What a bunch of cuts, WBC's budget simulator Options

[blackdog]

So-long as they listen when they ask, al la the pavilion.

I would have thought the pavilion was a classic example of not listening. If they were listening they would have dropped the idea of building it on the park.

[Iommi]

I would have thought the pavilion was a classic example of not listening. If they were listening they would have dropped the idea of building it on the park.

I was being ironic...!

[Richard Garvie]

Where does the actual price paid become sufficiently clear on a corporate website to know the fee WBC paid?
Is it the only method of 'consultation', or just one of several (so those without 'puters are not disadvantaged)?

It is a bit of a weak tool for serious budgeting, but a reasonable way of letting people who 'know what to do' get an indication of the downsides to their point of view - which a written documents would struggle with. Also, assuming the license endures beyond the current exercise, maybe even £8k is not an OTT sum....

One of our members voiced concerns at the meeting on Tuesday night that an online only consultation is unfair. The council said that there are computers which can be used at the Library!!!

[Richard Garvie]

Wow, I see the results of the budget simulator are in already!!! 140 jobs and five day centres gone, with more cuts to be anounced over the next few days!!! Is that what everyone voted for???

Seriously, I agree with JayJay. The whole purpose of the simulator is to give the impression that people have had "their say", but the fact it is an online only consultation shows how serious the council are about input from the public.

[Guest_noobree_*]

Jeoff Brooks is complaining about the cuts, I see. Not sure what to make of this: surely libdems need to demonstrate solidarity with their coalition partners at all levels of government? Danny Alexander is one of the main knife wielders, after all. Can anyone clear up my confusion?

[Richard Garvie]

I'm glad Jeff is ok... not heard anything from anyone besides Tony Vickers of late!!!

In reality, I guess the ib Dems are trying to speak out as much as possible because they are trying to protect their share of the vote.

[blackdog]

I'm glad Jeff is ok... not heard anything from anyone besides Tony Vickers of late!!!

In reality, I guess the ib Dems are trying to speak out as much as possible because they are trying to protect their share of the vote.

Many Lib-Dems are unhappy with being in the coalition - at least Jeff Brooks' comment shows a little independence of thought (not something that is common from local Lib-Dems).

The trouble is that the cuts are going to happen - no local politician has any influence over that. So what we need to hear from Jeff Brooks is where he thinks the cuts should be made, not a transparent attempt to distance the local Lib-Dems from whatever cuts are decided.

So come on Jeff - show us what you would do if you were in charge in this situation, show us what we would be voting for if we put a cross alongside a Lib-Dem candidate's name in May. Give us some positive campaigning for a change.

[Guest_noobree_*]

Do you think they'll actually get a share of the vote next time around? Even Clegg is admitting he campaigned under false pretences in May:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ees-pledge.html

Cameron and Osbourne are playing this very well in my view. Everyone expected tories to cut and they come out of all this looking honest and straightforward while the muck sticks to Clegg, Cable and the rest. It would be surprising if this isn't reflected at a local level. The more that Brooks and co. shout 'Foul!' the more voters are likely to think, 'yes, you are'. I'm no politician, though, so am probably wrong.

[Richard Garvie]

I've just made some of my own suggestions to Newbury Sound about what Labour would do differently. I agree, we should be doing this cross party and looking into figures in detail. Because we really have an officer led council, no party will be claiming responsibility.

[Bofem]

Ah, thanks. Well I'm sure that it will be easy enough to save 25% of that. Many of the councillors - particularly the Conservative ones - seem pretty well heeled and I'm sure could easily manage without claiming their allowances. We really should be looking at reducing their numbers as well. I'm confident that's already being looked at - it's very popular elsewhere: http://goo.gl/6jsPA

We could get close to a 25% cut in expenses by swapping the cabinet model for a directly elected mayor.

Sadly, it looks like WBC have already ruled this out.....as none of us could be bothered (or didn't realise it was going on) to respond. Nice insight into establishment thinking though!

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgC...DF.aspx?ID=4296

Of course, it doesn't really matter. If we can get 8500 on a petition, WBC has to organise a referendum on a directly elected mayor. But who would be the Boris of West Berks?

[Richard Garvie]

The total amount we need to cut before the next general election is £33,320,000 apparently!!!

[Jayjay]

Wow, I see the results of the budget simulator are in already!!! 140 jobs and five day centres gone, with more cuts to be anounced over the next few days!!! Is that what everyone voted for???

