Labour in bid to save front-line services

Swindon Advertiser: Coun Jim Grant Coun Jim Grant

THE Labour group at Swindon Council is making a last-ditch bid to reallocate about £1m in the budget to save some front-line services.

It also aims to boost funding to tackle potholes and unemployment.

The group will table a motion to amend the Conservative administration’s budget proposals, which aim to plug a £15 budget gap, when full council meets to set the budget for 2013/14 at the Civic Offices, in Euclid Street, on Thursday, February 21.

The Conservative’s plans include £3.4m of savings from cutting about 100 council posts.

Labour plans to re-allocate about £1m by cutting senior management costs, consultants’ costs and the cost of councillors, using the money to increase spend in areas it considers a priority.

The party would reinstate £70,000 to the community transport fund, £190,000 to children’s centres, and £200,000 in bus subsidies. It also agrees with the Conservatives’ decision not to slash the £20,000 for Threshold Housing Link.

Labour would increase the road maintenance budget by £220,000, specifically to address potholes, boost the adult learning budget by £100,000 and add £100,000 to the Plan 500 budget for extra apprenticeships for youngsters.

The party would also use £100,000 to create a new council tax hardship fund to help households struggling as a result of changes to council tax benefit.

Labour group leader Coun Jim Grant said: “We don’t believe that it’s right that the council’s consultants budget increases while frontline services like social care, child protection, pothole filling and street cleaning are being cut back so dramatically.

“This budget amendment won’t be able to save every frontline service proposed to be cut and some might be disappointed that we have chosen to save another service rather than theirs.

“But we have prioritised those services that serve the town’s most vulnerable people and value for money services, like road resurfacing.”

Coun Grant acknowledged that Labour had not proposed to reverse the Conservative’s proposal to save £99,000 by reducing staffed opening hours at libraries, but said there was a limit to what could be credibly delivered.

Coun Rod Bluh, the council leader, accused Labour of dealing in headlines, not facts. He said: “I would think it’s a predictable, opportunistic budget. They’ve only amended £1m of the savings , they’re accepting £14m of our savings.”

Coun Stan Pajak, the Lib Dem group leader, said he would consider Labour’s plans but the group intended to table its own amendment, particularly around maintaining funding for Localities.

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:34pm Sat 16 Feb 13

stu2010 says...

Get the unemployed to fill the potholes in. Simples!
Get the unemployed to fill the potholes in. Simples! stu2010

12:39pm Sat 16 Feb 13

stu2010 says...

And another thing, during the snowfall several of us were digging our cars out so we could get to work to pay for the unemployed while the unemployed were tucked up in their beds. Now either we are mad or the country is totally F&%££% up, probably both! Rant over
And another thing, during the snowfall several of us were digging our cars out so we could get to work to pay for the unemployed while the unemployed were tucked up in their beds. Now either we are mad or the country is totally F&%££% up, probably both! Rant over stu2010

12:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Localboy86 says...

You sure the bloke in the photo is a jim, looks more like that blog Reg who ran the supermarket in coronation street a few years back
You sure the bloke in the photo is a jim, looks more like that blog Reg who ran the supermarket in coronation street a few years back Localboy86

12:59pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Localboy86 says...

*bloke
*bloke Localboy86

1:46pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Hmmmf says...

So the Labour "group will table a motion to amend the Conservative administration’s budget proposals, which aim to plug a £15 budget gap..."

Big of 'em. Can't Jim just borrow the fifteen quid and just add it to the billions in debt Brown ran up?
So the Labour "group will table a motion to amend the Conservative administration’s budget proposals, which aim to plug a £15 budget gap..." Big of 'em. Can't Jim just borrow the fifteen quid and just add it to the billions in debt Brown ran up? Hmmmf

2:52pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Would Jim Grant and the local Labour group agree that, in these tough times, it is now the right and proper thing to do to cease the taxpayer having their money handed to the two local Unison 'officials'?

That would immediately free up £30,000 towards those all important front line services for the vulnerable.
Would Jim Grant and the local Labour group agree that, in these tough times, it is now the right and proper thing to do to cease the taxpayer having their money handed to the two local Unison 'officials'? [p] That would immediately free up £30,000 towards those all important front line services for the vulnerable. Tim Newroman

3:23pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Looks the right thing to do to me. Cutting costs elsewhere to preserve public services. The Tories destruction of public services needs to stop. Roll on election time where they will get trounced.
Looks the right thing to do to me. Cutting costs elsewhere to preserve public services. The Tories destruction of public services needs to stop. Roll on election time where they will get trounced. Davey Gravey

3:33pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

There are front line services and there are jobs, saving jobs does not mean saving services.

Cutting the union jobs immediately is sensible. They do not provide any service to the public, they act as consultants to their members.

The Labour party bang on about consultants, so lets see a couple of them go.
There are front line services and there are jobs, saving jobs does not mean saving services. Cutting the union jobs immediately is sensible. They do not provide any service to the public, they act as consultants to their members. The Labour party bang on about consultants, so lets see a couple of them go. Peter Mallinson

3:59pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Hangbrownhigh says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Looks the right thing to do to me. Cutting costs elsewhere to preserve public services. The Tories destruction of public services needs to stop. Roll on election time where they will get trounced.
Prime ****.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Looks the right thing to do to me. Cutting costs elsewhere to preserve public services. The Tories destruction of public services needs to stop. Roll on election time where they will get trounced.[/p][/quote]Prime ****. Hangbrownhigh

4:10pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Peter Mallinson wrote:
There are front line services and there are jobs, saving jobs does not mean saving services. Cutting the union jobs immediately is sensible. They do not provide any service to the public, they act as consultants to their members. The Labour party bang on about consultants, so lets see a couple of them go.
How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?
[quote][p][bold]Peter Mallinson[/bold] wrote: There are front line services and there are jobs, saving jobs does not mean saving services. Cutting the union jobs immediately is sensible. They do not provide any service to the public, they act as consultants to their members. The Labour party bang on about consultants, so lets see a couple of them go.[/p][/quote]How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services? Davey Gravey

5:16pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

Jim Grants Labour party should be judged on its actions, not on his words:

http://swindonlabour
check.com/index.php/
42-2/

http://swindonlabour
check.com/index.php/
42-2/

Leave it for reader to decide.
Jim Grants Labour party should be judged on its actions, not on his words: http://swindonlabour check.com/index.php/ 42-2/ http://swindonlabour check.com/index.php/ 42-2/ Leave it for reader to decide. Oliver_Donachie

5:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

The above data leads to one simply conclusion, when last faced with a similar task the then Labour party raised council tax nearly 50% and still could not manage to get rated as anything but "failing".

