Further council cuts

I've just read the news item on RO

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/73576/sick-poor-and-elderly-to-bear-brunt-of-council-cuts

A start to cutting costs would be to stop the expense allowances councillors can claim above and beyond their basic allowance.
£166K was claimed this time round.
A better proposal would be to make councillors roles a voluntary one, that would certainly show who was in it for their own benefit, or not

You beat me to this thread Charly! I agree about councillors expenses, not allowances. Very few would be able to do it voluntarily. Ferrying kids to school is another one, it is the parents responsibilty not mine to get other kids to school. Before you all start shouting about learning difficulties, I am sure at least some of those taken could manage alone, or with parents accompanying. If they need a taxi, the parents should pay. Do parents have to pay for existing transport? If they do, make sure the fee covers the cost and the service stays. If not, why not? Noone pays for my kids transport.

You can be sure when I have time, I shall be back for a rant about the rest of the article.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/78/opinion/73577/the-cut-by-a-thousand-deaths

John Hardcastle pitches it just about right.

Some of these cuts are really heartbreaking especially for the Elderly and for our wonderful community centres which will force closure for some of them ?

Who will take on these extra responsibilities when these centres have gone

hinch wrote:Perhaps they are hoping that the voluntary sector will take up the slack Jeanie although as you know, the reality is that the voluntary sector relies for the majority of its funding from the council.

I suspect that some of these services will simply just disappear.

These cuts are terrible and central government should hang their heads in shame. They know you can't make £45 million of ADDITIONAL cuts without slashing away at essential services.

Trouble is the volunteers are fast disappearing with the amount of pressure that is being put on them it is shameful cuts have to be made but it is the most vulnerable that will suffer as you say central government are a disgrace.

hinch wrote:Oh I don't know Jeanie. If they sack 200 council staff they would then be available to serve as volunteers to run the services they were once paid to run.

Or am I being a tad more cynical than usual.

Only slightly Hinch...only slightly

Charly wrote:I've just read the news item on RO

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/73576/sick-poor-and-elderly-to-bear-brunt-of-council-cuts

A start to cutting costs would be to stop the expense allowances councillors can claim above and beyond their basic allowance.
£166K was claimed this time round.
A better proposal would be to make councillors roles a voluntary one, that would certainly show who was in it for their own benefit, or not

I think you will find all councillors are volunteers. What you mean of course is that they would be unpaid. The basic allowance is decided by an independant board and is meant to reflect local wages. Several years ago it went down to reflect a drop in average local wages.

I would expect councillors who were volunteers would only do what suited them and at the times it suited them. Modern local government is so complex I think it would be very difficult to find volunteers to take it on.


The difference between a basic allowance and that awarded for special resonsibility is bound to be contentious and highlights the variance in payment.


Any councillor who contributes to this forum,past or present, for example Township chairs may want to comment on whether their special resposibility allowance is or was commensurate with their duties or was it generous.

There is no easy answer. I still undertake several voluntary duties and I do it because I enjoy it and I am also not subject to criticism because I do not get paid.

Would councillors who only received a basic allowance or no allowance find they were not criticised for their actions? I doubt it.

Voluntary = unpaid

Charly wrote:Voluntary = unpaid

I'm afraid it's bound to sound pedantic but all councillors are volunteers, ipso facto they decide to take on the role. They cease to be when they get paid. If they are not paid they continue to be volunteers.

You are just confirming what I said or am I missing something?

Charly wrote:You are just confirming what I said or am I missing something?

There is no point continuing.

I think that PI raises an additional extra point here not directly relevent to this thread.

That is, if councillors with additional responsibilities get additional allowances, - say as the Chair of a Township Committee as a wild example; then I think it justifies even more, concerns expressed on the RO forums that the process by which they are appointed/elected to these roles should be clearly understood and transparent.

This is after all the main thrust of open government. It makes a mockery of the new system where there is now a normal expectancy that all council business is discussed openly with only very minimal restriction when Council Tax payers are still unclear about how one actually gets to become Chair of a committee or if there is even a process governing this. I have no objection in principal to some form of allowance being paid provided it is based on costs actually incurred.

