Good for him

Normally I don't like the compo culture as the people most often getting hit by it are the general public as sooner or later it leads to higher taxes, premiums or prices as the people paying out seek to recoup their losses. However I'm all for people having the right to sue over someone or some organisation not doing their jobs properly.
Telegraph.

A driver whose car was damaged by potholes in Coventry has won a payout of £2,000 after taking the city council to court. 

Hamilton Bland took on the authority after it refused to compensate him for the damage to his Mercedes.

The damaged was sustained during the city's winter roads crisis in January 2010 when hundreds of new potholes appeared after freezing weather.

The 68-year-old former BBC sports commentator hopes his case may pave the way for other people to take legal action.

He took his claim to Coventry County Court after the council said it wasn't to blame.

Mr Bland argued the impact of hitting two potholes was severe, causing damage to three of the wheels on his Mercedes while he was on his way to a leisure centre for a swim.

There is a little bit more to this case in which it turns out the council had been neglecting the roads as they'd ran out of money, no doubt having to pay for all those diversity co-ordinators, chief executives and translation services. But Coventry were caught out by the fact that  Hamilton Bland simply wasn't going to take "It wasn't our fault" as an acceptable answer. If only because looking after the roads is the responsibility of Coventry Council.
This is a fundamental issue that a lot of councils have lost track of in that most people only want them to empty the bins, light the streets, trim the grass in the parks and fix the roads when they get potholes. What most people do not want their councils doing is pandering to immigrants (translation and housing) paying themselves over the odds, telling us how great they are via a printed paper and ignoring our questions when we do write to them or fobbing us off.
Yes I know councils have to deal with a lot of other stuff, but they should never forget the basics and that's exactly what Coventry Council did. Shame that it wont come out of the pockets of the councillors or the executive.

More about → Good for him

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?

I really don't see what people see in Ken Livingstone, the man strikes me as being the worst/best example of socialist thinking and should be unelectable by any standards, never mind my own. Even his jokes (assuming this is a joke) are crass and frankly unfunny, bit like Ben Elton, though without the charisma.
BBC.

London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone has compared his battle to regain City Hall from Boris Johnson with the "great struggle between Churchill and Hitler".

Mr Livingstone's comments feature in Total Politics magazine.

Croydon Tory MP Gavin Barwell said: "Comparing rival politicians to Hitler is in incredibly poor taste."

But Mr Livingstone's aides said his comments were "light-hearted". City Hall declined to comment.

In comments, reported in the latest issue of the magazine, the former London Labour mayor said next year's mayoral race was "a simple choice between good and evil - I don't think it's been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler."

'Burn forever'

"The people that don't vote for me will be weighed in the balance, come Judgment Day," he continued.

"The Archangel Gabriel will say 'You didn't vote for Ken Livingstone in 2012.

"Oh dear, burn forever. Your skin flayed for all eternity.'"

Mr Livingstone added he would "come round with a serious pitch nearer the time".

Ok once we get passed the absurdity of any politician actually making it into heaven, just what exactly was he thinking? The joke wasn't even that funny, there was bound to be some sort of reaction vs the Godwins Law effect, so I suspect Ken as usual knew exactly what he was doing, he's way too experienced a politician to be caught off guard this way.
Ken of course has form on various "blunders" of this type, the Jewish journalist he accused of being like a concentration camp guard being the most famous. He also claimed that "capitalism has killed more people than Hitler". But for sheer offensive idiocy it is hard to beat his comparison of the hardline Egyptian cleric Yusuf Qaradawi with  Pope John XXIII. He also claimed once that "what Britain did in Ireland was worse than what Hitler did to the Jews". Even John Prescott said: "I wouldn't trust him as far as I could bloody throw him."

So, I have to figure as ever that Ken is playing to some sort of audience, I know the hard left will have loved it as they consider anyone not of the hard left to be some sort of fascist, they've practically debased the term to the extent that a lot of people don't realise what an actual fascist is, simply regarding it as an insulting term for a racist. Still, comparing your opponents to Hitler or Nazi's though is a staple tactic of the left, the SWP and the UAF do it all the time, though a quick check will actually tell you just who the real fascists or Nazi's are their very tactics give them away. So all I can think of is that it was some sort of sop to the "Tory Cuts" campaign I suspect he's going to try and base his campaign on the back of and putting the thought of the Tories in some peoples minds to be the equivalent of some sort of titanic struggle with the powers of darkness.
Either that or he's just an utter dickhead.