Why does Mr Grant feel the need to lecture anyone on budgets?
The above data leads to one simply conclusion, when last faced with a similar task the then Labour party raised council tax nearly 50% and still could not manage to get rated as anything but "failing". Why does Mr Grant feel the need to lecture anyone on budgets? Oliver_Donachie

5:42pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
@ Oliver A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway. What is wrong with what Labour are proposing? Davey Gravey

5:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

Are you saying that the "Independent Audit Commission" is a biased anti Labour site?

Perhaps it will sound better coming from them directly?

http://archive.audit
-commission.gov.uk/a
uditcommission/press
office/pressreleases
/Pages/swindonboroug
hcouncilhasundergone
aradicaltransformati
on.aspx.html

The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.

So the situation is simple, you can either listen to:

A: A party who has repeatedly frozen council tax whilst raising our standards from "failing" to good or excellent.

OR

B: A party who's budgetary and services planning was so dire central government threatened to put them into administration.

Who do you listen to?
Are you saying that the "Independent Audit Commission" is a biased anti Labour site? Perhaps it will sound better coming from them directly? http://archive.audit -commission.gov.uk/a uditcommission/press office/pressreleases /Pages/swindonboroug hcouncilhasundergone aradicaltransformati on.aspx.html The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country. So the situation is simple, you can either listen to: A: A party who has repeatedly frozen council tax whilst raising our standards from "failing" to good or excellent. OR B: A party who's budgetary and services planning was so dire central government threatened to put them into administration. Who do you listen to? Oliver_Donachie

6:13pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Those links I read which you put up are clearly anti Labour. The site seems to have everything set up to be critical of them. Fair enough but biased in my opinion. Frozen council tax whilst cutting services doesn't make it good value. Tax payers are getting less and less for their money. What is wrong with Labour's proposals in this article?
Those links I read which you put up are clearly anti Labour. The site seems to have everything set up to be critical of them. Fair enough but biased in my opinion. Frozen council tax whilst cutting services doesn't make it good value. Tax payers are getting less and less for their money. What is wrong with Labour's proposals in this article? Davey Gravey

6:19pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

Oliver Donachie says
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.
Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is not because of some selected ancient numbers.

Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member.

Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably,

Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)
Oliver Donachie says [qoute] The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country. [/quote] Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is [bold] not [/bold] because of some selected [bold] ancient [/bold] numbers. [bold] Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member. [/bold] Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably, Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-) Empty Car Park

6:21pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

Oliver Donachie says
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.

Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is not because of some selected ancient numbers.

Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member.

Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably,

Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)
Oliver Donachie says [quote] The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country. [/quote] Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is [bold] not [/bold] because of some selected [bold] ancient [/bold] numbers. [bold] Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member. [/bold] Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably, Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-) Empty Car Park

6:35pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

Davey, my key points are:

1: They have frozen council tax whilst also finding 15 Million pounds of savings, whatever your political leanings that in itself deserves merit.

2: The Conservative council is clearly doing something right if it is able to simultaneously, freeze council tax for years, raise the quality of our town in annual audits, and save tens of millions in operational costs.

3: Mr Grants proposals would make a minor amendment to the existing 15 Million the Conservative council has already identified, although welcome, this does show the difference in approach between the Labour party who have shown a history of taxing the people of Swindon to tackle this kind of problem and the Conservatives who are a party of low taxation and have shown this through year on year council tax freezes.
Davey, my key points are: 1: They have frozen council tax whilst also finding 15 Million pounds of savings, whatever your political leanings that in itself deserves merit. 2: The Conservative council is clearly doing something right if it is able to simultaneously, freeze council tax for years, raise the quality of our town in annual audits, and save tens of millions in operational costs. 3: Mr Grants proposals would make a minor amendment to the existing 15 Million the Conservative council has already identified, although welcome, this does show the difference in approach between the Labour party who have shown a history of taxing the people of Swindon to tackle this kind of problem and the Conservatives who are a party of low taxation and have shown this through year on year council tax freezes. Oliver_Donachie

6:58pm Sat 16 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Maybe I'm missing something in the numbers.

Tories are aiming to save 3.4million by cutting 100 posts.

Labour are looking at reallocating 1million by cutting senior management "costs" and reducing consultancy spend.

Assuming that the 3.4 million from the Tories is a genuine saving required to meet the black hole, how the hell are labour addressing that by moving money around, but not saving anything.


They are not talking about the same thing and once again Labour are avoiding the requirement to fill a funding black hole.

Where have we seen that before....!
Maybe I'm missing something in the numbers. Tories are aiming to save 3.4million by cutting 100 posts. Labour are looking at reallocating 1million by cutting senior management "costs" and reducing consultancy spend. Assuming that the 3.4 million from the Tories is a genuine saving required to meet the black hole, how the hell are labour addressing that by moving money around, but not saving anything. They are not talking about the same thing and once again Labour are avoiding the requirement to fill a funding black hole. Where have we seen that before....! LordAshOfTheBrake

7:01pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Oliver Donachie says
The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country.

Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is not because of some selected ancient numbers.

Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member.

Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably,

Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)
I see you have 0 comments about the nature of the article itself, so I am not sure what you are trying to add, but to answer the points you make.

1: The figures are not ancient, many Labour Councillors who oversaw the disastrous mismanagement of our town are still in exactly the same seats today, although you would expect a mass resignation over such a high profile event as a town nearly being put into administration.

2: What Labour takeover? They remain in the minority because the people of Swindon continue to reject the nature of the politics they run and have done for nearly a decade.

3: The only concern to me and my family about Labour "taking over" the council (if it ever happened) would be to have to live through another catastrophic raise in council tax and presumably a return to a failing rating within audits.

4: I was delighted to have stood against the leader of the Labour party, my only surprise was that as a novice in the Labour "stronghold" of Swindon up against people who had been in the seat for decades I managed to secure 850+ votes largely off the back of the residents who feel utter apathy at the "service" they receive from their Labour Councillors.

