Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Jan 31 2012, 12:40 PM

In reference to http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=19065 would you prefer to pay a couple of pounds more per month to keep community services such as the Active Leisure Schemes, Domestic Abuse Service, Therapy Group's, Mencap and other youth and community services and events?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Jan 31 2012, 12:54 PM

Yes.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 31 2012, 12:58 PM

In principle yes but I am not sure that the council have looked everywhere for suitable cutbacks. The library trundles on like a huge dinosaur and from what I see of it is mainy serving as an internet cafe with bored people communicating with relatives in some far away place. All for free to them but not free for me as I have to fork out for the privelidge of keeping it going. The S106 library payments they keep asking for from developers could and should be spent on more needy causes.

Posted by: Blake Jan 31 2012, 02:52 PM

NO.

If one person asks for a few more pounds, so will many more.

The problem is, the state has grown far too big. The state needs to be rolled back. Doing so will also help pay down the deficit so it is a win-win.

I think we actually need much greater cuts if we have any hope of saving our economy from meltdown.

Posted by: Bloggo Jan 31 2012, 03:26 PM

No. Far too much of the money I have to pay in tax is wasted.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 31 2012, 04:11 PM

No. The groups mentioned are all far better off being wholly away from Local Goivernment.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jan 31 2012, 04:45 PM

Yes.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 31 2012, 04:49 PM

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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 31 2012, 05:21 PM

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.

Posted by: GMR Jan 31 2012, 05:26 PM

The trouble is that that few pounds a week will not go directly to our community services, but put into a pot and distributed across other areas. And where will it stop? Other services could have a legitimate claim in asking for a few extra pounds. Why don't we all just pay an extra £100 a month so every worthwhile organisation is covered? And while we are at it maybe we shouldn't forget those poor politicians and councillors who have struggle on their pittance? Duck moats anybody?

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: 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?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 31 2012, 06:53 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: xjay1337 Jan 31 2012, 08:37 PM

Here here. (except the Rover part)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 31 2012, 08:45 PM

Top tip: It's 'Hear, hear'!

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 1 2012, 08:42 AM

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.

Posted by: 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.

Did I get out of that one? You can tell I never go to those big rallies...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 1 2012, 09:39 AM

Technically, you should have written.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 1 2012, 10:34 AM

Spot on Bloggo!
Sort out the waste first.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 11:12 AM

How much and where is the waste? Is it cost effective to spend money sorting out that waste?

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 1 2012, 11:32 AM

Well I'm sure you are astute enough to identify where your tax money is being wasted but to give you a couple of examples for arguments sake how about our government sending aid funding to India when that country spends it's own money on nuclear weapons and a space program.
How about this countries benefits system being exploited by illegal immigrants and Health tourists.
It dosen't need to cost money to sort out waste, you just stop funding it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 11:40 AM

I can see the India one is an example, but what we the plebs don't know is what lies behind the 'deal'. It will cost money to stop benefits, but they might be costs that are not immediately obvious to us. There will be a social cost for a start and that social cost would impinge on our lives.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 1 2012, 11:41 AM

Examples of waste of taxpayers money are almost inexhaustible!
Where to start?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 12:03 PM

Just list your 3 'favourite' ones.

Of course there is waste, it is trying to identify the ones that can be removed without a cost that is the problem. As an example, there are people that don't need child benefit, but the cost of a fair system which excludes those people outweighs the gains.

Posted by: user23 Feb 1 2012, 12:32 PM

This thread seems to strayed somewhat off topic and people seem to be listing things they'd not like their tax money spent on nationally and internationally.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 1 2012, 12:50 PM

Spinoff.

1) The millions of pounds going to other countries when we have this deficiet...instead of paying 1bn a year to other countries for charities, why not cut tax of people in the lowest tax bracket..

2) People who are on 40-50k a year and still get child benefits...you have enough to live without them!!!

3) Cheese.

Posted by: Bloggo Feb 1 2012, 01:48 PM

Well two out of three aint bad.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 1 2012, 04:17 PM

Well http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1697&pid=54223&st=0&#entry54223 one for a start!

2 others?................... MP's expenses, "free" drugs for druggies.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 1 2012, 04:30 PM

I don't regard any of these as cutting waste. Waste to me is cutting a job done by two men that could be done by one. Letting allotments self-manage when we are currently paying £100,000.00 for them.

Cutting benefits, MPs exes, and 'free' drugs might have an initial cost saving, but have no doubt the saving will mean we 'lose' somewhere else.

Posted by: Sherlock Feb 2 2012, 01:38 PM

Just as a matter of interest, is there a breakdown of the £100K figure available here or somewhere else online?

Also, what are the arguments against handing management over to the users? Presumably there are some.

Seems astonishing to me that allotments should be costing us all £100K a year, particularly those of us who buy their fruit and veg from Fishers as nature intended.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 2 2012, 01:43 PM

£100,000.00 is an estimate, however; the council's stance is that they offer best value when all things are considered. Simon Kirby contests their view, but there has been a breakdown in trust between Simon and the council. The council will now refuse to engage in any meaningful dialogue with Simon.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 2 2012, 01:48 PM

Why don't WBC send out a form with the council tax notices that gives us a chance to donate to a local charity of our choice - a sum collected by WBC with the council tax and passed straight on the the charity each month.