As a former Trade Union Convenor I would not expect someone to work for nothing; particularly if this places them under financial hardship. I do however object when nobody is able or prepared to tell me what process, - if any, is actually used.

There was a fantastic piece in today's i paper about how Labour councillors should get together and hold a conference to discuss what they can do as a large, organised and elected group to fight against these centrally imposed cuts that are having such a devastating effect on vital services across the country.

By the way, when I was a volunteer at CAB, I was not paid but I could claim 25p per mile for petrol. This to me is unpaid. An allowance is something a bit different.

I have commented on this on another forum. The process of "election" to positions of extra responsibilities varies from party to party. Those sucessful in election will of course have no doubt that their "promotion" will have been directly the result of meritoriuos performance as councillors and rigorous questioning by a learned panel. One can only hope that is a fair analysis and is what happens.

God forbid the suggestion that patronage plays a part, or reward for loyalty has a part to play. Those present or past councillors and those active in local politics know the answer.

It is doubtful if the public ever will.

It's a difficult situation. You cannot expect the local Labour party to do the government's dirty work aby making the cuts bearable, but on the other hand you would hope for some common humanity and decency to transcend the political process.

It is always going to be harder to find savings when the council has overcommitted itself to massively overpriced inflexible PFI deals for a small minority of its schools for so many years to come. The recently published figures were staggering.

How is the suggested saving to be achieved by reducing of the number of councillors progressing

Considering the frequent protests about how little they are compensated and how hard they work (I'm sure some of them really do, but certainly no all), the councillors do put up a ferocious struggle to keep their seats and allowances, with little accountability and measures of performance.

I think there needs to be a cap on what Councillors can claim and that positions within Council and on committees should be more evenly distributed to avoid the situation where any one Councillor has too much power.

I also think there needs to be a way Councillors are monitored performance wise. They should be removed if they are not up to the job - voluntary or not.

In recent years council elections have mirrored national government rather than local politics. The days where what happened locally affected voter decision seems to have gone.
Someone earlier mentioned councillor accountability, it's the ballot box where that is demonstrated. If you don't like them, vote them out. I am staggered at the amount of people who cannot be bothered to vote on the principle that it won't have any effect, well it won't will it?

I think the majority of people vote party rather than 'Councillor' at local elections. Few have any idea what an elected Councillor gets up to once they have been elected other than what appears in the local press.

I've voted Labour year after year believing that the Councillors who were elected were representing what I believe in and would carry out their duties in align with socialist principles. I have since discovered that it not so.

The majority of Councillors in our Borough, at this time, have been voted into office as socialists. When faced with the concerns of the communities they represent they should examine their ethics as well as their consciences.

Residents who raise concerns should never be viewed as a threat because they dare to question decisions. However, that is exactly what is happening in this Borough. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that I would address a township meeting with an overwhelming majority of Labour Councillors in office/attendance and be made to feel an enemy for speaking out (along with many others) on the cuts and changes to policies affecting the homeless and vulnerably housed.

Hot on the heels of that I learn that a Councillor with a history of making poor decisions and whose actions have attracted nationwide outrage has been allowed to take up a position as Chair of a Township.

How will I vote at the next local election? For the first time in my life I am unsure. The first credible independent standing in my ward has a good chance of winning my vote.

It matters not which political leaning or stance, the cuts that will be made are by absolute necessity. They don't have a choice other than to resign and what good will that do? Somebody else will come along and make the cuts just the same. It is 'where' the cuts are to be made that sorts the wheat from the chaff. There are no winners here. 2013/14 may well be remembered as the worst fiscal years Rochdale (and everyone else) will have had to suffer since the war. We all made our bed (some more than others) and now you don't want to lie in it! Who are you kidding? That's not the way (in the real world) it works.

Maybe the cuts we are suffering in the UK wouldn't be so harsh if Cameron got his act together and decided charity begins at home.
He's in New York today at the UN General Assembly 'reaffirming his commitment to increase aid spending' despite opposition from his own party.
Why is it people in the UK are far down the list of those needing aid?
Talk about robbing Peter to give it to Paul!
More like robbing Mabel to give it to Abdul.

We all know the knife is being wielded by the Government when it come to the cuts.