5: I am Oliver Donachie, I have and use one login, it is called Oliver Donachie.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Oliver Donachie says [quote] The reason I have a huge degree of skepticism regarding anything the Labour party in Swindon has to say is because the last time they controlled the budget the every Swindon council tax payer saw his or her bills rise nearly 50% whilst they oversaw our town being rated on of the 13 worse in the entire country. [/quote] Surely your main concern regarding a Labour takeover of the council is [bold] not [/bold] because of some selected [bold] ancient [/bold] numbers. [bold] Surely your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently s conservative cabinet member. [/bold] Plus you hope that your comments on here might help your next personal election attempt as your last one failed so miserably, Must be time for Tim Newroman again ;-)[/p][/quote]I see you have 0 comments about the nature of the article itself, so I am not sure what you are trying to add, but to answer the points you make. 1: The figures are not ancient, many Labour Councillors who oversaw the disastrous mismanagement of our town are still in exactly the same seats today, although you would expect a mass resignation over such a high profile event as a town nearly being put into administration. 2: What Labour takeover? They remain in the minority because the people of Swindon continue to reject the nature of the politics they run and have done for nearly a decade. 3: The only concern to me and my family about Labour "taking over" the council (if it ever happened) would be to have to live through another catastrophic raise in council tax and presumably a return to a failing rating within audits. 4: I was delighted to have stood against the leader of the Labour party, my only surprise was that as a novice in the Labour "stronghold" of Swindon up against people who had been in the seat for decades I managed to secure 850+ votes largely off the back of the residents who feel utter apathy at the "service" they receive from their Labour Councillors. 5: I am Oliver Donachie, I have and use one login, it is called Oliver Donachie. Oliver_Donachie

7:04pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

So in summary...
Your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently a conservative cabinet member.
So in summary... Your main concern of a Labour takeover of the councils is that your wife is currently a conservative cabinet member. Empty Car Park

7:17pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Morsey says...

"Disastrous mismanagement of our town!" Now that's made me laugh!

So what would you call the state of play under Tory control as everything has been cut and cut again and services have failed miserably?

All this bull about the previous Labour administration upping Council Tax to help finance the statutory authority and pay pensions to former county employees, plus collect the necessary funds, which the Tories spent on the library ... yes that's right, you want, they finance, but then it is used as a political football.

THE BIGGEST LAUGH IS THAT THE TORY COUNCIL HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN IN THE SH1T EVEN WITH THE LABOUR INCREASES IN COUNCIL TAX TAKEN EVERY YEAR, WHICH THE TORIES SAID WAS NOT REQUIRED!!! And, they still bring it out in so many posts ... the excuse had no grounds and displays a certain naivity ... any votes given to a Tory will always bring the same ways of running the show ... Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts ..... but where can they strike next, nothing is safe as long as the cuts don't hurt their followers!
"Disastrous mismanagement of our town!" Now that's made me laugh! So what would you call the state of play under Tory control as everything has been cut and cut again and services have failed miserably? All this bull about the previous Labour administration upping Council Tax to help finance the statutory authority and pay pensions to former county employees, plus collect the necessary funds, which the Tories spent on the library ... yes that's right, you want, they finance, but then it is used as a political football. THE BIGGEST LAUGH IS THAT THE TORY COUNCIL HAVE CONTINUALLY BEEN IN THE SH1T EVEN WITH THE LABOUR INCREASES IN COUNCIL TAX TAKEN EVERY YEAR, WHICH THE TORIES SAID WAS NOT REQUIRED!!! And, they still bring it out in so many posts ... the excuse had no grounds and displays a certain naivity ... any votes given to a Tory will always bring the same ways of running the show ... Cuts, cuts, cuts, cuts ..... but where can they strike next, nothing is safe as long as the cuts don't hurt their followers! Morsey

7:27pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Morsey says...

I did, of course mean Unitary Authority, to give it the correct title!
I did, of course mean Unitary Authority, to give it the correct title! Morsey

7:35pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

Morsey, you may have a broken caps lock...

You have an opinion that services are bad under Conservatives.

I have an opinion that services are bad under Labour.

We are not going to agree, but thats fine because we have an answer in the form of the independent Audit Commission so you and I do not have to argue about it, the facts they have presented are absolutely crystal clear:

Labour raised council tax by 43% they had a rating of 0 (failing)

Conservatives have frozen council tax they have a rating of 2 (good)

That is the facts of the situation. Not mine, not yours, the audit commission. The people who are paid to deliver just facts not opinion.

With regards to the wider point about cuts, I am sure that the Conservatives would love to be swimming in money but the simple fact is after the Labour government accrued 1.1 TRILLION pounds of debt and sold off virtually all our gold reserves at all time record lows we the nation have no money left.

Again dont take my word on the above go and research it from independent sources, you will get exactly the same facts every time.

That leaves us with one inescapable conclusion, the Council has to cut or tax.

If you have any other proposals I would genuinely like to hear them.
Morsey, you may have a broken caps lock... You have an opinion that services are bad under Conservatives. I have an opinion that services are bad under Labour. We are not going to agree, but thats fine because we have an answer in the form of the independent Audit Commission so you and I do not have to argue about it, the facts they have presented are absolutely crystal clear: Labour raised council tax by 43% they had a rating of 0 (failing) Conservatives have frozen council tax they have a rating of 2 (good) That is the facts of the situation. Not mine, not yours, the audit commission. The people who are paid to deliver just facts not opinion. With regards to the wider point about cuts, I am sure that the Conservatives would love to be swimming in money but the simple fact is after the Labour government accrued 1.1 TRILLION pounds of debt and sold off virtually all our gold reserves at all time record lows we the nation have no money left. Again dont take my word on the above go and research it from independent sources, you will get exactly the same facts every time. That leaves us with one inescapable conclusion, the Council has to cut or tax. If you have any other proposals I would genuinely like to hear them. Oliver_Donachie

7:52pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

It's a good job the Conservatives are so efficient with our money.

Not as if they'd waste it on wifi, feasability studies for dead end ditches, pointless inefficient road alterations, overpriced giant patios, etc

Oh wait a minute...
They do

I still suspect your main concern for a Labour takeover of SBC is that your wife is currently a conservative cabinet member of the council
It's a good job the Conservatives are so efficient with our money. Not as if they'd waste it on wifi, feasability studies for dead end ditches, pointless inefficient road alterations, overpriced giant patios, etc Oh wait a minute... [Bold] They do [/bold] I still suspect your main concern for a Labour takeover of SBC is that [bold] your wife is currently a conservative cabinet member of the council [/bold] Empty Car Park

8:14pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?"

The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service.

If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower.

In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.
Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?" The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service. If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower. In private industry no one would carry excess manpower. Peter Mallinson

8:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

"Empty"

Can you please calculate the cost of the Labour parties rise in council tax by 43% to the nearest Million vs the cost of everything you raise above?

Once you do, you have my answer.

To repeat my key point from another other threads you keep spamming in a desperate attempt to divert attention to anything other than an analysis of Labours mismanagement of Swindon.

"I am not entirely sure what my partner having being anything to do with politics has on this discussion Swindon, but as you seem so energetic I am happy to point out how silly you are, a few facts:

1: In my house my entire family was raised to think independently of each other meaning we are more than welcome to talk about anything we wish in any manner we wish, I appreciate this may be different in your home and differ from how you were raised.

2: I do not have a wife. I am not married.

