Too be disgusted and scared by the proposed cuts by our local council for 2013/14?

[DowntonNappy]

Got a letter home last week from school saying that our local council intends to cut almost £30 million from its learning and leisure services by 2013/14, and also housing and social care.

The school have expressed their concern over this and want all local parents to go on the website, complete the survey and express their views. I'm doing it just now and am shocked by the questions. It's mainly disagree, agree, neutral answers. I'm paraphrasing, but here's some of the propsals:

Close down the social services office in X (town).

Cut janitorial positions, and instead provide one janitor to cover multiple schools.

Cut canteen staff, free fruit and bread, and increase school meal prices by 25p (excluding free school meals).

Withdraw funding for (local sheltered housing) and encourage elderly people to live independently within their own homes.

Withdraw individual additional support need staff and replace with a more 'generic' assistant.

Reduce cleaning staff in schools.

Reduce our discretionary and community care grants.

Cease free school swimming lessons; only charge those not in receipt of free school meals.

Remove lunchtime patrol staff (lollipop ladies).

Reduce funding to citizens advice bureaux.

Reduce funding to local police and fire safety community based initiatives.

Move waste collection from 2 weekly to three weekly.

Charge £20 for Blue Badges.

And THEN it asks at the end, would you be willing to pay more council tax to help X X Council with its services?

What. A. Joke.

Scuttle were you at the LARAC conference last week? Whilst there are parts of Europe successfully operating monthly residual waste collections, it will be a while before anyone attempts to do so here, I think.

free swimming lessons should go without a doubt, as should lollipop ladies at lunchtime (or at any time really - pedestrian crossings should be enough given that yound children should be walked to school by an adult). Not too bothered about the school dinners going. God knows why anyone pays for them - send a lunchbox instead - much cheaper and healthier (I can understand of course why those with free entitlement use the service). The other options for cuts all seem quite grim though I agree.

I can see merit to free fruit but not free bread. Free fruit assists good health and fosters healthy habits. Free bread is pointless as bread is empty cals and free school meal entitlement should mean children who need feeding are fed.

This on the NHS website says that all four to six year olds get free fruit or a vegetable, but it only applies to England, which is the bit I didn't realise.

Yeah, 4-6 year olds in England get free fruit in my experience. they often arrive at school and have a piece or they get it at breaktime. I think that is a pretty good thing as for some poor kids its the only glimpse of fruit that they see. Plus for kids lucky enough to have a fruitbowl at home it encourages them to view fruit as tasty and worth eating!

The children at my school and at the school my dc went to, got the free fruit and milk given in the afternoon, so they also have a heathy snack from home at morning break.

I've often thought that the parents should pay for it rather than the government or the council. Lots of it ends up getting wasted in my school, as we get loads delivered and some children don't like it or want it anyway. It is pointless that there is provision made for a child to have fruit when you know that aren't going to eat it. Or for milk to be provided free for a child who is allergic to milk or lactose intolerant.

Ime, the teachers end up drinking/eating it, or taking it home for their own kids before it goes off.

Fiendish, thankfully no! The point is that this Council is now seriously considering a three weekly cycle - it's not such a stretch to see four weekly coming in after that. Councils are like sheep, once one does it, there will soon be others. The presssures on waste management budgets are huge since for many Councils, this is the biggest spending department after Education and SS. (I leave Housing out as it has its own Revenue Acct). Most Councils have thrown money at recycling over the past ten years, without really examining the bang for their buck - i think we will see a lot more of these hard questions now.

I'm old enough to remember (and have taken part in) the introduction of alternate weekly collection and remember how controversial that was at the time (20 years ago) - now it's completely normal for the majority of households. That was brought in very much by officers - not by Cllrs - and succeeded. I think we will see something similar for four weekly systems. Can't really see how else they can meet the current targets for recycling/organics diversion unless they by some miracle adopt the WTE route (hugely controversial, so less likely to succeed).

my borough council have said this:

You have to keep the roads in good condition; make sure the bins are emptied and the streets are swept. You have to provide a good standard of education for school children and ensure that the very young, elderly and vulnerable are protected. And much, much more than this ? 700 services in fact that someone, somewhere needs. But you've got to make savings and those savings mean...cuts. However much you may dislike it, someone's going to lose out and if you don't get your priorities right, some may suffer. These are the very real challenges facing decision-makers as the council braces itself for cuts amounting to more than a quarter of total budget over the next four years

Don't appreciate some fucker telling me people may suffer if we don't get our priorities right. Its not OUR priorities in question.

No money? National debt approx £1 trillion
Bank bailout £ 850 billion
uncollected/avoided/evaded tax £140 billion

last budget - £40k tax cut for all £1 million incomes

when do these cuts end, then?
Never, because this govt want to cut public spending, they don't want a Welfare State, they want individualism, dog eat dog
Cuts are political, not econmoic

I am one of the bone idle public servants with an over inflated pension that some of you have ranted on about. I work in a team which has been decimated over the last two years, and I am very lucky to still have a job. As employees, we very often find ourselves piggy in the middle. Central Government dictate to us how much money we must save each year, whilst Councillors make decisions about which services and which employees to get rid of, with only the thought of re-election on their mind. We're lambasted as lazy and over paid on the one hand, and then once cuts have been made and a load of us made redundant, we're lambasted again for not providing a good enough service. I don't know why it seems so hard for people to understand that if you reduce the number of staff on the ground, you reduce the quality and efficiency of the service. The whole of my department is staffed now by people working part time hours - as a consequence, we spend half our lives handing work over to each other. For the most part, local gov employees work very hard in difficult circumstances - trying to progress projects whilst dealing with local politicians who spend most of their time trying to point score is utterly frustrating. I earn about 10k a year less than I would doing my job in the private sector, and I accept this because I have a job close to home, and with flexi-time, which I greatly appreciate. What I don't appreciate is when we're painted as work shy, or as working in the public sector because we're not good enough for the private sector. So many of my colleagues have been for job interviews, and find themselves almost unemployable because their last place of work was the public sector. At the rate it's going now, local gov will all but disappear, and simply deliver statutory services, and then we'll be in a mess....

Rant over!

We've only been alternate weekly for 12 months, scuttle. It wasn't fun. I agree it's brought in by officers, but it still has to be ratified by members. Not so easy, post-pickles
I enjoy the LARAC conference, me.

The cuts are not going far enough. Council tax is far too high and needs to be reduced to a more affordable level.

They've decided they're going to spend 6 million on doing up our town hall. Despite the fact they've made 830 people jobless.

poster MrsDeVere Mon 29-Oct-12 21:44:04
No one will be able to afford it if they keep cutting services.

Are people really not able to make that connection?
___-
So if we continue borrowing the money we haven't got to pay for the services we can't afford we will default on the debt and end up like Greece or the other alternative is to print the money to pay for them and end up like Zimbabwe.

Are people really not able to make that connection?

we have the same going on here in brighton,the fab green party are cutting loads again and trade is down,thanks a bunch! they are driving people away and school etc are getting the next brunt of cuts :(

Cuts ALWAYS disproportionately affect those who use the most services, so older people, disabled people and children are going to be hit hardest.
I'm surprised at how little savings are proposed from the disabled residential schools budget. £100,000 equates to 1 or 2 kids coming back to the community.
It makes sense to make savings and sort out services that involve sending young people out of authority for care. Often better outcomes can be achieving putting in the support to keep them in the local area - as well as savings for the LA.

Residents blame council staff for cuts. Council staff blame council workers. Council workers blame councillors. Councillors blame the government. The UK government blames the worldwide economy or the previous government.
Nobody of any party or allegiance is holding their hands up saying 'this was our fault' .

Op, your council has to cut spending. It has a legal duty to present a balanced budget. If it doesn't, the audit people/accounts commission can come in and they will make decisions on cuts. (Much like an individual going bankrupt).

If you have a strong feeling about any particular service you should fill in the consultation and write to your council or councillors. I'm sure they would be willing to answer questions too. But comments like "don't cut anything" are not likely to get anywhere.

MrsDeVere Mon 29-Oct-12 22:06:32
so if people are forced to give up work to care for their disabled parents and children.
If day care services are cut and families have to fund them fully on their wages which have been cut.
If sure start centres are shut down and parents lose childcare.
If respite services are shut down pushing parents over the edge
if preventative services are cut meaning more families get to the social services thresholds and their children end up in very expensive care
Support services for care leavers shut down leaving them vulnerable to pregnancy, incarceration, exploitation blah blah

Can you not see the connection?

Most countries don't have these services and manage fine. People will be forced to look after their own families. Most of these services are ridiculous. There is no
need for the government to provide things like childcare people in the private sector can do that.

*Withdraw funding for (local sheltered housing) and encourage elderly people to live independently within their own homes - saving £1.9million

Reduce number of care home placements purchased by 200 by 2015/16 - saving £4.7million*

This makes me incandescent. The most vulnerable in society utterly let down by the powers that be. How can people be supported in their homes when funding and input from council such as respite, day centres and home care are being cut dramatically at the same time. If this funding is not available then people can't be supported. Families can't cope with intolerable pressures and instead 24hour care and hospital end up the only safe option, to everyone's detriment. Not least financially.

MrsDevere I cross posted with you and didn't mean to look like I was arguing with you.

If disabled young people are being removed from residential schools then they have to be brought back to a situation that works for their family and still has significant input from support services. But this is still cheaper for the LA than some hugely expensive residential school places.

Oh hear, hear izzybobsmum, I could have written your post. Very well said.

government spending is too high - government spending this year as a % of GDP is higher than 2008 - see here

Government spending has gone from 38% of GDP when the Labour party came into power in 1997 and went up to 41% in 2007, before the crash. So, in a time when the economy was growing strongly, tax take went up and spending went up more.
Currently government spending is 44.5% of GPD, whilst the tax take is 35.7%, higher than all but one of the Labour years.

Basically the government is currently spending more of our money and taxing us higher than the Labour government ever did and you are arguing over cuts.

Public spending grew from £322 bn in 1997 to £670 in 2009 - doubling in 12 years, a growth rate of 6% a year, when the economy only grew at less than 3%

To get spending down to 1997 levels, spending needs to fall by 6.5% of GDP or £59 billion.

We are only returning to a level of 2 years ago - this is not armageddon