The closure of five day centres used by the elderly and mentally/physically disabled, must be another misprint by NWN. David Cameron pledged, before and since becoming Prime Minister, that the cuts would not hit the most vunerable in our society, he wouldn't go back on that promise now would he?

[Guest_noobree_*]

The closure of five day centres used by the elderly and mentally/physically disabled, must be another misprint by NWN. David Cameron pledged, before and since becoming Prime Minister, that the cuts would not hit the most vunerable in our society, he wouldn't go back on that promise now would he?

It does seem quite astonishing that they have gone after these vulnerable groups (you left out youth services, incidentally, which are also hard hit) first. Perhaps they're hoping for an outcry after which they will say 'Ah yes, our mistake - we meant to close all the libraries and leisure centres and stop spending money on roads.

A cynic would say they're hitting those who have the quietest voices. We all know that 4x4 drivers and the chattering-class library users (but particularly 4x4 drivers) would scream blue murder if 'their' services were hit.

But to be honest it's not really like that, is it? Their problem is that education funding - overwhelmingly the largest spend - is pretty much ring fenced and what's left after that - as the summary accounts here show http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5803 are adult social care and tiddlers like culture and highways.

Oh well, it could be worse. A lot worse: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11735040

[On the edge]

Like it or not, the cuts ought to be quite a refresh and reinvigoration for the Council. For years we've been moaning about how overpaid and ineffective they are. Seriously; this should make the think leaner and keener. With some inspired leadership and some good management innovation thrives in such situations.

[Iommi]

Maybe, but end users will suffer as well, at least for the short term, if not longer.

[On the edge]

Maybe, but end users will suffer as well, at least for the short term, if not longer.

Yes, its usually the innocent. As the Evening standard said a few days ago - the only people hurt by the tube strike were those who were low paid and had to get to work or loose pay. That's what's always amazed me about Unison, the public service trades union. It must be the only union in the World that has managers as members! Those members are the very ones employed in senior local government positions chizelling away at pay rates for caretakers, helpers and the like. Unison then have the nerve to say they are fighting low pay - I should think so, their members cause it! The stark fact is there are many other ways to deliver decent public services at a lower overall cost. i.e. Do we really need an LEA when the schools are self governing? Is it really beyond imagination that the Red Cross or the WVS couldn't do much more for the elderly, melding voluntary and paid effort? Can't we let out much legal work on a case by case basis and let market forces dictate the price? and so on. That would mean we'd need Councillors with a bit of savvy - but they'd get accoutability and control back in return.

[Richard Garvie]

£33,320,000 is a lot of money to axe. Rather than take a good look at the whole council, they decide to axe services for the Vulnerable (where's Tony Vickers when you need him, hey?). So much for the budget simulator, it wasn't even active for 48 hours before they started slashing frontline services!!!

[Guest_noobree_*]

For years we've been moaning about how overpaid and ineffective they are.

Well, some people have been moaning and there's no doubt that they can sometimes be inefficient, but all organisations are like that. I'd single out Vodafone and Natwest as organisations which I deal with all the time but which can be horribly inefficient. Try using Vodafone's awful website, for example.

The main difference between local councils and corporations like Vodafone and Natwest and WBC is that I could, if I could be bothered, switch to different suppliers. I don't because in my experience all large corporations tend to be horribly inefficient. Much of the dissatisfaction with councils and other public services is due to the fact we can't switch between them or, by and large, choose which of their services we want to pay for and use. We get refuse collection, education, roads maintenance, control over local planning, libraries, care for the vulnerable and the rest whether we want them or not.

This monopoly position of public service suppliers is balanced by the fact that they are much more publicly accountable than private sector businesses.

I agree that some good could come out of the cuts as they'll force people to think differently and, if they have the opportunity to do so, innovate. But 28% cuts will drastically affect the level of services we receive - they go way beyond what can be achieved through efficiency savings and no amount of innovation will help. Imagine what Vodafone would have to do if it new its revenues would decrease by 28% over four years.

[Bofem]

The main difference between local councils and corporations like Vodafone and Natwest and WBC is that I could, if I could be bothered, switch to different suppliers. I don't because in my experience all large corporations tend to be horribly inefficient.

Agreed. Which is why merging councils won't work, but reproviding services at micro level and then abolishing them will. Shall we storm Market Street and start a coup?

[Richard Garvie]

Agreed. Which is why merging councils won't work, but reproviding services at micro level and then abolishing them will. Shall we storm Market Street and start a coup?

That made me smile!!!