I was a bit surprised when a 25 page beautifully printed booklet arrived through my door, delivered by the postie, titled 'Are You Ready ?'. I thought we were in the middle of an austerity drive and catering for the numbnuts with a booklet that gives basic information which anyone with two or more brain cells would know anyway is to my mind a waste of ratepayers money. This condescending publication must have cost an arm and a leg to put together, print and distribute. The cartoon on the front cover says it all in my opinion. Evey supporter of the booklet is either a council or a group subsidised out of our rates.
I was a bit surprised when a 25 page beautifully printed booklet arrived through my door, delivered by the postie, titled 'Are You Ready ?'. I thought we were in the middle of an austerity drive and catering for the numbnuts with a booklet that gives basic information which anyone with two or more brain cells would know anyway is to my mind a waste of ratepayers money. This condescending publication must have cost an arm and a leg to put together, print and distribute. The cartoon on the front cover says it all in my opinion. Evey supporter of the booklet is either a council or a group subsidised out of our rates.
I imagine this saves money and lives in the long run. After all prevention is better than cure and for example a section on how to prevent fires is far cheaper than an appliance having to visit a house on fire, not to mention the potential loss of life if taken to the ultimate extreme.
Even during an austerity drive one should not sacrifice lives for money, do you not agree?
I imagine this saves money and lives in the long run. After all prevention is better than cure and for example a section on how to prevent fires is far cheaper than an appliance having to visit a house on fire, not to mention the potential loss of life if taken to the ultimate extreme.
If there was a worthwhile section about fire safety that was a little meaningful then I might agree, but a few obvious points such as not plugging too many things into a socket will prevent nothing. The people who would do that sort of thing must have very little common sense.
Even during an austerity drive one should not sacrifice lives for money, do you not agree?
No, I don't agree in this case, there is nothing in that booklet that will save anybody's life. If they don't have the common sense to know what to do then they are unlikely to read a booklet to find out.
Did you have anything to do with the production by the way.
No, I don't agree in this case, there is nothing in that booklet that will save anybody's life. If they don't have the common sense to know what to do then they are unlikely to read a booklet to find out.
Basically you've said some people are too stupid to read a booklet that might save their life so let's all save some money by not printing it.
Out of interest if this booklet wasn't printed and the cash was passed on to us all what would you spend your share of the money that would no doubt have saved a few lives on?
Basically you've said some people are too stupid to read a booklet that might save their life so let's all save some money by not printing it.
Out of interest if this booklet wasn't printed and the cash was passed on to us all what would you spend your share of the money that would no doubt have saved a few lives on?
There's an old saying.......
Look after the pennies and the Pounds will look after themselves.
Certainly the cost of producing, printing and distributing one copy to, in our case, everyone in West Berks is not an insignificant amount of money.
I think this highlights one of the problems with society today.
Valuing pennies over people and cash over community.
You can't have it all ways I'm afraid. A booklet produced at great cost to the ratepayer..
or
Free parking at the Nature Centre.
The latter would appear to be a case of community over cash. Do I recall that somewhere I saw that you were a supporter of WBC charging for parking. Cash over community.
I think this highlights one of the problems with society today.
Valuing pennies over people and cash over community.
That is so true. Take this news story .... HUNDREDS of doctors and thousands of nurses will lose their jobs over the next five years under secret cost-cutting plans.
The cuts to clinical staff, exposed in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, undermine Labour’s election pledge to protect services.
Half of all hospitals that responded to the FoI requests said they were planning to cut the number of doctors and nurses. Two-thirds also said they would cut the number of hospital beds.
Ministers have always insisted that the planned efficiency savings could be achieved by cutting waste and bureaucracy alone.
Presumably we need to be ready to look after ourselves and not expect much help in an emergency
That is so true. Take this news story .... HUNDREDS of doctors and thousands of nurses will lose their jobs over the next five years under secret cost-cutting plans.