Posted by: user23 Feb 2 2012, 07:15 PM

I agree. What's being suggested isn't waste, it's incorrect use of tax money.Why don't people who wish to just donate to the charity do so?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 2 2012, 07:59 PM

I'd say we do. Payroll giving, standing orders, JustGiving web site, donations on charity web sites - all methods that make it easy to support causes important to us. I don't understand the need to involve local government at all.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 4 2012, 10:48 AM

No reason. I just thought it would be a good opportunity for WBC to help and promote local charities at a time when they are struggling owing the WBC's cuts.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2012, 01:05 PM

Aren't we all! No reason why Charities can;'t be efficient and economic, indeed they've every reason to be so. We simply can't expect to continue doing some of the things the Council has had to cut - simply by transferring them to charities.

In all sectors of the economy, there has been waste and inefficiency - we need to put that right - the cold winds of recession do drive efficiencies; simple economic fact.

There are also other things that the Council did and Charities simply haven't the funds to take on - which means as a society we can no longer afford to do them. That is true of our own lives; the holiday cruse, the up range car etc. etc. Lesson to learn for the good times, which will come back - don't revert to the spendthrift days. Wise virgins and all that!

Posted by: blackdog Feb 4 2012, 02:19 PM

All I'm suggesting is that WBC do something to help local charites - that costs them next to nothing and costs nothing to anyone else who doesn't want to support any of the charities. What is so bad about that?

Nor am I suggesting that charities should take on former WBC responsibilities - just that WBC could do some small thing to help the charites to continue doing what the charities have been doing in the past.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 4 2012, 02:26 PM

It would cost though and it is not what they are there for. There's nothing "bad" about your suggestion, I just don't think it is appropriate.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2012, 03:21 PM

Wholly accept what you are saying. However, everything WBC does costs and there are hundreds of good ideas which would mean an expenditure of next to nothing, which when added together is quite large.

Take your suggestion - WBC could suggest charge payers pay a little extra with the community charge. Costs for that would be:-
1. Officer time to work out the scheme
2. IT costs to enable collection of monies and subsequent dispatch to charities
3. Audit and supervision.
Even if it was a flyer sent with the Community Charge bill and perhaps a reference on the web site - time and effort would still be needed. That equates to cost.

The local charities could do things to help themselves; which would involve volunteer labour. However, appeals direct are likely to be much more productive.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 4 2012, 03:54 PM

I accept that the scheme would involve some cost - everything does. One solution: costs are recouped from the charitable donations (ie WBC acting as chuggers - Blake will approve ).

As for the flyer idea - why not use up a bit of the space in the bumph they print to send out with council tax bills to promote the charities they have shafted this year? This is all going to be printed anyway - and there must be extraneous bits of WBC self congratulation that we could do without in order to make space for the charity promotions.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2012, 08:09 PM

See where you are coming from - that would be self financing. Wholly agree about replacing the self satisfaction pages with something that is worthwhile; again that would simply be redeploying existing 'officer time' to achieve tangible benefits.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 5 2012, 06:35 PM

Interesting to think that cost cutting from these community services only saves money today. The services they provide are essential to keep our community functioning correctly. If they stop doing their tasks then we will pay to pick up the mess tomorrow, it is likely to cost us more (both financially and as a functioning community) in the future.

It's like the old argument to stop children's community services as it's too expensive, where often the people who call for the cutting of their service also moan the bored children act antisocially outside their house.

Personally, I would be happy to pay more to keep things together and to know that there is support out there for all my friends, family and community.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 5 2012, 07:20 PM

How do you know that the grant funds essential services? I've not looked in detail at the other businesses, but as I understand it WBC contracts with Mencap to supply essential services and the grant is a small additional voluntary contribution and it's by no means clear to me what it pays for. How does that work then? If I buy a £150 washing machine from John Lewis I don't pay £150 and then bung them another £20 for the heck of it, and neitehr would John Lewis sell it to me for £120 and then tap up some other poor shopper for the remaining £30.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 5 2012, 08:35 PM

Interesting you think only paid-for centrally-provided services can deliver those requirements.

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 5 2012, 09:07 PM

I don't think that is the only option, but it is the best value for money. Imagine the cost of tendering for contracts, that cost is included in the final price for an awarded contract (and tendering is not cheap). Or perhaps imagine the reliance upon donation, how much of that donation will be re-spent on marketing just to ensure continued donations. There are a lot of efficiencies to be gained by our LA giving us the right resources based on local need and not commercial pressure.

Happy to hear of a more efficient alternative though.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 5 2012, 09:18 PM

You only referenced one element.....

The full-on voluntary sector has something to offer, at nil cost.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 6 2012, 01:31 PM

Sorry they are not essential to keep our community functioning correctly. They are only essential to maintain the status quo. Arguably, providing 'Children's Community Services' has not stopped problems of juvenile delinquency; indeed some would argue its got worse since the welfare state started. Neither has it stopped the cycle of depravation. The are alternatives - some seemingly unpalatable. However, they exist and history demonstrates that they work. Arguably, and yes, its by no means perfect, American society works just as well as ours, and in many ways better, without much central intervention in welfare.

The way we implemented the Welfare State created a dependency culture it also seems to have sapped the UK's spirit of enterprise - we always need a dad to do things.

Posted by: xjay1337 Feb 6 2012, 01:49 PM

Adrian, sorry my PMs aren't seeming to work (probably me having an "ID10T" moment), did you get anywhere regarding that RBC subsidy regarding their reduction of speed limits?
Cheers

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Feb 15 2012, 12:17 PM

.