More about → Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?

Use it or lose it.

Seems local councils are sitting on property worth £250 billion at a cost of £100 billion to maintain, this includes golf clubs, social clubs and other bodies such as the local football teams changing rooms all of whom provide some sort of service to the public.
Telegraph.

Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, is to release new figures showing local authorities own around £250billion-worth of property in land in Britain - which costs more than £100billion annually to maintain.

Mr Pickles wants to make surplus land available for retail companies and property developers to buy. He also wants authorities to make more money from the assets they keep.

This could lead, however, to golf clubs, social clubs and other bodies which rent or lease land from councils facing increased charges.

An initial group of around a dozen councils will be the first to reveal plans for substantial savings in a pilot project which will be "rolled out" across the country if it proves successful.

Ministers say every bit of the public sector must be seen to play its part in helping drive down the deficit. Mr Pickles's critics, however, are likely to claim the move represents another "attack" on local authorities.

 I suspect Mr Pickles critics are right, though that doesn't make what Mr Pickles is doing wrong. When most people look at waste and what councils get up too, they do not look at bin collections, street lights, road repairs, basically the useful stuff, as in the stuff that directly affects them. What they want cut if or whenever they think about it is the silly stuff, like diversity co-ordinators, translation services, bin monitors basically anything that goes out of its way to make life just a bit more miserable for the rest of us. They also cannot understand why certain groups get priority over people who have lived there for years and always paid their way.
In this, Mr Pickles resounds a chord in the working class who see themselves as having been abandoned by the left and by Labour, not because they want services cut to the bone, but because they see those services being prioritised for others. In the end they'd rather see no-one get them than just the lefts pets, after all what are they losing? Well nothing really, they've been sidelined by those who should have been in theory looking out for their interests. So when Eric Pickles announces he wants councils to make cuts, the core of support that Labour councils and the unions might have expected has evaporated and they only have themselves to blame.

More about → Use it or lose it.

Vote early, vote often

No not in the sense of the Islamic/Labour postal vote scam that has gone on ever since the labour party made it ridiculously easy for 65 residents in a one room bedsit in Tower Hamlets to vote by proxy (possibly a slight exaggeration on my part).
No today is polling day for the UK either in local elections, the Scottish Parliament or for a new voting system if the previous 2 missed anyone.
I got another leaflet from Labour on Monday, saying they were sorry I was out (I wasn't) but that I should vote for them as the evil Tories had cut back the hourly bus service along Heron Way thus disadvantaging hordes of pensioners and young mums with buggies from not being able to get into town. Now apart from the fact that most can (and do) walk down to the main road where there's a bus every 10 minutes, there's no mention of how Labour were prepared to get the money to make the local bus company keep the route going full swing. If the route isn't making money then I can't see why the bus company should run it, it's not the only bus around after all. What Labour are saying is we'll keep the route open but we'll use your cash to do it with, might only be pennies on our council tax bill, but I know what Labour are like, they love funding stuff for all whilst grabbing the cost from those of us who actually pay out with our council tax, rather than get it paid for by the council, in otherwords they'll find other essential stuff to fund and keep raising the council tax to pay for it, after all there's nothing like enough diversity co-ordinators in the world are there?
It's not that I don't have sympathy for those on Heron way who can't get to the further bus stops, but there are other schemes to help them if they want it, but, as for Labour making an issue of it? Well those who want to believe that they can do it for free or at no extra cost can vote for them, but they'll soon learn different, unless of course they are dyed in the wool socialists who from the historical records clearly never do.
I'm also going to have a vote on changing the way we elect politicians to Westminster today, it's a bit of a tricky one, Cameron's against it, which means I'd normally vote for, Clegg's all for it it, which should mean a resounding no! Milliband is for it too, so it clearly looks like a socialist plot to de-stabilise the country and put a left leaning majority permanently into Parliament. Milliband also made himself look like an associated idiot by standing next to a guy who wore a dancing on Thatchers grave tee shirt, that's pretty much the sort of vindictive thinking the left indulge in these days, it was over 20 years ago after all that she crushed their little empires and I suppose the fear they all have is that someone like her will come along and finish the job off, good job for them Cameron got elected I suppose.
The only reason I'm even remotely thinking of voting yes is because UKIP are all for it too and I like UKIP generally. Not that I particularly favour AV, as voting systems go it's only just marginally better than FPTP, but probably more expensive to do, certainly more time consuming.
Anyway, it's up to you how you vote, not me, I wont be voting Labour or Lib Dem though and I might just might vote yes on AV, I'm kind of used to going against the crowd.