3: My partner is not on the Council.

Can the grown ups continue to talk about budgets now?"
"Empty" Can you please calculate the cost of the Labour parties rise in council tax by 43% to the nearest Million vs the cost of everything you raise above? Once you do, you have my answer. To repeat my key point from another other threads you keep spamming in a desperate attempt to divert attention to anything other than an analysis of Labours mismanagement of Swindon. "I am not entirely sure what my partner having being anything to do with politics has on this discussion Swindon, but as you seem so energetic I am happy to point out how silly you are, a few facts: 1: In my house my entire family was raised to think independently of each other meaning we are more than welcome to talk about anything we wish in any manner we wish, I appreciate this may be different in your home and differ from how you were raised. 2: I do not have a wife. I am not married. 3: My partner is not on the Council. Can the grown ups continue to talk about budgets now?" Oliver_Donachie

8:32pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

I do apologise.

I didn't realise your partner had left or been removed from Swindon Bourough Council

That must be very recent
I do apologise. I didn't realise your partner had left or been removed from Swindon Bourough Council That must be very recent Empty Car Park

8:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
I do apologise.

I didn't realise your partner had left or been removed from Swindon Bourough Council

That must be very recent
My partner is a Councillor.
Some Councillors are selected to be on the Swindon Council cabinet.
My partner has never been on Council cabinet and can therefore not leave it or be removed from it.

Can the grown ups continue to talk about budgets now?
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: I do apologise. I didn't realise your partner had left or been removed from Swindon Bourough Council That must be very recent[/p][/quote]My partner is a Councillor. Some Councillors are selected to be on the Swindon Council cabinet. My partner has never been on Council cabinet and can therefore not leave it or be removed from it. Can the grown ups continue to talk about budgets now? Oliver_Donachie

9:10pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

*The above being in reference to your completely ill informed and totally inaccurate accusation that:

"I still feel that the main objective of your sudden surge of input is that your wife is a conservative cabinet member on the council."

Would it not be more constructive to discuss the 43% Labour council tax rise in comparison to the Conservative tax freeze as opposed to trying to spread disinformation in an attempt to create a smokescreen from Labours factual shameful legacy?
*The above being in reference to your completely ill informed and totally inaccurate accusation that: "I still feel that the main objective of your sudden surge of input is that your wife is a conservative cabinet member on the council." Would it not be more constructive to discuss the 43% Labour council tax rise in comparison to the Conservative tax freeze as opposed to trying to spread disinformation in an attempt to create a smokescreen from Labours factual shameful legacy? Oliver_Donachie

9:14pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

Oliver_Donachie says...
8:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13
3: My partner is not on the Council.


Oliver_Donachie says...
8:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13
My partner is a Councillor


Is this another pedantic grammar correction.
I get plenty of those from Tim Newroman :-)
Oliver_Donachie says... 8:18pm Sat 16 Feb 13 [quote] 3: My partner is not on the Council. [/quote] Oliver_Donachie says... 8:48pm Sat 16 Feb 13 [quote] My partner is a Councillor [/quote] Is this another pedantic grammar correction. I get plenty of those from Tim Newroman :-) Empty Car Park

9:19pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Oliver_Donachie says...

I see the confusion.

You assert my partner is a cabinet member in your previous. I responded and missed "cabinet" at the end of the post.

My apologies.

To confirm however, the assertion you make that my partner is a cabinet member is entirely false in the first instance.
I see the confusion. You assert my partner is a cabinet member in your previous. I responded and missed "cabinet" at the end of the post. My apologies. To confirm however, the assertion you make that my partner is a cabinet member is entirely false in the first instance. Oliver_Donachie

9:30pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Peter Mallinson wrote:
Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?"

The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service.

If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower.

In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.
Trouble being that job cuts heap unrealistic workloads onto those left who then struggle, so the services decline. It's not managed properly so doesn't work but a good idea in theory.
[quote][p][bold]Peter Mallinson[/bold] wrote: Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?" The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service. If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower. In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.[/p][/quote]Trouble being that job cuts heap unrealistic workloads onto those left who then struggle, so the services decline. It's not managed properly so doesn't work but a good idea in theory. Davey Gravey

11:34am Sun 17 Feb 13

TinkeyWinkey says...

Today we are looking through the Round Window!!!


Every week it's job losses or cuts in budgets or services. Personally I don't think we've heard the end of SBC's cuts around the Borough. If it's not more job losses you can bet your bottom dollar something else is going to go.
Today we are looking through the Round Window!!! Every week it's job losses or cuts in budgets or services. Personally I don't think we've heard the end of SBC's cuts around the Borough. If it's not more job losses you can bet your bottom dollar something else is going to go. TinkeyWinkey

3:52pm Sun 17 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

"""""Peter Mallinson says

Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?"

The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service.

If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower.

In private industry no one would carry excess manpower.""""

Very true and you have hit the nail firmly on the head. One of the main reasons that services are having to be cut is the sheer inefficiency of the council red or blue. If you employ 4 people to do the work of one person, 3 to make the tea while the other one actually does the work, then you can get rid of 2 of them, have the other one not doing anything actually work and you have saved money and increased services.

There are 3 sets of people in Swindon, those who have never worked at the council, they may have friends there or have read a few things but have no real first hand experience of what really goes on. The second set are those who have only worked at the council or other councils and have no experience of a competitive customer driven environment who think complacency is the norm and having a final salary pension which at today's rates costs the employer in excess of 15 percent of their salary, 30 days leave, 6 months on full sick pay and never having heard of performance related pay is how it all works and they have never experienced the workloads and pressure of the private sector. There are some ho truly believe they wok hard and o a good job, because they know no different.
The third group are those who came from the private sector to the council nod couldn't believe their eyes when they see the inefficiency, the waste, the general complacency, staff making errors again and again with no consequences, managers spending more time in endless meetings than actually doing nothing productive usally with the same people talking about the same things again and again. Endless sickness, coffee drinking, chatting etc, managers who have no idea where their staff are and vice versa. Staff who are not where they are supposed to be and get away with it again and again with no Come back from inept managers scared of their own shadows.

You may think that is a joke but sadly as many in this town know it isn't. The real problem is the inefficient way the council is run. How many other businesses would have 115 out of 1500 staff on over £50k ad many mone on over £30k with little on no real responsibility. Yes you can blame politics and that will always have an effect, but the underlying workforce, most of whom wouldn't last more than a week in the private sector (as evidenced by the number that come back and get their old jobs back after failing outside in the real world and yes I kid you not).