The cuts to clinical staff, exposed in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, undermine Labour’s election pledge to protect services.
Half of all hospitals that responded to the FoI requests said they were planning to cut the number of doctors and nurses. Two-thirds also said they would cut the number of hospital beds.
Ministers have always insisted that the planned efficiency savings could be achieved by cutting waste and bureaucracy alone.
Presumably we need to be ready to look after ourselves and not expect much help in an emergency
This doesn't make sense as I understood that rightly or wrongly the NHS budget was ring fenced. One thing that strikes though is that the cuts will presumably be made by the bureaucrats. They're unlikely to cut themselves. (No pun intended)
Presumably we need to be ready to look after ourselves and not expect much help in an emergency
I very much doubt a copy of this book will enable you to perform open heart surgery or indeed at the other end of the scale pretty much anything a nurse does.
Do you not agree that prevention is better than cure though?
This doesn't make sense as I understood that rightly or wrongly the NHS budget was ring fenced. One thing that strikes though is that the cuts will presumably be made by the bureaucrats. They're unlikely to cut themselves. (No pun intended)
Cameron and Clegg both said during the debates that NHS would not be affected apart from savings on efficiency. They also said they would not increase VAT.
I very much doubt a copy of this book will enable you to perform open heart surgery or indeed at the other end of the scale pretty much anything a nurse does.
Do you not agree that prevention is better than cure though?
Yes but how can we prevent WBC from wasting our money?? Sack the staff???
I'm not sure how they'll get away with this, given all Public Sector workers who earn over £21k have had their pay frozen (in real terms, a pay cut) for two years.
I'm not sure how they'll get away with this, given all Public Sector workers who earn over £21k have had their pay frozen (in real terms, a pay cut) for two years.
The rises in question were awarded last year - long before the pay freeze.
The reality of the situation has been lost on many people - it's not a freeze its a cut. With inflation going up, quite a big one.
I think it wont be realised by most until two things happen.
Firstly when many staff can't afford to work for the public sector any more, due as you say to the pay "cut". This will result in a reduction in staff numbers with local government unable to fill posts, resulting in a decline in standards of service.
Secondly when funding cuts hit services they will ask the remaining staff to do even more for (in real terms) less money, resulting in a decline in standards of service.
The reality of the situation has been lost on many people - it's not a freeze its a cut. With inflation going up, quite a big one.
It's not a cut it's a freeze. Greek civil servants have had a cut - 5% less in their pay packets. A pay freeze (this is not the first) may well result in a lowering of ones spending power as infaltion nibbles away at your salary - but you don't find less in your pay packet. Civil servants should thank their lucky stars that inflation is so low.
Of course it means public service employees will be a little worse off - welcome to the real world guys. The Country is broke, it can't afford to pay for the public services we have become accustomed to, but these are not ours by right, we have to pay for them or lose them.
Does the freeze extend to the increments civil servants and local government employees get each year as they automatically rise up the pay scale?
It's not a cut it's a freeze. Greek civil servants have had a cut - 5% less in their pay packets. A pay freeze (this is not the first) may well result in a lowering of ones spending power as infaltion nibbles away at your salary - but you don't find less in your pay packet. Civil servants should thank their lucky stars that inflation is so low.
Of course it means public service employees will be a little worse off - welcome to the real world guys.
In real terms it's a pay cut if it doesn't keep up with inflation.
It's fine to say "welcome to the real world guys", but if for example all the planners left because they could no longer support their families then there'd be a huge backlog of planning applications to process and pretty much all private building work in West Berkshire would grind to a halt. Not only would this affect builders and other tradesmen but it could also have a knock on effect on the housing market. I'd hate to think what might happen if all the social workers left for more lucrative jobs in the private sector.
It's important to remind ourselves of effective wage cuts like this can have on "the real world".