More about → Vote early, vote often

Canvassing 2#

Well the local Conservatives finally got around to saying hello which makes the current visitations at 2 to 1 in Labours favour, not that I favour Labour generally of course. I even got to meet my local MP for the first time even if her list had me wrongly named, or possibly she just assumed I had the same name as my partner. I also recognised her and her pictures in the press don't really do her justice, nice lady, well she would be, they wanted my vote after all.

Focussing on the local.

One of the things I have noticed between the two different parties is where their emphasis lies in how they want to gain votes. Labour are deliberately focussing on the Tories performance nationally and the supposed cuts that will make everyones life a misery, whist studiously avoiding any mention of why those cuts might be necessary or indeed how they'd solve the deficit problem other than being nicer than the Tories about it.
The Tories on the other hand want me to focus on what they are doing locally as opposed to nationally, in other words they'd rather I'd ignore what Cameron and his EUphilic ilk are up too with the Lib Dems and not focus so much on government cuts, hence the list of what my local candidates have done for my area.
Still no doubt a lot of people will be voting on national issues in the hope of affecting the governments thinking, certainly that's what the Tories were up too before the general election and something they hope we wont do now.
I still haven't decided who I will vote for yet, though it won't be Labour, I'm not even sure if any independents are standing in my ward, I'll have to check, though they haven't asked for my vote yet.
As for the referendum, well I'm still undecided.

More about → Canvassing 2#

Well there's a surprise....not.

Seems all is not as it seems in the local government budgets of some local councils, most notably the Labour ones if you believe what's currently coming out in reports. I'm minded to take them with a pinch of salt though as it's election time, though it wouldn't surprise me one bit if true.

Express.

CASH-RICH Labour-controlled councils are cutting local services while sitting on reserves of billions of pounds, it was claimed last night.
They are stockpiling unused reserves yet continue to slash budgets for facilities such as nurseries, libraries and street cleaning.
New research by the Conservative Party highlighted those most reluctant to dip into their “rainy day funds”.
They include Manchester Council, said to have reserves of £95.2million while cutting libraries and street cleaning, and Southwark Council in London, said to be sitting on £86.8million.
The Conservatives said Liverpool Council was cutting nurseries, libraries and leisure centres while increasing reserves to £121.7million and Nottingham Council was reducing highway maintenance while sitting on funds allegedly worth £50.7million.
Also mentioned was Camden Council in London, which the Tories claim has reserves of £84.3million.
Local Government Minister Grant Shapps said: “It is totally unacceptable for Labour councils to make political cuts while sitting on cash reserves of billions of pounds. Sensible financial planning is about putting cash away when the sun is shining so you have some cover during the rainy days.

“These reserves exist to ensure councils can react to unforeseen situations like clearing up the economic mess left by Labour."

And he's right if these figures are true, though most of us in the real world would wonder at why any frontline (read useful) services are being cut unless of course it is a political gesture of spite designed to make the government look bad. After all why close nurseries, libraries, street cleaning, leisure centres and highway maintenance whilst leaving other less useful services (diversity and racial co-ordinators, middle management, administrators etc.) alone?
The whole thing has an air of tit for tat here, government says make cuts to your budgets, local councils deliberately go for services that get headlines so they can portray the government as total bastards, government retaliates saying the councils are sitting on and increasing their contingency funds so aren't short of money for essentials and so on. The whole thing is a game to them and the only ones suffering are us the common people who lose the services and jobs because of this pathetic political point scoring.
I keep thinking it's time someone stepped in and set limitations on exactly what it is local government can and can't do, but to do that we'd have to leave the EU first so much of their regulations are responsible for the mess at local and national level.
Then I look at the the three main parties and know at the moment that's just a pipe dream...

More about → Well there's a surprise....not.

Jobsworths (again)

Step up to the Plate Brent Council in North London who have decided to ban a 13 year tradition of doing an Easter March by the local Christian Churches.

Mail.

Every year the Christians from different churches get together to march a 400-yard route to celebrate Easter.