This council could shed jobs if they picked the right people to get rid of and actually be more efficient! Bring in proper managers who know what they are doing and do away with consultants who are mostly employed to cover up the fact most managers can't do the jobs they are paid for, introure performsnce relstedbpaybto reflect the responsibilty the council has to spend our money efficiently and get rid of the profit driven partners who haemorrhage our money and jobs that they take out of Swindon, and run an efficient value for money service. Oh no, that pig has just Flown past the window again!!!
"""""Peter Mallinson says Davey Gravey asks "How does saving jobs that provide a service not save services?" The answer is simple, overstaffing costs extra with no increase in service. If the number of jobs in any department is kept to the minimum required then that is the most efficient use of manpower. In private industry no one would carry excess manpower."""" Very true and you have hit the nail firmly on the head. One of the main reasons that services are having to be cut is the sheer inefficiency of the council red or blue. If you employ 4 people to do the work of one person, 3 to make the tea while the other one actually does the work, then you can get rid of 2 of them, have the other one not doing anything actually work and you have saved money and increased services. There are 3 sets of people in Swindon, those who have never worked at the council, they may have friends there or have read a few things but have no real first hand experience of what really goes on. The second set are those who have only worked at the council or other councils and have no experience of a competitive customer driven environment who think complacency is the norm and having a final salary pension which at today's rates costs the employer in excess of 15 percent of their salary, 30 days leave, 6 months on full sick pay and never having heard of performance related pay is how it all works and they have never experienced the workloads and pressure of the private sector. There are some ho truly believe they wok hard and o a good job, because they know no different. The third group are those who came from the private sector to the council nod couldn't believe their eyes when they see the inefficiency, the waste, the general complacency, staff making errors again and again with no consequences, managers spending more time in endless meetings than actually doing nothing productive usally with the same people talking about the same things again and again. Endless sickness, coffee drinking, chatting etc, managers who have no idea where their staff are and vice versa. Staff who are not where they are supposed to be and get away with it again and again with no Come back from inept managers scared of their own shadows. You may think that is a joke but sadly as many in this town know it isn't. The real problem is the inefficient way the council is run. How many other businesses would have 115 out of 1500 staff on over £50k ad many mone on over £30k with little on no real responsibility. Yes you can blame politics and that will always have an effect, but the underlying workforce, most of whom wouldn't last more than a week in the private sector (as evidenced by the number that come back and get their old jobs back after failing outside in the real world and yes I kid you not). This council could shed jobs if they picked the right people to get rid of and actually be more efficient! Bring in proper managers who know what they are doing and do away with consultants who are mostly employed to cover up the fact most managers can't do the jobs they are paid for, introure performsnce relstedbpaybto reflect the responsibilty the council has to spend our money efficiently and get rid of the profit driven partners who haemorrhage our money and jobs that they take out of Swindon, and run an efficient value for money service. Oh no, that pig has just Flown past the window again!!! house on the hill

5:00pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

Davey Gravey,

When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.

Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.

This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.

As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
Davey Gravey, When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing. Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less. This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector. As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services. Peter Mallinson

6:33pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Peter Mallinson wrote:
Davey Gravey,

When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.

Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.

This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.

As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
Rubbish. It has seen people pushed to breaking point beyond what they can cope with,decided by pen pushers in massive wages with no idea what they are doing. It's been dreadfully managed and I am staggered how anyone with your attitude was a member of the labour party. Hang your head and prepare for your ousting next election.
[quote][p][bold]Peter Mallinson[/bold] wrote: Davey Gravey, When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing. Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less. This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector. As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.[/p][/quote]Rubbish. It has seen people pushed to breaking point beyond what they can cope with,decided by pen pushers in massive wages with no idea what they are doing. It's been dreadfully managed and I am staggered how anyone with your attitude was a member of the labour party. Hang your head and prepare for your ousting next election. Davey Gravey

6:45pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.

The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.

Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.

Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Oliver A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway. What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?[/p][/quote]Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life. [p] The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear. [p] Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again. [p] Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will. Tim Newroman

6:57pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.

The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.

Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.

Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Oliver A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway. What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?[/p][/quote]Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life. [p] The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear. [p] Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again. [p] Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.[/p][/quote]Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that? Davey Gravey

6:58pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Morsey says...

A fresh Tory pseudonym has arrived ... I wonder which Tory 'politician' this one is?
A fresh Tory pseudonym has arrived ... I wonder which Tory 'politician' this one is? Morsey

7:11pm Sun 17 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.

The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.

Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.

Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back.

Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid.

Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it.

I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Oliver A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway. What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?[/p][/quote]Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life. [p] The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear. [p] Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again. [p] Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.[/p][/quote]Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?[/p][/quote]And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back. Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid. Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it. I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government. LordAshOfTheBrake

7:27pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Wiltshireman says...

After reading the entire thread to which I must say that 95% is Tory support I will say if you start at the top of the tree and cut some of the £100,000 plus wasted salaries (I do believe that there are in excess of 30 in this council) there is £3m minimum, add the savings of NI Contributions and the Private Health contributions well in excess.

Cut some of the freebee giveaways that the council (labour or tory) do and you can save even more.

I also note that SCS who do the road repairs / resurfacing there are always members of staff leaning on shovels or something. If they can do that then the job has been overpriced and I would suggest that the contracts are looked at more closely for pricing but I very much doubt if there is anyone in the council with Contract Costing experience.
After reading the entire thread to which I must say that 95% is Tory support I will say if you start at the top of the tree and cut some of the £100,000 plus wasted salaries (I do believe that there are in excess of 30 in this council) there is £3m minimum, add the savings of NI Contributions and the Private Health contributions well in excess. Cut some of the freebee giveaways that the council (labour or tory) do and you can save even more. I also note that SCS who do the road repairs / resurfacing there are always members of staff leaning on shovels or something. If they can do that then the job has been overpriced and I would suggest that the contracts are looked at more closely for pricing but I very much doubt if there is anyone in the council with Contract Costing experience. Wiltshireman

7:30pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.

The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.

Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.

Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back.

Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid.

Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it.

I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.
Didn't labour rebuild the mess left by the ousted Tories? Rotting schools, health centres and other community services. The kind of things they will have to put right again when they win the next election at a canter. These things cost money which the Tories wont owns as it doesn't effect the wealthy. Bring on the 10% tax and the rich getting stung. Good times ahead
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Oliver A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway. What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?[/p][/quote]Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life. [p] The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear. [p] Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again. [p] Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.[/p][/quote]Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?[/p][/quote]And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back. Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid. Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it. I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.[/p][/quote]Didn't labour rebuild the mess left by the ousted Tories? Rotting schools, health centres and other community services. The kind of things they will have to put right again when they win the next election at a canter. These things cost money which the Tories wont owns as it doesn't effect the wealthy. Bring on the 10% tax and the rich getting stung. Good times ahead Davey Gravey

9:07pm Sun 17 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all.

Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?
Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all. Well they didn't put it right last time did they....? LordAshOfTheBrake

10:02pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

Tim Newroman says
It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well


It certainly doesn't.
Especially where the Conservative cabinet of our Tory led Swindon Borough Council are concerned.

Perpetually wasting money on grandiose dreams of wifi, dead end canals, and playing with the traffic (road junctions)

It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well
[
Tim Newroman says [quote] It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well [/quote] It certainly doesn't. Especially where the Conservative cabinet of our Tory led Swindon Borough Council are concerned. Perpetually wasting money on grandiose dreams of wifi, dead end canals, and playing with the traffic (road junctions) [quote] It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well [/quote][ Empty Car Park

10:12pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all.

Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?
The mess I mentioned already. Not to mention the nhs etc, etc.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all. Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?[/p][/quote]The mess I mentioned already. Not to mention the nhs etc, etc. Davey Gravey

10:15pm Sun 17 Feb 13

Scott Thunes says...

Peter Mallinson wrote:
Davey Gravey,

When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.

Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.

This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.

As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
You have no idea what 'efficiently run services' are. You ruined Homecare by outsourcing it, and you know it. What time did the sacked workers finish on handover day eh? Shame on you. You will never be re-elected.
[quote][p][bold]Peter Mallinson[/bold] wrote: Davey Gravey, When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing. Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less. This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector. As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.[/p][/quote]You have no idea what 'efficiently run services' are. You ruined Homecare by outsourcing it, and you know it. What time did the sacked workers finish on handover day eh? Shame on you. You will never be re-elected. Scott Thunes

8:12am Mon 18 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all.

Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?
The mess I mentioned already. Not to mention the nhs etc, etc.
You still haven't addressed fiscal responsibility and how all this stuff should be paid for though?

Previously it was paid for by unsustainable debt..... Remember? Or do your rose tinted glasses not allow you to see that?

If you have a sustainable plan to pay for stuff (that makes sense), I'll vote for you.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: Which mess specifically are you referring to? If your referring to 1997, then I seem to recall Labour inherited a string economy etc; then blew it all. Well they didn't put it right last time did they....?[/p][/quote]The mess I mentioned already. Not to mention the nhs etc, etc.[/p][/quote]You still haven't addressed fiscal responsibility and how all this stuff should be paid for though? Previously it was paid for by unsustainable debt..... Remember? Or do your rose tinted glasses not allow you to see that? If you have a sustainable plan to pay for stuff (that makes sense), I'll vote for you. LordAshOfTheBrake

9:13am Mon 18 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Oliver
A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway.
What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?
Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life.

The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear.

Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again.

Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.
Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?
And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back.

Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid.

Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it.

I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.
Didn't labour rebuild the mess left by the ousted Tories? Rotting schools, health centres and other community services. The kind of things they will have to put right again when they win the next election at a canter. These things cost money which the Tories wont owns as it doesn't effect the wealthy. Bring on the 10% tax and the rich getting stung. Good times ahead
No, Labour simply borrowed us into recession with no thought for the future. They encouraged the public to get into massive debt.

All of this gave the illusion that people were well off and that the nation was doing well.

Sadly, all the money they borrowed and chucked at public services, including the NHS, failed to deliver any improvements - in many cases services got worse. Have you not been reading the woes of the NHS recently? Have you not seen how children are leaving our schools barely able to read and write? All of that 'investment' came to virtually nothing, and yet - especially via PFI - we will all be paying for it for generations.

Anyone can go out, get a massive loan and blow it all for the high life for a couple of years. The problem is then the 20 years it takes to pay it all back. Not only do you have no money to spend for decades, but you live on the breadline with only memories of your short period of 'wealth'. Of course, it's not wealth at all, it's other people's money that you now have to give back, many times over.

Gordon Brown ruined this country more than anyone other than Tony Blair. Both are now discredited to the point that Brown rarely even attends Parliament, despite still (somehow) being an MP.

You are correct that Labour will win the next election. They'll hammer the 'rich' (ie, successful) and will give out more money to their core voters (of which they created an additional few million by forcing them onto benefits).

The Left will revel in the nation being finally, once and for all, flushed down the toilet. You clearly share that delight.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Oliver A biased anti labour site. Could do a far worse one for the Conservatives i'm sure. Passed history isn't dealing with the here and now so irrelivant anyway. What is wrong with what Labour are proposing?[/p][/quote]Unfortuntely for Labour, and you, there is a researched, documented and established truism: "The best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour'. It rings true across all aspects of life. [p] The Labour party spent 10 years telling everyone who'd listen that Gordon Brown was the 'best' chancellor the nation had ever seen. Oh dear. [p] Labour have never, ever been able to manage financies or the economy and have always run the country into the ground and left it bankrupt. It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well - as Labour have demonstrated, time and again. [p] Nobody, but nobody, takes Labour seriously when it comes to budgets, finance or the economy. I doubt they ever will.[/p][/quote]Good lord. People never had it better than under brown,and if we are going on passed history look no further than what Maggie Thatcher did. Whole communities wrecked and not recovered. Camoron was agreeing with brown at the time or do you forget that?[/p][/quote]And now we know why.... It was all on the countries credit card with no plan to pay anything back. Its all very well saying people never had it so good and for many that may be true; however at some point the bills have to be paid. Labour had 13 years to help rebuild communities, but they didn't. Why? Because they are not much different to the Tories on many policies when it comes to it. I seem to recall that in 1979 Thatcher inherited a mess too from the previous government.[/p][/quote]Didn't labour rebuild the mess left by the ousted Tories? Rotting schools, health centres and other community services. The kind of things they will have to put right again when they win the next election at a canter. These things cost money which the Tories wont owns as it doesn't effect the wealthy. Bring on the 10% tax and the rich getting stung. Good times ahead[/p][/quote]No, Labour simply borrowed us into recession with no thought for the future. They encouraged the public to get into massive debt. [p] All of this gave the illusion that people were well off and that the nation was doing well. [p] Sadly, all the money they borrowed and chucked at public services, including the NHS, failed to deliver any improvements - in many cases services got worse. Have you not been reading the woes of the NHS recently? Have you not seen how children are leaving our schools barely able to read and write? All of that 'investment' came to virtually nothing, and yet - especially via PFI - we will all be paying for it for generations. [p] Anyone can go out, get a massive loan and blow it all for the high life for a couple of years. The problem is then the 20 years it takes to pay it all back. Not only do you have no money to spend for decades, but you live on the breadline with only memories of your short period of 'wealth'. Of course, it's not wealth at all, it's other people's money that you now have to give back, many times over. [p] Gordon Brown ruined this country more than anyone other than Tony Blair. Both are now discredited to the point that Brown rarely even attends Parliament, despite still (somehow) being an MP. [p] You are correct that Labour will win the next election. They'll hammer the 'rich' (ie, successful) and will give out more money to their core voters (of which they created an additional few million by forcing them onto benefits). [p] The Left will revel in the nation being finally, once and for all, flushed down the toilet. You clearly share that delight. Tim Newroman

9:17am Mon 18 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Tim Newroman says
It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well


It certainly doesn't.
Especially where the Conservative cabinet of our Tory led Swindon Borough Council are concerned.

