Lib.Dem./SNP cabal continue to hit the most vulnerable in Renfrewshire - since coming to power 5 months ago they have done the following.
price rises for after school care in the poorest areas.
Price rises for Council halls, these apply to disabled and pensioner groups etc. as well.
Reduction in hours for Educational Session workers, they have admitted that it was either this or the closure of adult learning centres.
Get this - the removal of free tea and coffee for those who drop into the homeless unit - honestly !
This sits beside the announced cuts of £2. 3 which they refuse to give details of.
In addition they campaigned in opposition to save Millarston Playing Fields and the land at Manse Crs. Houston. They quickly reneged on promises not to sell these pieces of land.
Perhaps though, the most worrying thing yet over this shameful 5 months, particularly if you are a council employee was Council leader the SNP's Derek Mackay's refusal to honour labour's guarantee which has stood for 27 yrs. of no compulsory redundancies, 3 times he was asked in public, twice by me and once by Labour Councillor Tom Williams.
The cock crowed and the treacherous SNP denied the council employees 3 times - people of Renfrewshire, you were warned - the Glib. Dem/Gnat conspiracy can't be trusted.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I don't unmderstand. Can you explain to me the logic behind demanding no compulsory redundancies? Not emotion, please but logic.
Good grief. If they're having to do all of this in the first five months, they must have inherited a right old financial mess. Excuse my ignorance, but who was in power before them?
No one cares about your flawed opinions. 99.8% of the feedback on your blog mocks and belittles you for your idiocy.
Admiral - The logic behind 'no compulsory redundancies' is to reassure the workforce that their jobs are safe i.e. No one will be forced to leave their job through redundancy. I think a whole lot of people would like to have that.
No emotion, just a good idea which benefits working people, perfectly logical, at least for those who don't want to bring back slavery !
Guthrie - I excuse your ignorance constantly, they are doing all this because of the lies they told at the election, go and ask the people of Houston if you don't believe me.
"just a good idea which benefits working people, perfectly logical"
I see. So, as a working person, it is a good idea for me to have to pay more to local government in order that they can reward inefficiency and/or subsidise jobs that are no longer required. Genius.
Here's a thought. Perhaps they could have afforded free tea and coffee for the homeless if the coffers hadn't been emptied in order to maintain your 'no redundancies' policy. To be fair, you did say that it is a good idea which benefits 'working people'.
"The logic..is to reassure the workforce that their jobs are safe...I think a whole lot of people would like to have that." You're absolutely right- I would like that! That way, even if I have no work to do, I could surf the net and write e-mails all day safe in the knowledge that I'll still earn a regular income. Even better, if I work in local government, my wages will be paid by taxpayers who are working hard because they were silly enough not to have spotted this loophole. Genius.
Any new administration in its infancy will spend a great deal of time having to clear up the mess of its predecessors.
This will involve making some tough and probably initially, some unpopular decisions to balance the financial mess that the previous Labour Council have created.
Indeed you only have to look at the absolutely massive increase in council tax that Labour have imposed over the last 7 years in office in Renfrewshire to realise the amount of cash that they have been throwing away and wasted.
I have lived in Renfrewshire for the last 7 years and have seen my council tax rise by almost 71% over that period.
I guess that most of that has been used to keep the promise of no compulsory redundancies as I can see no other improvements - only a steady descendency in the town of Paisley and surrounding areas.
This is unless of course you live in the 2 poorest areas that you talk of, where blank council cheques have been abundant but to no avail, as the money goes shortly down the toilet after it
The new administration have a huge uphill battle to turn the ugly mess of the previous Labour council around, but I for one am pleased to see a change.
I was a fervent Labour supporter for a long time but have had my eyes opened over the the last 10/11 years and I could no longer offer my support to them.
There is a malevolent and in my opinion corrupt movement within their ranks that seeps from the top down to the local council roots
Terry, you can't say that everyone who sometimes supports the principle of compulsories would like to bring back slavery! That's almost Hitlerian>
Guthrie - Your understanding of what is 'inefficient and not a necessary job' would not square with mine, you would be driven by the pursuit of profit before all else and IMO that makes you the wrong type of person to influence this kind of thing, I believe that people are more important than profit, it's called socialism.
anon - 'the logic' see my reply to Guthrie.
Anon - nothing more than an ill informed prejudicial rant and, laced with arrogant bias with ref. To the poorest areas. What a nice person you are.
anon - Hitlerian ? I thought it was just a quite neat little political jibe.
You wouldn't last long in politics I'm afraid.
"I believe that people are more important than profit"
I never mentioned profit. Far from it. I am saying that local government should spend tax payer's money wisely. To coin a phrase, they should be 'prudent'.
Compare and contrast with your approach. You would spend a widow's last pennies on maintaining your 'no redundancies' policy, without reference to value for money. I'm sure that the widow would rather keep her money and be able to pay her winter gas bill, than know that she is keeping one of Kelly's Army in employment, just as a matter of 'policy'.
You must be one of that rare breed of shareholders (do you still have those Transco shares?) who isn't actually hoping to benefit from the pursuit of profit. How about you and I do a deal? You sell your shares and use the proceeds to help keep a council employee in gainful employment, and in return I'll stop thinking you are talking out of your hypocritical hat.
Guthrie - 'I never mentioned profit' no, I did, as the thing that drives you, nothing else, you see treating workers fairly as a weakness, treating people decently, as a weakness.
I agree that local authorities should spend tax payers money wisely, the widow would have no need to fear my 'no redundancy policy' others might though if I had my way, I can think of lots of people who 'never would be missed' but they are not council workers and they get a lot more than council workers, and for doing less.
In fact the widow would love me, she would be better off and some would be less well off than they are.
We're back on the shares again , you must be getting desperate, all you know is that I've got Transco shares you have guessed that it's not that simple but you either can't figure it out or it's a lie of omission, you hypocrite.
"You wouldn't last long in politics I'm afraid."
I am in politics. And that comment is equivalent to Robert Maxwell telling me I don't have a bright career in financial services.
Re your reply to Guthrie, "the widow would love me."
Councillor, face it,the only Scottish widow that you're likely to pull is Lady Macbeth.
Anon - "I am in politics" what kind of politics can you be in when you write as 'anonymous'
That is definately a new one on me, 'come along vote for me, no I can't tell you my name' something's not right here surely.
Byeck - how do you maintain these standards - the wit, the repartee, what's your secret.
You ask where does the wit and repartee come from?
I just need a loveable, cuddly target and BINGO - there it is.
Alas, given that you are the loveable, cuddly target, it isn't easy maintaining any kind of standard, but I try.
byeck - As I said, amazingly high standard of debate, we're lucky to have you.
I don't want to associate my name with yours by posting my name on this blog.
However, I can tell you that I'm a conservative, right-wing, South African Mormon. I have also voted SNP in the past and once worked for Transparency International.
It's been a while since I cast my eye over Terryland having been busy earning an exhoribitantly over-inflated salary working for a capitalist company which has been working with Renfrewshire Council over the last couple of years renewing, upgrading and rebuilding local schools.
The phrase "no compulsary redundancies" caught my eye.
A very socialist policy I must say, and something that I thought would have long ago fallen into disrepute under New Labour.
Now you have latched onto the word "profit" in your arguments on this topic.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Renfrewshire Council is not a "business" in the classic sense is it? There are no "owners" or "shareholders" who would receive any "profit"?
In fact, would it be correct to say the sole use of any income - Goverment Grant, Council Tax, supluses generated by Commercial Operations - is to fund the provision of services by the council?
If so, surely, ideally, it would be preferable to have as large a quantity of these monies available to spend directly on the services as possible?
Now, assuming I have been correct so far, here is a hypothetical situation...
Let us assume the council has 1500 employees and salary costs for these employees is £1.5mil pa. Let us further assume the council income for the year is £3mil. Deducting the yearly salary costs leaves a surplus of £1.5mil to be used on Operational costs.
Now (again hypothetical situation) an effieciency survey is conducted on behalf of the council which concludes that the council is over-staffed. In fact the functions being performed by 1500 staff members could be performed by 1000 staff members with no loss of quality of service to the public and without any requirement to alter working hours or conditions of the 1000 employees. Further to this, the survey concludes that reducing the workforce by 500 would save the council £550k which could be see £50k added to the salary budget allowing modest pay rises/increased holidays/increased benefits for the remaining employees AND make an extra £0.5mil available for operational costs allowing the council to expand or improve upon the services currently offered.
To reiterate, it is my understanding that the councils "purpose" is the provision of Services - NOT job creation in and of itself.
Taking the "hypothetical" example above, as your favourite bette-noir the Americans would say, do the math.
You wouldn't last long in politics I'm afraid.
Considering how you of all people have manage to thrive in politics through corruption and arse-kissing, anon will probably have their own statue in Parliament Square
Anon - "I don't want to associate my name with yours by posting my name on this blog"
That answer might be OK by your standards but by mine it is craven and absolutely pathetic.
No wonder you remain anonymous.
Political Atheist - Was it really necessary to go on at such length ? 'No compulsory redundancies' is a decent compassionate way to treat workers and all this guff you have written doesn't change this, did you see Alex salmond advocating the very same thing the other night for civil servants ?
Leaving that aside you missed some of ' the math'
Dole money = approx. £70 / week x 500 workers x 52 weeks = £1,820,000 / year + the cost of benefits for those who can't pay their rent because they are unemployed + the cost of retraining those who are suitable + the cost to social services of the unemployed eg poor health, crime etc + the cost of rehousing those who have to give up their homes through defaulting on mortgages etc. etc. I could go on but I'm sure that even someone as simplistic as you might think again about your analysis, should I call it an analysis ? read my post called 'Welcome to our town' is that what you want ?
c4' - I'm sure that most readers like me will bow to your superior knowledge of corruption and A--- licking.
Are you telling me here that people who worked for a council and were made redundant would have to spend the rest of their days on the dole???
That's a pathetic argument for having no redundancies.
Do the funds the council have available belong to the council or the taxpayers of the area?
Shug - "Are you telling me here that people who worked for a council and were made redundant would have to spend the rest of their days on the dole???" No. Are you denying the costs of redundancy ?
The council administration, in this case the SNP/Lib. Dem. Cabal are charged with the responsibility of spending/ looking after the tax payers money.
You don't have to worry about this administration because they will make people redundant so, be happy Mr. Thatcher.
Your comments regarding possible council redundancies and the financial implications are very insulting to council workers.
You are basically insinuating that that in the event of redundancy we would be unemployable.
I think you owe a very humble apology here.
Your arrogance has lost your party my vote.
Anonymous - If you misunderstand or choose to misinterpret what I have said then you are not due any apology.
Perhaps as a council worker you would care to comment on the SNP's refusal to honour Labour's 27 year guarantee of 'no compulsory redundancies' perhaps you could find the courage to identify yourself so that your council colleagues could consider your opinion on this very serious piece of SNP treachery.
Post a Comment