But this year their Good Friday parade has been banned – because it breaches health and safety laws.

Church leaders say town hall bureaucrats are refusing Christians rights routinely afforded to minority groups, and have vowed to defy them.

Last night Brent Council told the worshippers to walk on the pavement.

A spokesman added: ‘Brent Council was not contacted about the march until around a week ago. 

‘There is a strict legal procedure we have to follow to issue a traffic order closing roads so people can march in the highway, which includes advertising and consultation, and this takes about five weeks. 

‘We are very sorry to say there is now not enough time for us to legally facilitate this march.’

I'm sorry, but the not enough time to facilitate the march doesn't cut the mustard with me, the churches have been doing it for 13 years and I'm fairly sure that the council knows about the parade and where and when it's likely to take place. Can you imagine the furore if the GLC decided on health and safety grounds to ban the Notting Hill carnival in August because no-one had asked them about it? Not going to happen is it? This is just a piece of posturing by Brent to discriminate against Christians after all if they can hold and promote a massive Diwali festival as well as asking local mosques about Eid so they can promote that festival too...

Brent Council hosts a Diwali street celebration every year. Last November it boasted it had held the biggest Diwali event in the country, after more than 60,000 people turned out. 

And in July last year the council appealed to the Muslim community to notify it of any Eid events so it could promote them free of charge.

If they can recognise those other newer festivals then surely they can recognise Easter and the traditions in Brent that go on around that celebration that oddly enough have gone on for 13 years without until this year interference from the council.
Personally I think this is just a religiously motivated attack against Christians something that I'd bet good money on that Brent would never try against any other religion, I rather expect they'd move heaven and earth if the local Mosques wanted to do a parade at short notice and would allow them to have their way.
I'm still trying to decide whether it's idiocy or malice that defines all these attacks against the indigenous law abiding people of this land, though I'm starting to come down on the side of malice and a deliberate attempt to wind us all up into attacking a scapegoat for all the problems we face, rather than the political classes as they deserve.

More about → Jobsworths (again)

First line of defence?

Labour have apparently not learned the lesson of last weekend and associating themselves with the violence of those who oppose cuts (yes we know most of the marchers were peaceful, but they didn't grab the headlines) Instead Millipede E has launched their local election campaign with the slogan "First line of defence against the cuts" whilst probably hoping no-one will ask why the cuts are necessary and/or blaming the banks for Labours spending spree.

BBC.

Ed Miliband has launched Labour's campaign for council elections in England, saying the party will be the "first line of defence" against cuts.

The Labour leader argued local authority budget cuts will hit the poorest communities hardest and his party will stand up for those affected.

David Cameron told Conservative MPs on Wednesday they could win the "big argument" over the extent and speed of coalition plans to cut the deficit.

I know they are pushing hard, I've been canvassed twice here in the last couple of weeks, that's more than they managed in the last 10 years I've been here. It's the same message too that somehow or other their plans to help recover the economy are going to be kinder than the oppositions. All again without mentioning why we're in such a mess and not liking it at all when asked and no I don't take "it was the banks fault" as an acceptable answer, I know about PFI, the growth in the public sector, the pensions raid, the gold sell off and whilst the financial sector might have been complicit in starting the recession, they are not to blame for the state of the countries finances, that can be laid right back at the door of Labour and their economic incompetence, particularly that of one G Brown esq.
So no, Labour aren't the first line of defence unless of course you are in the public sector, what they should be is the last resort of the mentally unstable, not so much as scraping the bottom of the barrel, but scraping what's left underneath it. Labour have a great deal of nerve pontificating over the mess they left the country and their attempts to shift the blame for their mess and the cleaning up onto the Tories, not that the Tories are doing such a grand job themselves, but at least they admit the full scale of the problem even if doing nowhere near enough about it.
Problem is, Labour have entrenched too many people on non jobs in the public sector and these have to be peeled back layer by layer despite the strenuous objections of the public sector unions. Unemployment will rise inevitably, but it will get the states finances back under control. It would be nice to see the country run without borrowing for one thing. Job creation has to be a genuine thing, public sector jobs are essentially non contributory to the economy so the private sector needs to be encouraged to grow, best way to do that would be to leave the EU...

And there's the problem, the elephant in the room, we can't sort out the mess till we leave and we definitely can't sort out the mess by voting Labour, they put us there after all, the EU keeps us there and the Tories and Lib Dems won't get us out either.
You can see why I probably wont vote for anyone around here, they wont do what I want.

More about → First line of defence?

Cuts

I was canvassed yesterday by the Labour Party in Medway, they wanted to know my opinion on Cameron's cuts. They went away when I asked where the £4 trillion debt came from, but they did leave me with this.

I had to retrieve it from the recycling hence the poor quality

Now apart from the sheer hypocrisy of Labour having a go at anyone because they are having to rein back the budgets due to 13 years of ruinous overspending and economic incompetency there is the problem that the last Labour government left the Medway area in that they had been stinting the local budget by gerrymandering John M Ward a fellow blogger has the details on the hows and why's but it boiled down in the end to Medway being Tory and unlikely to become Labour hence the massive shortfalls in their local government funding being channelled to Labour strongholds. Labour seem to do spite very well, yet scream blue (or should that be red) murder when the economic reality of their idiocy comes home to roost.
All budgets everywhere are being cut, there is some attempted blackmail going on by local councils threatening to cut frontline services rather than the "diversity co-ordinator sector" simply to try and squeeze more money to keep their political pets happy. So Labour don't want "Cameron" to rob us of the police, perhaps if they hadn't spent us into penury we might yet keep them, assuming this isn't scaremongering of which I wouldn't put it past them either.

More about → Cuts

Seems to make sense

I wasn't aware until recently that local authorities set their own salary, wage and benefits packages that were outside the remit of elected councillors. Seems councillors were responsible for the budget, but not the contents thereof, which is why we somehow ended up with 43% of chief executives of local authorities receiving over £150,000 in salary and fees last year, which was more than the prime minister’s 2010 salary of £142,500.
So as an attempt to stop anyone getting paid more than the prime minister  cut down on these packages the government has decided that local councillors who are elected should get a say in what their chief executives actually get paid.

Telegraph.

Councils will have to publicly vote on any pay package worth more than £100,000 in the latest attempt to rein in sharp increases in local authority pay.

Local authorities are currently free to set pay levels for their executives with elected councillors given little oversight of the arrangements.

Earlier this week, it emerged that 220 local authority chief executives were paid more than the £142,500 that the Prime Minister received last year.

Eric Pickles, the Local Government Secretary, has been frustrated by repeated attempts to persuade councils to cut their salary bills.

Many local authorities are threatening to cut front-line services despite failing to reduce the pay packages of senior executives.

Mr Pickles told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is just part of the checks and balances so that it allows every councillor to consciously make a decision with regard to senior pay.

"It just seems to me to be a reasonable thing to do." 

Well we all know that threatening to cut frontline services is simply blackmail on the part of the councils anyway, there are a lot of things they do like diversity/racism/environmentalism projects that could go first along with translation services for immigrants etc but no, threaten their budgets and they reach for bin collections and police officers because they hope this will force the government to back down. It certainly worked in the past anyway, though I think it's percolating down to local levels that the money fountain has blocked up.
I don't know if councillors will actually do anything about their chief executive pay levels, I suspect Labour ones won't give a damn, but it does strike me as a good idea that councillors should have some financial control over the people that run the authorities and what they are getting paid. Certainly it will give their opposition some ammunition if they don't get this matter under some sort of control, I don't believe anyone in public services is worth over £142,000 particularly when it has to come out of our pockets. If they want to earn more they can try it in private industry where you get paid what the market decides, somehow I doubt there will be many takers for that though.