Perpetually wasting money on grandiose dreams of wifi, dead end canals, and playing with the traffic (road junctions)

It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well
Good to see you got a mention of Wi-Fi in. Shame that didn't help your lot back in May.

Overall, though, I actually agree with you on this: taxes should be lowered across the board. People have had enough of working hard only to have their money stolen from them and their families to be squandered on the nonsense that both local and national government seem hell bent on wasting our money on.

Let us decide for ourselves what we want to do with OUR money.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Tim Newroman says [quote] It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well [/quote] It certainly doesn't. Especially where the Conservative cabinet of our Tory led Swindon Borough Council are concerned. Perpetually wasting money on grandiose dreams of wifi, dead end canals, and playing with the traffic (road junctions) [quote] It's easy to spend other people's money, but it rarely ends well [/quote][[/p][/quote]Good to see you got a mention of Wi-Fi in. Shame that didn't help your lot back in May. [p] Overall, though, I actually agree with you on this: taxes should be lowered across the board. People have had enough of working hard only to have their money stolen from them and their families to be squandered on the nonsense that both local and national government seem hell bent on wasting our money on. [p] Let us decide for ourselves what we want to do with OUR money. Tim Newroman

1:47pm Mon 18 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

You read the to and fro posts and then wonder why it is such a mess?????? More intent on doing each other down than actually coming up with a viable solution, typical politicians, love the sound of their own voice and they are always right and sod everyone else. Councillors of all colours need to just grow up, I realise it is against your nature to actually want to what is best for other people rather than just yourself, but until you change and make the efficiency of the people who work for us the tax payer change, Swindon is sadly only going one way, down! Less strutting and more humility and responsibility for those you represent would be a start.
You read the to and fro posts and then wonder why it is such a mess?????? More intent on doing each other down than actually coming up with a viable solution, typical politicians, love the sound of their own voice and they are always right and sod everyone else. Councillors of all colours need to just grow up, I realise it is against your nature to actually want to what is best for other people rather than just yourself, but until you change and make the efficiency of the people who work for us the tax payer change, Swindon is sadly only going one way, down! Less strutting and more humility and responsibility for those you represent would be a start. house on the hill

2:49pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

Scott Tunes,

The reason the Adult social care department was closed was because the staff were only delivering 25% of the agreed care hours.

The average per staff member was 8 hours per week.

Where other than the council can you find a job that gives you a full weeks pay for 8 hours work ?

That is why it all changed and we are the better for it.

If an example is needed of over manning and poor performance you need look no further.

As for re election, I am proud of what I did and care not what you may think about my chances if I decided to try again.

When this department had to close I was the person willing and able to do it and I would do it again if I had to.
Scott Tunes, The reason the Adult social care department was closed was because the staff were only delivering 25% of the agreed care hours. The average per staff member was 8 hours per week. Where other than the council can you find a job that gives you a full weeks pay for 8 hours work ? That is why it all changed and we are the better for it. If an example is needed of over manning and poor performance you need look no further. As for re election, I am proud of what I did and care not what you may think about my chances if I decided to try again. When this department had to close I was the person willing and able to do it and I would do it again if I had to. Peter Mallinson

4:33pm Mon 18 Feb 13

sn5 says...

Scott Thunes wrote:
Peter Mallinson wrote:
Davey Gravey,

When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing.

Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less.

This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector.

As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.
You have no idea what 'efficiently run services' are. You ruined Homecare by outsourcing it, and you know it. What time did the sacked workers finish on handover day eh? Shame on you. You will never be re-elected.
scott,

if you care about adult social care, try finding where sue bates & her side kick benfield are & ask them why, under them, adult social care (& education) were taken off the council!
[quote][p][bold]Scott Thunes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Peter Mallinson[/bold] wrote: Davey Gravey, When I talk about job cuts I refer to over staffing. Bringing staffing levels down to a minimum that is required to run a service does not mean overload it means staff are expected to do a full days work. No more, no less. This idea is probably frightening to some people but it is the norm in the private sector. As I have said previously, the council is not there to provide jobs. It is there to provide efficiently run services.[/p][/quote]You have no idea what 'efficiently run services' are. You ruined Homecare by outsourcing it, and you know it. What time did the sacked workers finish on handover day eh? Shame on you. You will never be re-elected.[/p][/quote]scott, if you care about adult social care, try finding where sue bates & her side kick benfield are & ask them why, under them, adult social care (& education) were taken off the council! sn5

4:36pm Mon 18 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

Peter
The problem with your claim is that the Council still has to mantain some staff on services and pay heavily for the new suppliers at over the odds pricing--is that true?
Peter The problem with your claim is that the Council still has to mantain some staff on services and pay heavily for the new suppliers at over the odds pricing--is that true? itsamess3

6:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

No

The department was budgeted for £1.3 million, this paid the weekly staff costs, but because of their low 25% output another £900,000 had to be paid to outside bodies to fulfill our statutary duties.

If the council staff had worked as per the contract their costs per hours would be £13 but they only produced 25% so the true costs for the council staff was £13 x 4.

The ouside agency costs to cover the shortfall were £900,000 @ £15 per hour.

This was a big saving.

This is what I mean by being efficient and having the courage to do what is necessary.

It is the duty of everone employed by the council to give a fair days work and it is the duty of managers and councillors to see this is done.
No The department was budgeted for £1.3 million, this paid the weekly staff costs, but because of their low 25% output another £900,000 had to be paid to outside bodies to fulfill our statutary duties. If the council staff had worked as per the contract their costs per hours would be £13 but they only produced 25% so the true costs for the council staff was £13 x 4. The ouside agency costs to cover the shortfall were £900,000 @ £15 per hour. This was a big saving. This is what I mean by being efficient and having the courage to do what is necessary. It is the duty of everone employed by the council to give a fair days work and it is the duty of managers and councillors to see this is done. Peter Mallinson

7:06pm Mon 18 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

So you are confirming what most think-council staff are workshy?
Well done Peter.
So you are confirming what most think-council staff are workshy? Well done Peter. itsamess3

10:04pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Empty Car Park says...

