Birmingham Council - "The end of services as we know it"

[Guybrush]

There was plenty of (educated) guessing that councils would play the trick of cutting front line services as soon as Labour lost the election. Councils have way too many non jobs, overpaid and usually in the 'upper' levels of management and plenty of jobs with titles you'd have no way of knowing what they actually did. Of course, these non jobs won't be cut.

[thinfourth2]

martin84 said:

You had to buy tax discs in 1996 you know.

Yes but was what the fine for not buying a tax disc that costs me zero pounds?

[crankedup]

TheEnd said:

martin84 said:

'It's st for us so I want it to be st for them'

That's not the case, it isn't revenge, is a everyone doing their fair bit.
The private sector has gone through a massacre, others have to make similar cutbacks.

PH always seems to give a thumbs up to the 'race to the bottom' mentality. So far as the Public Service workers are concerned PH seems to think that all these people are surplus to humanity.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

TheEnd said:

martin84 said:

'It's st for us so I want it to be st for them'

That's not the case, it isn't revenge, is a everyone doing their fair bit.
The private sector has gone through a massacre, others have to make similar cutbacks.

PH always seems to give a thumbs up to the 'race to the bottom' mentality__. So far as the Public Service workers are concerned __PH seems to think that all these people are surplus to humanity.

Yet again, nobody has said this except you. Are you and martin84 looking to corner the market in invented opinion?

[powerstroke]

crankedup said:

PH always seems to give a thumbs up to the 'race to the bottom' mentality. So far as the Public Service workers are concerned PH seems to think that all these people are surplus to humanity.

Yes I think most council workers on more than about£30k a year are!! would hazard a guess under that they do usefull things and above have a clipboard and do there best to make life difficult for the populus....

[thinfourth2]

crankedup said:

PH always seems to give a thumbs up to the 'race to the bottom' mentality. So far as the Public Service workers are concerned PH seems to think that all these people are surplus to humanity.

No some of their jobs are surplus to humanity

I'd far rather they were working for the private sector paying taxes so they can pay for useful stuff instead of yet another wheely bin

[martin84]

Do you Scots have a particularly high number of wheelie bins? You seem almost obsessed with them. I have three.

[thinfourth2]

martin84 said:

Do you Scots have a particularly high number of wheelie bins? You seem almost obsessed with them. I have three.

Two too many.

[crankedup]

JensenA said:

martin84 said:

turbobloke said:

There are no posts I can recall that say all of PH hates people who are out of work, or hates those who work, it would be illuminating to have a link to such statements.

I'm working on the basis that the vast majority of posts on here are all the same as each other. Most posts on this thread for example could've all been written by the same person because they all express the same view. Hence 'PH says...'

Martin, what you are failing to see is that every Public Sector Job is a drain on the economy. All Public Sector jobs are funded by the Private sector. No one wants to see people lose their jobs, but we (the UK) cant keep borrowing money, and/or Taxing the Private sector simply to keep people employed in the Public Sector.

You state that the Government is increasing borrowing, implying that they have maded a willing decision to increase borrowing. The fact that Government borrowing is increasing, simply underlines how serious the position is - the UK is still having to borrow money to make ends meet.

What is not being acknowledged in this thread is the requirement of a Public Service sector within a civilised Society. Lets forget the usual noise regarding the non-essential Public Service jobs, I agree we, as a Country, cannot afford them.
The Government has wholly failed with its short-sighted policies, a complete failure to recognise how serious the Countries finances are in. That is the reason why the Government is borrowing more money now than at any time since it came to office.

[Johnnytheboy]

Fair enough - of course we need public servants.

What I found odd is the idea that stopping them being unemployed is a valid reason for the state to continue to employ people they can't afford.

I would have thought the only valid reason was that they did something indispensible.

[crankedup]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your wrong, it was the salary which drew peoples attention to her and her work. The salary was deemed to be very poor value for tax payers money. She had a reputation of cutting budgets, not wasting money. However, it was perceived that her prudence concerning our money did not extend to her own requirements at our expense. Its true her aggressive stance taken upon her polices was disliked by fellow Council Members as well as the Suffolk public as a whole, and it was the final nail for her.

[crankedup]

Johnnytheboy said:

Fair enough - of course we need public servants.

What I found odd is the idea that stopping them being unemployed is a valid reason for the state to continue to employ people they can't afford.

I would have thought the only valid reason was that they did something indispensible.

And the 'indispensable' part is very difficult to define. Each Borough will have its own priorities of course, and this will extend to the Police soon in the form of the soon to be elected commissioners. What exactly is indispensable (having acknowledged the 'nonsense jobs') Each of the top priority jobs will have its own specialists team of admin' and support, not literally perhaps but I hope you take the point.
I say a road sweeper is indispensable and the rat catcher, brain surgeon, teacher, social worker. The list is endless. Perhaps we are all going to have to accept a lower standard.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Perhaps we are all going to have to accept a lower standard.

Perhaps?

We're certainly going to have to accept what we can afford.

Which in my view includes roadsweepers more so than highly paid desk jockeys who make front line service staff redundant rather than their own sorry ass just to make a political point.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

TheEnd said:

martin84 said:

'It's st for us so I want it to be st for them'

That's not the case, it isn't revenge, is a everyone doing their fair bit.
The private sector has gone through a massacre, others have to make similar cutbacks.

PH always seems to give a thumbs up to the 'race to the bottom' mentality__. So far as the Public Service workers are concerned __PH seems to think that all these people are surplus to humanity.

Yet again, nobody has said this except you. Are you and martin84 looking to corner the market in invented opinion?

Its colourful language I have used, nobody has said the exact words I have used, to my best knowledge. However, it is easy to detect from the tone of this thread and many previous threads exactly where the PH malaise lies and the attitude to public service employees. Perhaps you might like to add some useful comment rather than your continuance of commenting on other posters, or perhaps that is not in your gift.

[turbobloke]

It can't be in your gift to read posts very well or you wouldn't have asked that specious question - and in terms of commenting on what others say, have you read any posts about hypocrisy lately? The entire reason for this current exchange is your exaggerated fictitious account of what other PHers have (not) said. Replies aren't compulsory

[Johnnytheboy]

crankedup said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Fair enough - of course we need public servants.

What I found odd is the idea that stopping them being unemployed is a valid reason for the state to continue to employ people they can't afford.

I would have thought the only valid reason was that they did something indispensible.

And the 'indispensable' part is very difficult to define. Each Borough will have its own priorities of course, and this will extend to the Police soon in the form of the soon to be elected commissioners. What exactly is indispensable (having acknowledged the 'nonsense jobs') Each of the top priority jobs will have its own specialists team of admin' and support, not literally perhaps but I hope you take the point.
I say a road sweeper is indispensable and the rat catcher, brain surgeon, teacher, social worker. The list is endless. Perhaps we are all going to have to accept a lower standard.

I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is upthread it's been suggested people should be kept in jobs because that's better than them being unemployed, not because they are needed.

Which seems like a wierd reason to employ people.

If fixing the economy was that simple, couldn't the state just give everyone a job?

Oh yes, that's what Ed Balls thinks.

[eccles]

Johnnytheboy said:

crankedup said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Fair enough - of course we need public servants.

What I found odd is the idea that stopping them being unemployed is a valid reason for the state to continue to employ people they can't afford.

I would have thought the only valid reason was that they did something indispensible.

And the 'indispensable' part is very difficult to define. Each Borough will have its own priorities of course, and this will extend to the Police soon in the form of the soon to be elected commissioners. What exactly is indispensable (having acknowledged the 'nonsense jobs') Each of the top priority jobs will have its own specialists team of admin' and support, not literally perhaps but I hope you take the point.
I say a road sweeper is indispensable and the rat catcher, brain surgeon, teacher, social worker. The list is endless. Perhaps we are all going to have to accept a lower standard.

I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is upthread it's been suggested people should be kept in jobs because that's better than them being unemployed, not because they are needed.

Which seems like a wierd reason to employ people.

If fixing the economy was that simple, couldn't the state just give everyone a job?

Oh yes, that's what Ed Balls thinks.

I made that point.
I'd be interested to see if there are any figures out there to see the pros and cons of employing someone on under the national average salary, versus their cost to the taxpayer as someone who is unemployed.
It might save the local council money in wages, but it may well cost the taxpayer more to support them on benefits.

[A.J.M]

martin84 said:

Do you Scots have a particularly high number of wheelie bins? You seem almost obsessed with them. I have three.

4.
Black for general waste, collected once every two weeks.
Blue for recycling, collected once every two weeks.
Green for glass, collected once a month i think.
Brown for garden waste, as above.

Bit much considering 5 year's ago we had 1. Which got collected weekly.
The council is great for spending cash on stuff that is useless though, monoblock speed bump's instead of fixing roads is the latest idea.
It does spend good cash on worthwhile services though. Just wish it would recalibrate the lights to the old way that allowed free car travel, instead of hitting walls of red light's.

[martin84]

Until about four years ago we still threw black bags out at the front of the house for the binman. Three wheelie bins now, one for recycling, one for non-recycling and another for garden stuff. Hardly excessive, some councils have 7!

[NoNeed]

martin84 said:

Until about four years ago we still threw black bags out at the front of the house for the binman. Three wheelie bins now, one for recycling, one for non-recycling and another for garden stuff. Hardly excessive, some councils have 7!

Birmingham do NOT have wheelie bins we still throw our black bags out we do have two small recycle boxs though but god knows what they are for.