Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
Would you pay a few pounds a month to keep our community services?, West Berkshire Council unveils budget cuts |
|
|
|
Jan 31 2012, 04:49 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 31 2012, 04:22 PM) And the same 'faces' will soon be moaning when they start to see the results of such austerity. At least these 'minor deities' will be nice warm and cosy in their homes. Still we could always bring back the birch and hanging, it worked well in the past; crime free back then. I promise you I won't be and I've always practiced 'austerity' - commercial and domestic. The idea that the 'Good Samaritan' acutally had money is often scoffed at but true none the less. He also spent it on someone less fortunate. Another reason why we should throttle back on those extracting huge sums in bogus bonus payments, because in the UK at least philanthropy is a dying art. However, that does NOT mean the public sector have some responsibility to step in and take over. There is a dependancy culture in UK which we've only now started to address. Its rather ironic that if we can get to a position whereby most can look after themselves - the 'minor deities' will have to look elsewhere for their own satisfaction. They, of course, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2012, 05:21 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Jan 31 2012, 04:49 PM) Its rather ironic that if we can get to a position whereby most can look after themselves - the 'minor deities' will have to look elsewhere for their own satisfaction. They, of course, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Absolutely. If WBC is providing essential and obligatory services by grant-funding the suppliers then this is completely wrong. The tax-payer needs to see that the market for service provision is fair and that they are getting value for money, and this can only happen if the service providers tender for WBC contracts. A service contract is also essential for the supplier to be able to make meaningful financial plans, and grant-funding, which can be reduced at the whim of the council, is completely unacceptable. Alternatively, service users could be given personal budgets so that they can contract for their service directly in an open market, and suppliers can compete on price and quality. However, if WBC are grant-funding local companies when they aren't statutorily obliged to, then WTF? That's my tax, and I'm paying far too much already, so too right I want their grants cut. I don't have to justify to anyone what causes I personally support, and I don't want local government deciding what causes to support on my behalf. So no Adrian, I want to pay less tax, not more.
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2012, 06:33 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jan 31 2012, 05:21 PM) Alternatively, service users could be given personal budgets so that they can contract for their service directly in an open market, and suppliers can compete on price and quality. I see little proof that social services are more effectively provided by tendering the private sector. Cheaper yes, but often a drop in quality follows as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2012, 06:46 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 31 2012, 06:33 PM) I see little proof that social services are more effectively provided by tendering the private sector. Cheaper yes, but often a drop in quality follows as well. That's a somewhat broader issue. The issue at hand is where private companies are being grant-aided: if the company is providing an essential public service, is it better that it receives a discretionary grant or contractual payment, and if the latter is it better that it tenders for the contract or not. And if private companies that aren't providing essential public services are being grant-aided, how so?
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 31 2012, 06:53 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jan 31 2012, 06:46 PM) That's a somewhat broader issue. The issue at hand is where private companies are being grant-aided: if the company is providing an essential public service, is it better that it receives a discretionary grant or contractual payment, and if the latter is it better that it tenders for the contract or not. And if private companies that aren't providing essential public services are being grant-aided, how so? Agreed.
|
|
|
|
Guest_xjay1337_*
|
Jan 31 2012, 08:37 PM
|
Guests
|
QUOTE (Strafin @ Jan 31 2012, 05:49 PM) I pay out 10% of my salary on council tax already. I work full time, live in a crummy flat with only stand alone heaters, and only the bare essentials. I drive a 12 year old Rover and don't have Sky TV. I have had some nice holidays but only forked out for the flights as I am lucky enough to friends abroad. Everyone I know who are on benefits seem to do better than me financially and unless this issue gets addressed; I am happy to see every last member of the council or it's staff lose their jobs before I willingly put more money in. The Chief Exec is on way over £100k, our politicians both locally and nationally are creaming off obscene amounts of money, we chuck BILLIONS into the EU for little or no benefit and the bankers are still taking whatever they can. Here here. (except the Rover part)
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2012, 08:42 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41
|
QUOTE (Strafin @ Jan 31 2012, 05:49 PM) I pay out 10% of my salary on council tax already. I work full time, live in a crummy flat with only stand alone heaters, and only the bare essentials. I drive a 12 year old Rover and don't have Sky TV. I have had some nice holidays but only forked out for the flights as I am lucky enough to friends abroad. Everyone I know who are on benefits seem to do better than me financially and unless this issue gets addressed; I am happy to see every last member of the council or it's staff lose their jobs before I willingly put more money in. The Chief Exec is on way over £100k, our politicians both locally and nationally are creaming off obscene amounts of money, we chuck BILLIONS into the EU for little or no benefit and the bankers are still taking whatever they can. Not surprisingly I agree with the broad thrust of your post. There are too many people with their nose in the trough and until that is addressed I will resist any attempt to squeeze anymore tax from me.
--------------------
Bloggo
|
|
|
|
Guest_xjay1337_*
|
Feb 1 2012, 09:35 AM
|
Guests
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jan 31 2012, 08:45 PM) Top tip: It's 'Hear, hear'! But I didn't hear it as it was written word. Technically I should have wrote READ, READ. Did I get out of that one? You can tell I never go to those big rallies...
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2012, 09:39 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011
|
QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Feb 1 2012, 09:35 AM) But I didn't hear it as it was written word. Technically I should have wrote READ, READ. Technically, you should have written.
--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|