More about → Seems to make sense

Canvassing

I was canvassed today by the local Labour Party not just me of course, my whole street and possibly the neighbouring streets as well. As the local elections are due this year it's not too surprising if a little early. They also brought around a little survey highlighting the national policies of the Conservatives, particularly those which hit us in the pocket, it also claimed Labour had a better, kinder way, though no-one I've spoken too or read seems to have a clue what it is, well until now.
They want to get additional money from the banks (without mentioning that the banks will inevitably get it back, banks are good at this, they wouldn't stay in business if they weren't.
They claim they want to make tough but fair cuts to public services, keeping the vital ones intact. But then again as Labour consider multiculturalism and diversity co-ordinators to be vital services I couldn't see much changing really, the unions would put the boot in funding wise if they tried to get realistic anyway.
They also want to ensure banks pay their share (really got a thing about banks have Labour) Apparently they want to make sure those who bear the greatest responsibility for the economic crisis shoulder their fair share. Strangely enough there's no mention of the Labour Party in that comment about who were responsible for the banking blunders by their putting the FSA in charge of the banks as well as spending the nations finances into the ground by PFI initiatives, selling off our gold cheap, raiding our pensions etc.
Somehow though I doubt they'd like the Labour Party to pay its share of the cost of wrecking our economy, they're not exactly overflowing with cash themselves.
They have short memories do Labour, but then again I suppose they hope that the general public do as well, particularly those of us who vote. Though at a local level, there's a bit of a difference as to what people will vote on, a popular local candidate may well be voted in time and time again against the national trends and as this area (Medway) is a pretty rock solid Conservative area I can't see Labour managing to upset the balance here, though they may get back a few seats where they were overturned in marginals. There was also a leaflet introducing the local candidates, apparently they are putting local people first, well that's their slogan. No mention of how or what they are going to do to put local people first, it could even be read that they intend to put local people first up against the wall of a firing squad, though I doubt it, just a meaningless slogan that sounds better than it really is, words cost nothing after all (other than the printing cost)
Still, I'll wait patiently to see what local policies the local parties say they are going to do, whilst I'll take notice of the national situation, it isn't that big an issue at local level. Medway council are still overstuffed with politically correct schemes (smoke busters being a notorious example), translation services et al, but by and large they leave me alone, keep the streets clean and the lights on. When I needed help to get out of the street last winter they dropped off a load of salt for the residents to help themselves (and we did).
What Labour will do I don't know, till I do, I wont even consider voting for them, national politics be damned.

More about → Canvassing

Can't pay, wont pay?

Seems local councils are out to pick the pockets of taxpayers again to plug a black hole in their pension schemes.

Telegraph.

Every household in Britain will need to pay an extra £200 a year to plug the black hole in local Government pensions, figures have suggested.
Latest research suggests the deficit in Local Government Pension Schemes in England may have more than doubled in the past three years to £100 billion.

It compares with a shortfall of £42 billion three years ago, according to the data published by pension consultant John Ralfe.

He suggested taxpayers and scheme members will have to pay some £4 billion extra a year into local authority pensions to plug the gap over the next couple of decades.

It equates to an increase of two-thirds in pension contributions, from £300 to £500 a year for every household.

Mr Ralfe attributed the widening gap to the performance of the stock market, saying pension promises of local Government could not be met without additional contributions from taxpayers.

This is the major problem in final salary schemes and it's not going to go away unless something is done to deal with it fairly radically. Not that I expect the various public service unions to react well to radically. Ending these schemes would be one way to tackle it, increasing members contributions too, increasing the retirement age for public servants would be another one, no pension till you're 65+ might just crack it.
The way they are going though is to tap into ordinary residents and pick their pockets in the middle of a recession. Guess how well that's going to go down.

Most people only want to pay for the services they see councils providing that are useful. Emptying the bins, lighting the steets, repairing the pavements, parks, leisure etc. They don't see the need to pay for town twinning trips, idiotic green initiatives, diversity co-ordinators, council propaganda (news letters), race relations initiatives, translation services etc. If they were scrapped and councils streamlined, perhaps the increases could be met from that.
I'm not going to hold my breath on that though. I'm just sick and tired of having my pocket picked for stuff I have no interest in paying for and council pensions is one of them I pay my own pension, why can't they pay for theirs?

More about → Can't pay, wont pay?

Your turn now.

It looks like 25,000 council jobs may be lost as the recession finally catches up with public services.

BBC.

At least 25,000 council jobs in England will be under threat in the next three to five years, a BBC survey suggests.

The forecast is based on answers from 49 councils with a combined workforce of 256,000, suggesting cuts of 10%.
Services such as libraries and nurseries face cuts as councils grapple with the impact of the recession.
Responding to the survey, PM Gordon Brown insisted that, while there was a need for efficiency savings, there was no need for cuts to services.
One expert said the number of job losses could reach 100,000, while one union warned of "social disharmony".
Councils across the UK say jobs and services will have to be cut if, as they expect, funding from central government is reduced.
More than 70% of councils in England that responded to the survey predicted spending cuts of between 5% and 20%.
Roads, libraries, the arts and leisure appear most at risk of cutbacks. Children's social services, services for the homeless and planning appear to be safest.
The Local Government Association, which represents English and Welsh local authorities, said town halls had been battling the effects of recession for more than a year.
"Sources of income have dropped sharply at a time when more and more people are turning to councils to help them through tough times," said chairman Dame Margaret Eaton.

Thing is, private industry started dealing with this 2 years ago, cutting costs and trimming their budgets to suit whilst public services were still getting pay rises and golden handshakes coupled with rate rises. Now finally the government has run out of money and they're looking down the barrel of a gun as the local authorities simply don't have the money to keep them going.
Thing is though that the local authorities also have a number of what are described as non jobs too, Diversity awareness co-ordinators and the like, they also provide translation services in a multitude of languages too. Yet I'd be amazed if they're the one to be sacrificed, it's more likely to be your binman, the guy who fixes the streetlights or the guys fixing the roads, looking after the recreation grounds or the ladies looking after the elderly. In other words you can expect cuts in frontline services, not support or ancillary boondoggles.
Easy way to save money would be to cut council advertising and translation services, can't read English? then find somebody who speaks your language to translate, don't expect the council to do it for you. Works in France, will work here. Gay Pride march? Fine, pay for it yourself. Black History Month? Fine, pay for it yourself.
Costs can be cut, they just have to be cut from non essential services, not those that actually matter to the public, but you can bet money that the jobs that go will be the ones that we most notice.

More about → Your turn now.

This will cost

Just been out for a drive up to a place called Capstone Country Park to walk the dog.

It's a lovely place and very popular with all sorts of people not just dog walkers. We had a great time and I do feel very relaxed and life is pretty good.

However, one of the things I did notice was the state of the roads, it's not the snow, that can and will clear eventually, it's the potholes and ruts caused by water getting into cracks, freezing, expanding and breaking up the road surface. I didn't have to travel too far and it was fairly obvious that the roads are in a bad state compared to a month ago.
None of the roads are A roads, that means that it will be up to Medway council to repair them and I suspect they'll have their work cut out for them, it's also going to be expensive too so I guess (har de har) that my council tax is going to go up by quite a bit (as usual/again). Still at least in this case I can see what happens, how quickly they get too it and exactly what if anything they do about it.
Give me something to do as at least in this case I'll be able to see promises turned into action and I can send off letters (emails) of complaint to my council too. Well eventually, at the moment I'm just enjoying the snow.

More about → This will cost

Well that's 3% that we probably haven't got anyway

Prepare to tighten your belts (again) we're in the midst of a recession, probably heading into the second part of a double dip as soon as the part time Christmas employment ends. So, what good news are Labour spreading?

From the pages of the Grauniad.

Council tax bills should not go up by more than 3%, ministers told town halls today as they set out the cash local councils will get from Whitehall next year.

Barbara Follett, the local government minister, warned that the government was prepared to impose a cap on any councils that tried to impose "excessive" council tax rises in light of a 4% boost in central funding.

Follett said the £76.3bn settlement, the final tranche of a three-year deal with authorities, had been protected from recession-fuelled cuts, and should result in the lowest council tax bills in England for at least 16 years.

Follett demanded further efficiency measures to ensure each taxpayer's pound "works as hard as possible".

So, here you are, being told that councils should up their efficiency, that they shouldn't try and nobble us with excessive council tax rises and yet are still going to hit us with a probable 3% rise. Bearing in mind that a lot of us got no pay rise this year and that the UK average was only 1.5% (though strangely enough the public sector managed at least 2%+) they really are taking the mick. Much of what we spend in council tax goes on things we just don't need, translation services, various minority group co-ordinators, newsletters, expenses, gay pride parades. The Mayor of Doncaster showed the way forward he's trying to cut the council tax by 3% not increase it.
Until politicians get a grip on value for money instead of increasing taxation year in year out then they'll never have the respect they think they deserve. Yes I know it's not always their fault, yes I know the vast majority of local council funds come direct from Westminster, but it's still not good enough in the midst of a recession to be putting even more pressure on the public who can't or wont be getting a relevant increase in their funding.
Perhaps councillors ought to be putting aside political dogma and looking at real ways to save money, the Mayor of Doncaster leads the way, others particularly Conservatives should be watching, learning and copying his actions.

More about → Well that's 3% that we probably haven't got anyway