My point about the real world is that the private sector is experiencing job losses and pay cuts (real cuts) - notably in the building industry. Interesting that you choose planning as an example - when there are fewer applications coming in do they reduce the number of planners? It's what would happen in the private sector. Why should the public sector be insulated from the real pain that a recession brings?
The pay freeze is going to happen - whether you like it or not. If staff leave because of it then I suspect they will not be replaced very quickly unless the posts can be filled from internal applicants (there are big cuts coming). Of course this may affect services - the current level of service is unaffordable so there are bound to be cuts. Public sector employers are probably facing the need to cut their staff levels by a significant number - 10% or more. If a pay freeze encourages some to leave it will speed up the natural wastage that the public sector has traditionally used to reduce headcount.
Of course, if people do leave there will be plenty hoping to replace them - we are producing huge numbers of graduates who can't find a job. They will be delighted to receive the frozen salaries.
However, the current government is doing a little to ease the pain by reducing red tape, targets etc. WBC no longer needs to employ people to gather and collate all the statistics and reports needed to demonstrate WBC's performance against its targets. Nor do they need to spend loads of time massaging these to gain the optimum reports and making their excuses where performance is less than great. In the planning area WBC have recently been forced to abandon their OTT ecological requirements (must leave some more time for planners to deal with mundane planning issues).
Welcome to the real world – isn’t that the one where the boss gets given a wage that that would bring a blush to the cheek of a Barbary pirate, and tries to justify it on the basis of performance. Yet that performance is delivered by underlings who have had their pensions stripped and pay held at low rates – because we could outsource to China? By the way, I work in the private sector.
My point about the real world is that the private sector is experiencing job losses and pay cuts (real cuts) - notably in the building industry. Interesting that you choose planning as an example - when there are fewer applications coming in do they reduce the number of planners? It's what would happen in the private sector. Why should the public sector be insulated from the real pain that a recession brings?
Sounds good in theory and laying a few planners off would save us all some money in the short term. What happens when things pick up and every local authority in the country is trying to hire quality planners though?
What happens is you can't hire anyone given that demand well outstrips supply. In the "real world" you'd just put up the salaries of these posts to entice people to work for you but in reality in the public sector you'd actually be asking them to work for less in real terms given the pay freeze. You've also lost the goodwill that makes people work for less for the betterment of their community as many public sector workers do, given when times got tough you kicked them out the door, assuming all local authorities did the same as West Berks. I'd rather not play boom and bust with our public services.
I notice you didn't mention social workers too. What happens when all the social workers leave because they can no longer support their families on the lower wages?
Sounds good in theory and laying a few planners off would save us all some money in the short term. What happens when things pick up and every local authority in the country is trying to hire quality planners though?
You make is sound as if planning is rocket science - it isn't; most planners are there to ensure that applications fall with a set of rules, not difficult.
The more experienced planners are better paid and can survive the slight reduction in living standard that a pay freeze will bring - the only people who might employ ex-planners at better than local government pay are developers - who aren't hiring at present. So where are all these great planners going to go?
I notice you didn't mention social workers too. What happens when all the social workers leave because they can no longer support their families on the lower wages?
I wrote about planners because you used planners as an example. Social workers are a more emotive topic - but the much the same logic applies. Local government pay is above par at present; few are likely to depart due to the pay freeze and, as the current government seems set to reduce welfare spending, fewer social workers will be required in the future.
The freeze does not affect the lowest paid (<£21k) and the higher paid are more able to weather the freeze and won't want to lose the pension - those in the middle are the ones most likely to go, but they are also the easier ones to replace.
Sounds good in theory and laying a few planners off would save us all some money in the short term. What happens when things pick up and every local authority in the country is trying to hire quality planners though?
What happens is you can't hire anyone given that demand well outstrips supply. In the "real world" you'd just put up the salaries of these posts to entice people to work for you but in reality in the public sector you'd actually be asking them to work for less in real terms given the pay freeze. You've also lost the goodwill that makes people work for less for the betterment of their community as many public sector workers do, given when times got tough you kicked them out the door, assuming all local authorities did the same as West Berks. I'd rather not play boom and bust with our public services.