Good to see you got a mention of Wi-Fi in. Shame that didn't help your lot back in May.

Just because someone points out that "your lot" continue to waste money, does not mean that person belongs to "the other lot"
[quote] Good to see you got a mention of Wi-Fi in. Shame that didn't help your lot back in May. [/quoute] Just because someone points out that [bold] "your lot" [/bold] continue to waste money, does not mean that person belongs to "the other lot" Empty Car Park

8:38am Tue 19 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

"""Peter Mallinson says...
6:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13

No

The department was budgeted for £1.3 million, this paid the weekly staff costs, but because of their low 25% output another £900,000 had to be paid to outside bodies to fulfill our statutary duties.

If the council staff had worked as per the contract their costs per hours would be £13 but they only produced 25% so the true costs for the council staff was £13 x 4.

The ouside agency costs to cover the shortfall were £900,000 @ £15 per hour.

This was a big saving.

This is what I mean by being efficient and having the courage to do what is necessary.

It is the duty of everone employed by the council to give a fair days work and it is the duty of managers and councillors to see this is done.”"""

Couldnt agree more. Whilst there are a few in the council who do work hard (as there are lazy useless people in the private sector) but the numbers are very small. far too many are inept, lazy, complacent or know exactly what they are doing and do as little as they can get away with and bend all the "perks" of flexi time, mileage, sickness and being trusted to work away from the office to their limits and often beyond. Anyone who has come into the council from outside will tell you it is a complete shambles and could be run far more efficiently for far less money with the right people in the right jobs. And yes they do have a responsibility to deliver this to the tax payers who are required by law to pay for their services whether they receive good value for them or not. perfomance related pay for all council workers, get rid of Crapita, Swindle Cowboy Services and Backward Swindon and all the other consultants an non jobs and get managers to actually do the work they are paid for and you might stand a chance. Not holding breath!
"""Peter Mallinson says... 6:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13 No The department was budgeted for £1.3 million, this paid the weekly staff costs, but because of their low 25% output another £900,000 had to be paid to outside bodies to fulfill our statutary duties. If the council staff had worked as per the contract their costs per hours would be £13 but they only produced 25% so the true costs for the council staff was £13 x 4. The ouside agency costs to cover the shortfall were £900,000 @ £15 per hour. This was a big saving. This is what I mean by being efficient and having the courage to do what is necessary. It is the duty of everone employed by the council to give a fair days work and it is the duty of managers and councillors to see this is done.”""" Couldnt agree more. Whilst there are a few in the council who do work hard (as there are lazy useless people in the private sector) but the numbers are very small. far too many are inept, lazy, complacent or know exactly what they are doing and do as little as they can get away with and bend all the "perks" of flexi time, mileage, sickness and being trusted to work away from the office to their limits and often beyond. Anyone who has come into the council from outside will tell you it is a complete shambles and could be run far more efficiently for far less money with the right people in the right jobs. And yes they do have a responsibility to deliver this to the tax payers who are required by law to pay for their services whether they receive good value for them or not. perfomance related pay for all council workers, get rid of Crapita, Swindle Cowboy Services and Backward Swindon and all the other consultants an non jobs and get managers to actually do the work they are paid for and you might stand a chance. Not holding breath! house on the hill

6:09pm Tue 19 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@House

Absolutely.
@House Absolutely. LordAshOfTheBrake

5:56am Wed 20 Feb 13

Wiltshireman says...

Time to get rid of Crapita .... Bring it all back in house.
Time to get rid of Crapita .... Bring it all back in house. Wiltshireman

10:26am Wed 20 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

Maybe getting rid of Capita would improve things but bringing it back in house would be a very backward step.

What is needed is good contract writing and very strict controls on performance.

This is something the council are not good at.

It all comes back to what is most efficient and value for money.

Taxpayers will never get efficiency by using council manpower directly to provide services.
Maybe getting rid of Capita would improve things but bringing it back in house would be a very backward step. What is needed is good contract writing and very strict controls on performance. This is something the council are not good at. It all comes back to what is most efficient and value for money. Taxpayers will never get efficiency by using council manpower directly to provide services. Peter Mallinson

2:14pm Wed 20 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

I disagree Peter, a partnership between a Council whose prime responsibility is to the people they serve and a PLC whose prime responsibilty is to their shareholders who dont give a **** about Swindon per se only how much money they can make from us will never work and you dont need to have anything other than common sense to see it. It is interesting that over 25% of Councils who had partnerships have dissolved them and another 25% are in the process of doing so. It doesnt work and never will.

The responsibility to provide services lies with the council and it should be down to them and them alone to provide it. Far too many jobs and resources have been lost from Swindon to our "partners" already and you can argue all you like that it saves us money, but that is a very narrow short term view. The loss to Swindon as a whole of those jobs and the money that would have been spent in and around Swindon by those employees coupled with the ones who are probably costing the tax payer money as a result of not having these jobs far outweighs whatever savings Crapita would have you believe they make. Sadly, the bigger picture is not something politicians are very good at, mainly because they dont have the time in post to see long term plans happen and have to look at short term fixes to make sure they get re elected which is usually their primary goal.
I disagree Peter, a partnership between a Council whose prime responsibility is to the people they serve and a PLC whose prime responsibilty is to their shareholders who dont give a **** about Swindon per se only how much money they can make from us will never work and you dont need to have anything other than common sense to see it. It is interesting that over 25% of Councils who had partnerships have dissolved them and another 25% are in the process of doing so. It doesnt work and never will. The responsibility to provide services lies with the council and it should be down to them and them alone to provide it. Far too many jobs and resources have been lost from Swindon to our "partners" already and you can argue all you like that it saves us money, but that is a very narrow short term view. The loss to Swindon as a whole of those jobs and the money that would have been spent in and around Swindon by those employees coupled with the ones who are probably costing the tax payer money as a result of not having these jobs far outweighs whatever savings Crapita would have you believe they make. Sadly, the bigger picture is not something politicians are very good at, mainly because they dont have the time in post to see long term plans happen and have to look at short term fixes to make sure they get re elected which is usually their primary goal. house on the hill

5:01pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Peter Mallinson says...

The reason why we have poor service from a provider is because the council have not written out the contract details correctly.

Penalties should be there so that any failure to deliver on contract is immediately acted on, this is only as good as the people who monitor it.

How can a council monitor and penalies itself. Who will do it, the same department that fails to deliver?
The reason why we have poor service from a provider is because the council have not written out the contract details correctly. Penalties should be there so that any failure to deliver on contract is immediately acted on, this is only as good as the people who monitor it. How can a council monitor and penalies itself. Who will do it, the same department that fails to deliver? Peter Mallinson

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree