Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
dav123a said:
if you're looking at 10s of millions to be saved you are still looking at cutting services.
Some of the extravagance & waste could be cut instead, or are you of the opinion that no such exists?turbobloke said:
Rovinghawk said:
dav123a said:
if you're looking at 10s of millions to be saved you are still looking at cutting services.
Some of the extravagance & waste could be cut instead, or are you of the opinion that no such exists?dav123a said:
Rovinghawk said:
Some of the extravagance & waste could be cut instead, or are you of the opinion that no such exists?
No not all , my point is that alone will not fill in the gaps of the reduced budgets.turbobloke said:
My point is, why should it be considered an automatic reaction that all cuts are reversed immediately? The cure to over-spending, operating beyond available means, isn't to go back to it straight away but to wait until it's more affordable. Obvious, really. We're all in it together apparently.
I've not seen anyone suggest that on here ? I suppose what you think councils should or shouldn't do depends on how much you use them. If it's just the bins and little else then you may think the cuts aren't deep enough and councils are a waste of space. Obv if you rely on them then you may think differently. dav123a said:
Some already do this certainly round where I live , TBH I thought advertising on roundabouts had been done for years certainly before the cuts started. While it would go into the pot if you're looking at 10s of millions to be saved you are still looking at cutting services.
They do, so it should tell them that if they did more of it they'd make more money.I've seen examples in the US where Pizza Hut would fill in potholes on the roads and paint a Pizza Hut logo on the patch. Saves the roads budget. You could have the type of advertising you see on rugby pitches on the road at traffic lights. Not to mention on all the other land and building councils sit on.
And that's before they look at the thousands of other ways they could use their huge customer base to generate income. One simple example is bins. Councils supply them and that's that. We now have businesses going around cleaning them for people, painting them, putting numbers on them. All extra services the council could be making money from instead.
I'm not saying cleaning bins will make them millions, it's the principle of looking at every opportunity out there to actually generate money themselves, rather than just waiting on the cheque from central government and moaning that it's less than last time.
dav123a said:
turbobloke said:
My point is, why should it be considered an automatic reaction that all cuts are reversed immediately? The cure to over-spending, operating beyond available means, isn't to go back to it straight away but to wait until it's more affordable. Obvious, really. We're all in it together apparently.
I've not seen anyone suggest that on here ?dav123a said:
I suppose what you think councils should or shouldn't do depends on how much you use them.
Spending what you can afford isn't - or shouldn't be - regulated by the whim of any group of people with varying degrees of service use. Of course those spending the money and those it's spent on will want more and more for ever and ever but the problems faced now are due to Labour's over-spending which was never sustainable given their economic incompetence. Change is necessary. If people don't like the taste of the medicine they should blame the source of the disease not the doctor applying a cure.turbobloke said:
dav123a said:
turbobloke said:
My point is, why should it be considered an automatic reaction that all cuts are reversed immediately? The cure to over-spending, operating beyond available means, isn't to go back to it straight away but to wait until it's more affordable. Obvious, really. We're all in it together apparently.
I've not seen anyone suggest that on here ?--- that wasn't was I was suggesting at all not sure how you made that assumption.
dav123a said:
I suppose what you think councils should or shouldn't do depends on how much you use them.
Spending what you can afford isn't - or shouldn't be - regulated by the whim of any group of people with varying degrees of service use. Of course those spending the money and those it's spent on will want more and more for ever and ever but the problems faced now are due to Labour's over-spending which was never sustainable given their economic incompetence. Change is necessary. If people don't like the taste of the medicine they should blame the source of the disease not the doctor applying a cure.dav123a said:
I'm not sure I would describe alot of services users needs as whims. It's not all about handing out giant TVs. Like wise you can't blame councils for the cuts its not of there making.
That's not what I said. My post mentioned that matters of affordability (not need) are not something that can be defined by whims in terms of users thinking they should get more. I pointed out that recipients will tend to want more, and those admninistering the funds will want more. Possibly a good idea for you to read posts more carefully, assuming you didn't twist what I said
The social media coordinator of Comrade Corbyn's rent-a-mob, Momentum, has form for election fraud:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12144213/...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12144213/...
turbobloke said:
Thought we were supposed to be inclusive (spit) these days.
Why are they ignoring Faith and Charity?
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
Thought we were supposed to be inclusive (spit) these days.Why are they ignoring Faith and Charity?
irocfan said:
mybrainhurts said:
turbobloke said:
Thought we were supposed to be inclusive (spit) these days.Why are they ignoring Faith and Charity?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff