City of York Council budget documents leaked

City of York Council budget documents leaked

King’s Square in York, where improvements proved controversial

Coun Keith Aspden

Coun Dafydd Williams

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

CHILDREN’S centres, youth clubs and road repairs in York could face huge funding cuts, secret budget documents have suggested.

Cost-cutting proposals in papers discussed by City of York Council’s Labour cabinet and senior officials also include a £350,000 reduction for the school improvement service and a £115,000 cut for the authority’s apprenticeship scheme in 2015/16.

Labour is launching an investigation into how the documents were obtained by the council’s Liberal Democrat group.

The authority will debate its two-year budget next month, but the leaked papers show proposals include reducing the children’s centre budget by £400,000 the year after next, on top of a £128,000 cut planned for 2014/15.

Youth services would lose £500,000 in 2015/16 following a £150,000 cut next year, while spending on roads would fall by £1 million in the second year of the budget.

The council is looking to save £12.1 million in 2015/16, including £3.3 million from efficiency savings and £4.5 million through the council’s “transformation” project.

The authority must also save £11 million in 2014/15, and by the end of that year it will have cut about £78 million from its budget since 2007/08 and £52 million in the space of four years.

Labour said no firm budget decisions had yet been taken, but Lib Dem leader Coun Keith Aspden said York’s families and young people would bear the brunt if the proposals discussed were implemented.

“These cuts will mean children’s centres and youth clubs will either face closure or a drastic reduction of the services they offer, and I am urgently seeking answers and a commitment from the cabinet member responsible that none of these will close,” he said.

“Meanwhile, a further £1 million being taken out of the road budget will mean even fewer potholes and paths being repaired. While these valued services face unprecedented cuts, lavish spending continues on the unpopular 20mph scheme, the King’s Square makeover and the Arts Barge, and only last month Labour found the money to create a new £140,000 senior management role.

“It is all about choices. This is not about national Government cuts, but ideological decisions by Labour.”

Coun Dafydd Williams, cabinet member for finance, performance and customer service, said Labour was still working on budgets for both 2014/15 and 2015/16.

He said: “No firm decisions have been taken yet, either internally or externally. Any paperwork which might be circulating could only be about options which are being considered rather than firm plans.

"It will come as no surprise to many people that we are having to consider significant reductions in budgets in many areas, as we attempt to manage the devastating cuts passed on to us by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.”

A council spokesman said: “Every local authority is having to consider very difficult decisions in order to set a balanced budget.

“York is no different and, having seen an £80 million reduction in income, it is inevitable that the options faced are challenging, as evidenced in the working papers seen by The Press.”

The council’s budget proposals for the next two years will emerge next week ahead of a cabinet meeting on February 11 and the full budget council meeting on February 27.

Comments (67)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:11pm Mon 27 Jan 14

ouseswimmer says...

Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -844

12:25pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Exlabourmember says...

Documents being leaked is clear indication of one thing - staff within the organisation (or labour councillors themselves!) have completely lost faith in the muppets in charge.

As these are the only two groups of people likely to have had sight of these documents the fact that they are now actively working against their masters is probably the final nail in this lame duck's coffin.
Documents being leaked is clear indication of one thing - staff within the organisation (or labour councillors themselves!) have completely lost faith in the muppets in charge. As these are the only two groups of people likely to have had sight of these documents the fact that they are now actively working against their masters is probably the final nail in this lame duck's coffin. Exlabourmember
  • Score: -621

12:27pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Zetkin says...

Hypocrisy all round.

Less and less difference between Labour, Liberals, and Tories.

All three are agreed that the bankers created the crisis and that the less well-off must pay for it.

Bankers' bonuses up; support for needy children, cut to destruction.
Hypocrisy all round. Less and less difference between Labour, Liberals, and Tories. All three are agreed that the bankers created the crisis and that the less well-off must pay for it. Bankers' bonuses up; support for needy children, cut to destruction. Zetkin
  • Score: -176

12:28pm Mon 27 Jan 14

nasrudin says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
Uh... care to put forward any figures to prove any of that? Or are you just guessing?
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]Uh... care to put forward any figures to prove any of that? Or are you just guessing? nasrudin
  • Score: 332

12:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

nasrudin says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
Also, perhaps you could offer your wise and radical cost-cutting financial advice as a consultant to other organisations looking to save money, eg, Tesco, Nestle, the Government, your local corner shop, etc?
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]Also, perhaps you could offer your wise and radical cost-cutting financial advice as a consultant to other organisations looking to save money, eg, Tesco, Nestle, the Government, your local corner shop, etc? nasrudin
  • Score: 345

12:39pm Mon 27 Jan 14

BL2 says...

