Jump to content

What do you want to cut?


Lexander
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do wonder who pays for policing under football games, conserts etc. Is it us the tax payer or is it the football clubs and consertvenue thath pays for it.

 

And why do we pay for constiuency office and there staff? Is it really good way to spend public money?

 

And do we really need over 600 members of parlement when countrys like norway which is a bigger country in size compare to the uk only got 167 members and the USA with a bigger population got about 400+. Do we really need thath many fat cats on the public pay rool?

 

And do we need street cleanners when we can have pepole on comminity service to do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do wonder who pays for policing under football games, conserts etc. Is it us the tax payer or is it the football clubs and consertvenue thath pays for it.

 

And why do we pay for constiuency office and there staff? Is it really good way to spend public money?

 

And do we really need over 600 members of parlement when countrys like norway which is a bigger country in size compare to the uk only got 167 members and the USA with a bigger population got about 400+. Do we really need thath many fat cats on the public pay rool?

 

And do we need street cleanners when we can have pepole on comminity service to do it?

 

I imagine that the public pay for it (re: the bit about footie matches & concerts), whether there's any mileage in clubs/venues paying for it themselves is debateable as I imagine many small venues would struggle to pay for policing as well as the cost of putting on the concert itself. It may be more feasible for big clubs/venues however.

 

As far as the street cleaning goes - I only see that working (if at all) in small cities/towns as I doubt there'd be enough people on community service sentences to adequately clean and maintain large cities like Birmingham, Leeds, London etc. I also don't see it working in smaller towns/cities with very low crime rates (such as York) or where the majority of crimes committed are not ones that get awarded community service sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Think if you walk in citys like Leeds London etc on s friday night you will see Litter allower the place why not give them a big fine and comminity service and i bet if the council was active they could esaly fine 1000 pepole with lets say 250 hr og community service. Thath is 250.000 hr and i bet thath will help on cleaning some streets. And discourage other pepole from littering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Think if you walk in citys like Leeds London etc on s friday night you will see Litter allower the place why not give them a big fine and comminity service and i bet if the council was active they could esaly fine 1000 pepole with lets say 250 hr og community service. Thath is 250.000 hr and i bet thath will help on cleaning some streets. And discourage other pepole from littering.

 

Ah, but how feasible is it to enforce that without having to recurit extra people to do so or without taking police or PCSO's away from the work they're doing already. If the cost of enforcing something like that in a city the size of Leeds (which has a population of 770,800 people*) means that either police/PCSO's are spending less time dealing with other forms of crime or that the police have to recruit more PCSO's to enforce it (and thus spend more money on recruitment and wages) - is it really worth it? I'd hazard a guess towards no, personally....and that's even before you get on to the issue of money lost to individuals and/or companies due to people not being able to work because they're on community service.

 

I agree that litter is a problem, but I do think that the community service idea is one that falls down when you get to areas with large urban populations. To my mind, a better solution would be to offer street cleaning work to those who have been on benefits long term at a rate that makes the work more profitable than staying on benefits and in a way that allows it to become part of a gateway to work scheme.

 

*This figure is for the total number of people that come under the Leeds city council area, the figure for Leeds as defined by it's city boundaries is 443,247 people - so not quite so many but still large enough to cause some hellish problems in terms of enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a cut but the gov should tax sugar. Too many folk suffer with the high intakes. Salt should be taxed too, too much hidden in food. Then it will cut obesity and heart attacks, them is the sorta cuts we need.

 

lorelei, tis easy, put a tax on excessive packaging, we have moved into a dire era where we now throw stuff rather than use it in another way.

I think Sainsburys is being taken to court for too many wrappers on stuff.

Local councils need to enforce the existing laws, the money recouped in fines and taxes will pay for additional labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that litter is a problem, but I do think that the community service idea is one that falls down when you get to areas with large urban populations. To my mind, a better solution would be to offer street cleaning work to those who have been on benefits long term at a rate that makes the work more profitable than staying on benefits and in a way that allows it to become part of a gateway to work scheme.

 

Couldn't aggree more Lorelei

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, try to do a risk assessment for folk, who don't want to be there, picking up rubbish by folk too drunk to know where they are.

 

It is an ideal but would add additional costs. There would need to be training, insurance, protective equipment and some sort of protection. Unless you get these folk up at the very wee hours. They will come across public.

 

The trouble is the attitude of us, the public and our expectations that someone else will do our dirty work.

 

In London some litter bins have been removed because of past terrorist activities.

 

And who would then pay when one of these folks get injured at work?

 

We should cut back on the cuts, make them sustainable. You think it is bad now, the gov will eventually cut 25% of the workforce, cutting your services. So there will be more unemployed to pick up the wealthier folks rubbish, cos they choose not to comply with common decency.

 

The public should cut back on expecting the councils to nanny them. Clear the snow from your own side streets and so on. Clear the leaves from the gully grate yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should cut back on the cuts, make them sustainable. You think it is bad now, the gov will eventually cut 25% of the workforce, cutting your services. So there will be more unemployed to pick up the wealthier folks rubbish, cos they choose not to comply with common decency.

 

The public should cut back on expecting the councils to nanny them. Clear the snow from your own side streets and so on. Clear the leaves from the gully grate yourself.

 

Yes & yes!

 

The former is the big reason I have issues with these cuts - they're not sustainable and in some cases are based entirely on ideology rather than economic fact.