I notice you didn't mention social workers too. What happens when all the social workers leave because they can no longer support their families on the lower wages?
I notice you only include planners and social workers in your quotes - and are trying to justify keeping all the current staffing levels on the back of that.
Anyway if some of them leave it will save on redundancy money, however I wonder if any of them will leave and attempt to hack it in the real world!
You make is sound as if planning is rocket science - it isn't; most planners are there to ensure that applications fall with a set of rules, not difficult.
The more experienced planners are better paid and can survive the slight reduction in living standard that a pay freeze will bring - the only people who might employ ex-planners at better than local government pay are developers - who aren't hiring at present. So where are all these great planners going to go?
Who would? But our government has - if we hadn't inflated the public sector during the boom perhaps the bust would not be so dramatic?
You are arguing to keep spending at boom levels during a bust - is that sensible?
You should be more concerned at what is coming next - look at Oxfordshire, 1 in 4 (150) managers to go - what is being planned at WBC?
And Cameron et al have public sector pensions in their sights - if you work for WBC you should be worried.
I wrote about planners because you used planners as an example. Social workers are a more emotive topic - but the much the same logic applies. Local government pay is above par at present; few are likely to depart due to the pay freeze and, as the current government seems set to reduce welfare spending, fewer social workers will be required in the future.
The freeze does not affect the lowest paid (<£21k) and the higher paid are more able to weather the freeze and won't want to lose the pension - those in the middle are the ones most likely to go, but they are also the easier ones to replace.
Many planners have degrees. Do you seriously think gaining a degree in planning isn't difficult or is this just another wind up?
Given local government pay is below the private sector already and there's now been an effective pay cut, I can see many planners moving to the private sector never to return. When there's a backlog of planning applications to process in West Berkshire no doubt you'll be complaining about this too.
Regarding social workers you seem confident they'll all be able to support their families on the relatively lower wage. Let's hope for the sake of the children of West Berkshire you're right.
Many planners have degrees. Do you seriously think gaining a degree in planning isn't difficult or is this just another wind up?
Getting a degree is not that difficult - a huge number of 21, 22 year olds seem to manage it every year. And I would be astounded if every graduate in planning is currently employed as a planner - some of them would be keen to get a job at WBC.
Given local government pay is below the private sector already and there's now been an effective pay cut, I can see many planners moving to the private sector never to return. When there's a backlog of planning applications to process in West Berkshire no doubt you'll be complaining about this too.
Regarding social workers you seem confident they'll all be able to support their families on the relatively lower wage. Let's hope for the sake of the children of West Berkshire you're right.
What you don't seem to realise is that, like it or not, we have voted in a government that will cut public expenditure - which is better, a pay freeze for public sector employess or redundancies?
Where would you suggest that 10% savings should be made in WBC's expenditure? And we'll be lucky if it's only 10%!
Getting a degree is not that difficult - a huge number of 21, 22 year olds seem to manage it every year. And I would be astounded if every graduate in planning is currently employed as a planner - some of them would be keen to get a job at WBC.
What you don't seem to realise is that, like it or not, we have voted in a government that will cut public expenditure - which is better, a pay freeze for public sector employess or redundancies?
Where would you suggest that 10% savings should be made in WBC's expenditure? And we'll be lucky if it's only 10%!
Lower wages, no job security and pension review on the way mean the private sector will be lucky to recruit anyone in the future.
The easiest way to save money in this case would be to relax the planning laws, get rid of listed buildings status, remove the red tape and let people build where they want. WBC would need less planners then permanently and we'd all save some money. I can see this happening before long. Sound like a good idea to you?
The easiest way to save money in this case would be to relax the planning laws, get rid of listed buildings status, remove the red tape and let people build where they want. WBC would need less planners then permanently and we'd all save some money. I can see this happening before long. Sound like a good idea to you?
Or get rid of those that provide little in the way of service such as back office jobs like IT and HR.
Or get rid of those that provide little in the way of service such as back office jobs like IT and HR.
The personnel department, renamed Human Resources by the persons employed in that department make themselves indispensable to the business by scaring everybody in the work place including the boys at the top about legislation and the problems with race relations etc, which problems have been amplified out of all proportion by the very experts in HR. It has a parallel with the scaremails that pop up on a PC saying it is infected with a dreadful virus that only they can cure. If HR get into trouble over an employer/employee issue then they get a brief in anyway.
IT departments don't normally write any software and apart from keeping the system up together, which probably involves calling in a specialist if anything goes pear shaped look after the desk PC's which has been crafted into a black art by the IT association of techies. "Have you tried rebooting?."
The easiest way to save money in this case would be to relax the planning laws, get rid of listed buildings status, remove the red tape and let people build where they want. WBC would need less planners then permanently and we'd all save some money. I can see this happening before long. Sound like a good idea to you?
WBC have plenty of planners - despite Prescott already doing most of the above.
Do you really think it is better to get deeper and deeper into debt or should we cut spending?
The personnel department, renamed Human Resources by the persons employed in that department make themselves indispensable to the business by scaring everybody in the work place including the boys at the top about legislation and the problems with race relations etc, which problems have been amplified out of all proportion by the very experts in HR. It has a parallel with the scaremails that pop up on a PC saying it is infected with a dreadful virus that only they can cure. If HR get into trouble over an employer/employee issue then they get a brief in anyway.
IT departments don't normally write any software and apart from keeping the system up together, which probably involves calling in a specialist if anything goes pear shaped look after the desk PC's which has been crafted into a black art by the IT association of techies. "Have you tried rebooting?."
As I understand it Amey tried to streamline the support services at WBC such as HR and IT when they ran them. I guess they left their 25 year contract after 5 years, because they found there was no way to do this, and this was all pre-Gershon and pre-recession. If there was improvements to be made an money to be had I'm sure they'd still be there now.
Not all of the private sector. Most bankers, who got us into this mess seem very secure in their jobs. Add that to general higher wages for most, profit share schemes, Christmas bonuses as the like and the private sector have it pretty good compared to those that choose to take get paid less to serve their community.
You didn't comment on the easiest way to save money in this case which is to relax the planning laws, get rid of listed buildings status, remove the red tape and let people build where they want. WBC would need less planners then permanently and we'd all save some money. I can see this happening before long. Sound like a good idea to you?
As I understand it Amey tried to streamline the support services at WBC such as HR and IT when they ran them. I guess they left their 25 year contract after 5 years, because they found there was no way to do this, and this was all pre-Gershon and pre-recession. If there was improvements to be made an money to be had I'm sure they'd still be there now.Not all of the private sector. Most bankers, who got us into this mess seem very secure in their jobs. Add that to general higher wages for most, profit share schemes, Christmas bonuses as the like and the private sector have it pretty good compared to those that choose to take get paid less to serve their community.
Amey had problems because they couldn't cut services - this is not a problem this time. And thousands of jobs were lost in the banks during the crash - sure, most bankers still have jobs, just as most public sector workers will have jobs following the forthcoming cuts.
You didn't comment on the easiest way to save money in this case which is to relax the planning laws, get rid of listed buildings status, remove the red tape and let people build where they want. WBC would need less planners then permanently and we'd all save some money. I can see this happening before long. Sound like a good idea to you?
And you didn't comment on where you would make the inevitable cuts.
Amey had problems because they couldn't cut services - this is not a problem this time. And thousands of jobs were lost in the banks during the crash - sure, most bankers still have jobs, just as most public sector workers will have jobs following the forthcoming cuts.
And you didn't comment on where you would make the inevitable cuts.
Amey could have cut as many staff as they wanted. They were mainly in support services so they would have removed as many of surplus to requirement back office staff as possible in order to maximise their profits. I not sure if they were able to remove any but if they couldn't it would certainly explain why they pulled out of the contract so early.
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
There's another way...no listed buildings demolished until the next election.
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
Why do this if getting rid of the 50 or so excess management staff does the trick?
Why do this if getting rid of the 50 or so excess management staff does the trick?
It won't and whatever happened about the management cuts that were publicised towards the end of last year, did they ever happen.
I can see that User is throwing up the usual smokescreen to disguise the fact that savings need to be made. We do not need, neither should we remove the planning department or any other department but it is encumbent upon the WBC's senior management to do an honest appraisal of all the departments to either restructure or cut back or possibly in some cases reinforce.
I don't know what happened with the Amey contract but the point about external companies is that they need to make a profit on their business. WBC does not, it just has to be efficient in it's operation and the way that they use the government and our money. My bet is that Amey were saddled with a load of no hopers by default that they couldn't get rid of or use efficiently, passed on to them by the council. I'm sure User will be able to put this in perspective for us or he could ask another irrelevant question to dodge the issue.
There's another way...no listed buildings demolished until the next election.
I don't think that's the style of this new government, they seem to be all about cutting regulation, not increasing it. I can see them relaxing the planning laws some time in the term of this parliament.
I think I'm done in this thread as some seem to be going round in circles but I'm sure they're going to be surprised as the effect of the cuts they seem to be proposing.
I don't think that's the style of this new government, they seem to be all about cutting regulation, not increasing it. I can see them relaxing the planning laws some time in the term of this parliament.
I think I'm done in this thread as some seem to be going round in circles but I'm sure they're going to be surprised as the effect of the cuts they seem to be proposing.
Why? are you all going to be bullshie when you have to start pulling your weight??
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
And I have three times asked you to suggest where the inevitable cuts should be made - but I'll try not to reduce this to your standard petty point scoring by answering your question re-planning.
No I would not be in favour of removing all restrictions on building as you seem to suggest might happen. But I'm not worried about it happening - planning is probably the only WBC department that comes close to making a profit so they won't want to cut back too much. On the listed building front the Tories are probably more likely to increase than reduce the level of protection. It was Labour (especially Prescott) who were determined to build so many homes that the housing market would be flooded with new builds and prices would fall to more affordable levels. As a result planning law has already been relaxed - the Tories are saying they will return the power to determine what is built to local government, not remove even more power. The savings in planning can be made in Whitehall, by getting rid of the majority of the people who spent their time overriding local authority planning decisions.
Now - where do you think WBC should save £4million?
PS A pay freeze will save over £1million without anyone losing their job ...
I twice suggested if we relax the planning laws, remove listed building status and cut the red tape around planning as this might mean a reduction in the number of planners needed. You haven't commented on this though. Is this one service you'd like to see cut and one set of rules relaxed?
Would this be the same planning department that allowed a local land-owner to personally destroy a SSSI whilst Friends of the Earth were at the High Court obtaining an injuction? (they sat in their car and watched it happen) Would this be the same department who refused to send someone out to stop the tiles being removed from the front of the Anchor when I contacted them? Would this be the same planning department who allowed Davis's china shop (listed) to be flattened and replaced by the architectural no-mark that is the Macdonalds building? Would this be the same planners that turned a blind eye to Lefarge building an illegal plant on the airbase? The very same department that went all ends up over the Prologis site? Is this the same department whos head (Lugg G) had to admit (in 2009) that they didn't quite know where all the Section 106 money was or what it had been spent on? Coming more up to date, would this be the same department that allowed an industrial plant at Greenham to start up, seemingly mere seconds before their own Environmental department turned up and closed it down as a health hazard?
I'd rather have just a few competent planners as opposed to the room full of shaved monkeys that we seem to have got at the moment.
Male
Logged
