of which has anything to do with Marxist Lambeth.

Running_Horse

There is a difference between trimming a little fat and real cuts.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/20/camden-n-j-facing-harder-times-with-police-fire-layoffs/

Now that's what you call real cuts. Very scary place.