 

As for the latter, I'm not sure how much of it is people expecting councils to nanny them. I agree with the examples you've given but what about refuse collection - should people take things to landfill themselves? There's a fine line between too much state and not enough...although I do wish that in terms of the snow stuff the Daily Fail would shut up with their lies that people will get sued for clearing the snow themselves :roll:

 

Oh and I agree about the packaging bit by the way - I've never understood UK supermarket's rather obsessive love affair with over packaging things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whn i loves in the USA some years ago i was caught dronning beer and since i was only 18 it was illigal so i hadde to pay a finde of 50$ and do 30 hr of community service and this was a big town with 100.000 pepole. You where given a list of aranged comunity service events. And you just hadde to show up sign on and do sone work. Nice and easy. I think it was only one person watching us. And i do belive it is posibel to have this in the uk but the maine part is to prevent pepole from breakig the laws in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CyprusPluto

I agree with cutting back on the paperwork, which may seem strange coming from a pen-pusher in the public sector.

 

Over many years the filling of forms to tell government officials what is going on has completely taken over the job. It's not even bordering on ridiculous now, it is ridiculous. We are all skilled people and generally paid well to do our jobs - please leave us to it. This would save a lot on money in the government head offices and free time of local officials to concentrate on running the business they work for. They would also probably need less of us.

 

I recall something similar in the mid-90's regarding cutbacks on administration in the public sector. What they did was get rid of the administrators, but not the administration. This meant non-admin staff had to do all the reporting, something they weren't trained for. The work took longer and was not done as effectivley.

 

Big Brother should stop watching. Saving money in local public bodies is not about getting rid of administrators alone, but about getting rid of unnecesary adminstration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top paid public servants are in the spotlight. Although they represent a very small percentage of the work force the Gov/ Primeminister have made it top priority sound bite.

Gordon Brown already reduced his salary by 40 grand, Cameron by another few to 142,000. This is just the tip of the iceberg. When the PM leaves the job he will get half his salary for life. Not really much of pay cut. He gets most of his living standards paid for.

If there is a problem, he will not go to prison, but the Chief Exec of a council and all council employees could.

Paper work needs to be cut but you still need to evidence assessments.

Failure to do this will put folk at risk, the elderly, young and mentally ill to name a few.

With CRB checks backlogging and folk not being confident in some of the results a better system is require, as long as efficiency does not compromise safety and the responsibility to the public.

But with the horrific cuts being imposed on us do you really want a lower caliber of manager on a cut back pay scheme to manage this? The lower wage would not attract those with experience.

These cuts would also be a backward step as far as Job Evaluation. Many councils have gone through this, with years of debate, investigation and mediation. This has cost millions upon millions to implement. It ensures that every employee are paid the same regardless of sex, race or creed, it also harmonises the pay throughout the different departments.

To start to alter folks pay, so soon after JE could be a very long and expensive task.

General Practitiones warned the GOV of meddeling with their contracts and told them it will cost more after their meddling, and it has.

 

Cutting a few top flight civil servants pay will not save core cash,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top paid public servants are in the spotlight. Although they represent a very small percentage of the work force the Gov/ Primeminister have made it top priority sound bite.

Gordon Brown already reduced his salary by 40 grand, Cameron by another few to 142,000. This is just the tip of the iceberg. When the PM leaves the job he will get half his salary for life. Not really much of pay cut. He gets most of his living standards paid for.

If there is a problem, he will not go to prison, but the Chief Exec of a council and all council employees could.

Paper work needs to be cut but you still need to evidence assessments.

Failure to do this will put folk at risk, the elderly, young and mentally ill to name a few.

With CRB checks backlogging and folk not being confident in some of the results a better system is require, as long as efficiency does not compromise safety and the responsibility to the public.

But with the horrific cuts being imposed on us do you really want a lower caliber of manager on a cut back pay scheme to manage this? The lower wage would not attract those with experience.

These cuts would also be a backward step as far as Job Evaluation. Many councils have gone through this, with years of debate, investigation and mediation. This has cost millions upon millions to implement. It ensures that every employee are paid the same regardless of sex, race or creed, it also harmonises the pay throughout the different departments.

To start to alter folks pay, so soon after JE could be a very long and expensive task.

General Practitiones warned the GOV of meddeling with their contracts and told them it will cost more after their meddling, and it has.

 

Cutting a few top flight civil servants pay will not save core cash,

 

Quite! And as you say, those public sector bods who are receiving huge salaries and/or huge bonuses are very much the minority....they're also the one who are least likely to end up jobless or have their standard of living particularly affected by these cuts.

 

Instead it'll be the person who has been trained to process your CRB check or the one who deals with your council tax enquiry who will either be forced out of their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25% of staff cuts, 100 manual workers become 75. 20 managers become 15 and so on, we need still to employ good management, the days of being satisfied with doing public service have gone. The rise in top flight pay in councils has matched the increases in the private. But private will pay (inc benefits) about 20% more, from what I have seen.

So, it is obvious that you could not just cut management.

You are obliged by law to do an impact assessment. Something the Fawcett Society ( www.fawcettsociety.org.uk )are taking the GOV to task for cos their cuts will hurt the already poor and women the most and have not balanced the cuts over all genres. Even today, with talks of cuts a relative of a politician has walked into a job with the civil service in an unusual manner.

But we need qualified, experienced and trustworthy folk to oversee the way GOV inc local works and works well for us.

I still think taxing sugar and salt will help, one way or another

 

 

Latest News on Fawcett's bid for a Judicial Review of the Budget

 

In August, the Fawcett Society filed papers with the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of the government's recent emergency budget.

 

Under equality laws, we believe the government should have assessed whether its budget proposals would increase or reduce inequality between women and men. Despite repeated requests, the Treasury have not provided any evidence that any such an assessment took place.

 

Even a top line assessment of the budget measures show 72 per cent of cuts will be met from women's income as opposed to 28 per cent from men's. This is because many of the cuts are to the benefits that more women than men rely on, and the changes to the tax system will benefit far more men than women.

 

We don’t yet know whether we’ve been granted a judicial review of the budget, but will keep this page up to date with the latest on the case.

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1177

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...