Accrington Web
Page 2 of 11 1 2 34567891011
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Accrington Web (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/)
-   -   Council Cuts (https://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/f69/council-cuts-55851.html)

turkishdelight 02-12-2010 22:16
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 866145)
Because of the last 13 years of mismanagement;)
Exactly

cashman 02-12-2010 22:42
Re: Council Cuts
 
just shows how biased n sad yer both are, blaming government fer local council waste, just remind us, How long as P.B. been leader locally?:rolleyes: the government made enough cock ups of there own but sad gits blame em fer yer own.:rolleyes:

gynn 03-12-2010 07:19
Re: Council Cuts
 
Let's leave the political squabbling to the politicians. Who is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant to the exercise ahead.

Let's look at the figures. This years Revenue Budget is 15.6 million pounds, made up of 10.1 million government grants and 5.5 million raised locally from the Council Tax.

Is the 18% reduction on the total spend? That means finding savings of 2.8million.

Or is it 18% reduction on the grant, which means finding savings of 1.8 million?

Either way, its difficult to see how this can be achieved without virtually dismantling the Council as it stands at present. Some very, very painful decisions will have to be made, and I can only wish members well in trying to make them.

Ken Moss 03-12-2010 08:44
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gynn (Post 866310)
Let's leave the political squabbling to the politicians. Who is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant to the exercise ahead.

Let's look at the figures. This years Revenue Budget is 15.6 million pounds, made up of 10.1 million government grants and 5.5 million raised locally from the Council Tax.

Is the 18% reduction on the total spend? That means finding savings of 2.8million.

Or is it 18% reduction on the grant, which means finding savings of 1.8 million?

Either way, its difficult to see how this can be achieved without virtually dismantling the Council as it stands at present. Some very, very painful decisions will have to be made, and I can only wish members well in trying to make them.
Certain things will have to be savaged and it pains me to say it but the first logical casualty would be Area Councils. They serve a function but are by no means essential to the borough and could be easily subsumed by committees within each ward.

To prevent other casualties I would go down the route of a thousand cuts, whittling out all the piddling crap that we spend money on but which serves no practical purpose in the long-run. Awards for this and that, meaningless ceremonies that are forgotten as soon as they're over.

I'll say it again, we aren't here to crow about how lovely we are, we are a council here to serve the public.

jaysay 03-12-2010 08:54
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman (Post 866285)
just shows how biased n sad yer both are, blaming government fer local council waste, just remind us, How long as P.B. been leader locally?:rolleyes: the government made enough cock ups of there own but sad gits blame em fer yer own.:rolleyes:
When PB took over there was a £2 million black hole in Hyndburns finances, there ain't now;)

Ken Moss 03-12-2010 08:59
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 866331)
When PB took over there was a £2 million black hole in Hyndburns finances, there ain't now;)
No, it's nearer to £12m.

With fixed-rate borrowing available to the council around 3.78% APR cheaper than variable why are we not making the most of it and getting rid of our debts faster? We can have as much debt as this lot like and still blame it on the Labour government. It's a tired argument and something which I have rapidly found to be an outright lie. Local councils have a greater degree of autonomy with finances than certain Leaders would have us believe.

It doesn't make a shred of difference who is in power in Westminster, if our local books don't balance well it is almost entirely down to the current controlling group.

jaysay 03-12-2010 09:30
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 866333)
No, it's nearer to £12m.

With fixed-rate borrowing available to the council around 3.78% APR cheaper than variable why are we not making the most of it and getting rid of our debts faster? We can have as much debt as this lot like and still blame it on the Labour government. It's a tired argument and something which I have rapidly found to be an outright lie. Local councils have a greater degree of autonomy with finances than certain Leaders would have us believe.

It doesn't make a shred of difference who is in power in Westminster, if our local books don't balance well it is almost entirely down to the current controlling group.
I really hope you had a smile on your face and were crossing your fingers when you wrote that ;)

Ken Moss 03-12-2010 09:37
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 866341)
I really hope you had a smile on your face and were crossing your fingers when you wrote that ;)
There's not a lot to smile about really. Doling out blame to previous governments doesn't help anyone's situation, saving money instead of spending thousands here and there will.

The council wastes untold thousands on meaningless crap and with some serious tightening up you could probably find £2.8m without hurting frontline services too badly.

Sorry to harp on about the Leader Vainglorious once again but this is a man who keeps harping on about his 10 years in power and has not taken the opportunity to whittle out wasteful spending. I've been playing at this for six months and can spot the flaws!

You'll defend him to the hilt but the millions that have slipped through the fingers of that man don't bear thinking about and it had absolutely nothing to do with any Labour government.

jaysay 03-12-2010 10:26
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Moss (Post 866345)
There's not a lot to smile about really. Doling out blame to previous governments doesn't help anyone's situation, saving money instead of spending thousands here and there will.

The council wastes untold thousands on meaningless crap and with some serious tightening up you could probably find £2.8m without hurting frontline services too badly.

Sorry to harp on about the Leader Vainglorious once again but this is a man who keeps harping on about his 10 years in power and has not taken the opportunity to whittle out wasteful spending. I've been playing at this for six months and can spot the flaws!

You'll defend him to the hilt but the millions that have slipped through the fingers of that man don't bear thinking about and it had absolutely nothing to do with any Labour government.
Well if everything goes as planned Hyndburn really will be the best run authority in Britain BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR;)

cashman 03-12-2010 10:29
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 866357)
Well if everything goes as planned Hyndburn really will be the best run authority in Britain BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR;)
well ya could put Dick Turpin as leader n it would certainly be run better n now.:rolleyes:

jaysay 03-12-2010 10:46
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman (Post 866359)
well ya could put Dick Turpin as leader n it would certainly be run better n now.:rolleyes:
The gospel according to Saint Ken of Rishton ;)

cashman 03-12-2010 13:57
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 866363)
The gospel according to Saint Ken of Rishton ;)
Not at all, more a matter of keeping yer ear to the ground n listening to people ya know ya can trust.;)

jaysay 03-12-2010 18:03
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman (Post 866393)
Not at all, more a matter of keeping yer ear to the ground n listening to people ya know ya can trust.;)
:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Bernard Dawson 03-12-2010 22:45
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gynn (Post 866310)
Let's leave the political squabbling to the politicians. Who is responsible is, frankly, irrelevant to the exercise ahead.

Let's look at the figures. This years Revenue Budget is 15.6 million pounds, made up of 10.1 million government grants and 5.5 million raised locally from the Council Tax.

Is the 18% reduction on the total spend? That means finding savings of 2.8million.

Or is it 18% reduction on the grant, which means finding savings of 1.8 million?

Either way, its difficult to see how this can be achieved without virtually dismantling the Council as it stands at present. Some very, very painful decisions will have to be made, and I can only wish members well in trying to make them.
My understanding is that it will be 18% reduction on the grant, not on the total spend.

cashman 03-12-2010 23:06
Re: Council Cuts
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashman (Post 866393)
Not at all, more a matter of keeping yer ear to the ground n listening to people ya know ya can trust.;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 866434)
:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:
as yer good self is one of the few i trust, i find it very odd yer laughing at yerself.:D


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22.
Page 2 of 11 1 2 34567891011
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com