Quite simple - do away with the "vanity" fund and all "improvement" projects, 20mph zones, etc. Focus on fixing all existing problems (potholes, etc) supporting and increasing the availability and performance of frontline services!
Quite simple - do away with the "vanity" fund and all "improvement" projects, 20mph zones, etc. Focus on fixing all existing problems (potholes, etc) supporting and increasing the availability and performance of frontline services! BL2
  • Score: -395

12:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Grey Lady says...

There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries.

For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will.

I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.
There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries. For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power. Grey Lady
  • Score: -333

1:12pm Mon 27 Jan 14

MidnightBoo says...

Grey Lady wrote:
There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries.

For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will.

I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.
I do hope you never find yourself in need of foreign aid (other countries may one day need to support you). Generally speaking we are feeling the pinch but have homes to live in, clean running water, electricity, food to eat everyday (at least 3 times a day) and live free of persecution. Those in need of aid have none of these things, be it from a natural disaster or conflict. We are rich in comparison to millions sharing this planet with us. How incredibly souless your view is.
Regarding immigration, I hope you, your family and friends do not want to emigrate to another country for work or perhaps to enjoy retirement in warmer climes. That would make you immigrates, tut tut.
[quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries. For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.[/p][/quote]I do hope you never find yourself in need of foreign aid (other countries may one day need to support you). Generally speaking we are feeling the pinch but have homes to live in, clean running water, electricity, food to eat everyday (at least 3 times a day) and live free of persecution. Those in need of aid have none of these things, be it from a natural disaster or conflict. We are rich in comparison to millions sharing this planet with us. How incredibly souless your view is. Regarding immigration, I hope you, your family and friends do not want to emigrate to another country for work or perhaps to enjoy retirement in warmer climes. That would make you immigrates, tut tut. MidnightBoo
  • Score: 131

1:21pm Mon 27 Jan 14

York1900 says...

National government cut funding put in rules on how much councils can raise locally

Then local councils have to look at how they can run local services the result is that services are cut and councils have to try and make a budget with the money coming in

Some of the money for CHILDREN’S centres, youth clubs came from the education budget but that as been cut as most schools have got direct funding from the government so the council have not got that money to take a slice of for CHILDREN’S centres, youth clubs
National government cut funding put in rules on how much councils can raise locally Then local councils have to look at how they can run local services the result is that services are cut and councils have to try and make a budget with the money coming in Some of the money for CHILDREN’S centres, youth clubs came from the education budget but that as been cut as most schools have got direct funding from the government so the council have not got that money to take a slice of for CHILDREN’S centres, youth clubs York1900
  • Score: 118

1:21pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Dr Brian says...

I bet Alexander won't cut the council money being wasted on televising of council meeting or anyother of his half witted vanity projects. I am a Holgate ward resident who helped vote him into power I have never voted Tory but they have more chance than he has of getting it next time.
I bet Alexander won't cut the council money being wasted on televising of council meeting or anyother of his half witted vanity projects. I am a Holgate ward resident who helped vote him into power I have never voted Tory but they have more chance than he has of getting it next time. Dr Brian
  • Score: -133

1:28pm Mon 27 Jan 14

nasrudin says...

Grey Lady wrote:
There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries.

For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will.

I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.
And replace them with muppets of your choosing?
[quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries. For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.[/p][/quote]And replace them with muppets of your choosing? nasrudin
  • Score: 66

1:33pm Mon 27 Jan 14

meme says...

why are we wasting money on arts barges/a very poor Kings sq refurbishment/20 mph zones etc etc when there are more important things to spend money on
I live on a road where its virtually impossible to do more than 20MPH yet the signs have gone up all the same. its madness
Every penny should be thought about and the council needs to consider whose money they are spending and ensuring they get best value for any monies spent by tendering consultancy/building work etc to local companies who will do best job at best prices
why are we wasting money on arts barges/a very poor Kings sq refurbishment/20 mph zones etc etc when there are more important things to spend money on I live on a road where its virtually impossible to do more than 20MPH yet the signs have gone up all the same. its madness Every penny should be thought about and the council needs to consider whose money they are spending and ensuring they get best value for any monies spent by tendering consultancy/building work etc to local companies who will do best job at best prices meme
  • Score: -93

1:42pm Mon 27 Jan 14

CaroleBaines says...

Zetkin wrote:
Hypocrisy all round.

Less and less difference between Labour, Liberals, and Tories.

All three are agreed that the bankers created the crisis and that the less well-off must pay for it.

Bankers' bonuses up; support for needy children, cut to destruction.
Spot on. Says all one needs to know really. We are being duped.
[quote][p][bold]Zetkin[/bold] wrote: Hypocrisy all round. Less and less difference between Labour, Liberals, and Tories. All three are agreed that the bankers created the crisis and that the less well-off must pay for it. Bankers' bonuses up; support for needy children, cut to destruction.[/p][/quote]Spot on. Says all one needs to know really. We are being duped. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 5

1:53pm Mon 27 Jan 14

courier46 says...

Shame on this council SHAME!!
Shame on this council SHAME!! courier46
  • Score: -72

1:59pm Mon 27 Jan 14

gjh says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this. gjh
  • Score: -28

1:59pm Mon 27 Jan 14

tobefair says...

Last week it was £1.5million to spend on improving the market and £2.2million on improvements to Exhibition Square etc. This week it is cuts to childrens and youth services. It makes you think doesn't it?
Last week it was £1.5million to spend on improving the market and £2.2million on improvements to Exhibition Square etc. This week it is cuts to childrens and youth services. It makes you think doesn't it? tobefair
  • Score: -81

2:20pm Mon 27 Jan 14

imassey says...

meme wrote:
why are we wasting money on arts barges/a very poor Kings sq refurbishment/20 mph zones etc etc when there are more important things to spend money on
I live on a road where its virtually impossible to do more than 20MPH yet the signs have gone up all the same. its madness
Every penny should be thought about and the council needs to consider whose money they are spending and ensuring they get best value for any monies spent by tendering consultancy/building work etc to local companies who will do best job at best prices
While I have no opinion on 20mph zones (having lived in the middle of one for years) and no real concern about Kings Square (I had a look at it on Saturday - it's not offensive) I do wonder why lots of people seem to pick on the Arts Barge.

You may not want it/use it/agree with it but surely its obvious that if money was only ever spent on what individuals wanted nothing would ever get spent. So what do we do - vote for every pound spent and only ever go with the majority? Surely that just leads to another form of discrimination??? You can spend your money on what you want as an individual but pots created out of taxation are for the use of everybody.
[quote][p][bold]meme[/bold] wrote: why are we wasting money on arts barges/a very poor Kings sq refurbishment/20 mph zones etc etc when there are more important things to spend money on I live on a road where its virtually impossible to do more than 20MPH yet the signs have gone up all the same. its madness Every penny should be thought about and the council needs to consider whose money they are spending and ensuring they get best value for any monies spent by tendering consultancy/building work etc to local companies who will do best job at best prices[/p][/quote]While I have no opinion on 20mph zones (having lived in the middle of one for years) and no real concern about Kings Square (I had a look at it on Saturday - it's not offensive) I do wonder why lots of people seem to pick on the Arts Barge. You may not want it/use it/agree with it but surely its obvious that if money was only ever spent on what individuals wanted nothing would ever get spent. So what do we do - vote for every pound spent and only ever go with the majority? Surely that just leads to another form of discrimination??? You can spend your money on what you want as an individual but pots created out of taxation are for the use of everybody. imassey
  • Score: -13

2:22pm Mon 27 Jan 14

hokey cokey says...

Surely the answer is obvious......trial closures of Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges. The money will come pouring in!
Surely the answer is obvious......trial closures of Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges. The money will come pouring in! hokey cokey
  • Score: -143

2:53pm Mon 27 Jan 14

York Fox says...

How on earth can they be cutting the road budget following the masive income from Lendal? It surely must be the only area of local government where the income has gone up through the roof?

As all have said above, the fact that they can afford personal pet projects like the 20mph zones, unused cycle paths, a change of paving slabs in Kings Square etc etc, but can't afford to fill potholes, or imporve our childrens education tells us all we need to know:

LABOUR MUST GO.
How on earth can they be cutting the road budget following the masive income from Lendal? It surely must be the only area of local government where the income has gone up through the roof? As all have said above, the fact that they can afford personal pet projects like the 20mph zones, unused cycle paths, a change of paving slabs in Kings Square etc etc, but can't afford to fill potholes, or imporve our childrens education tells us all we need to know: LABOUR MUST GO. York Fox
  • Score: -127

3:09pm Mon 27 Jan 14

myselby says...

Just wait for the cuts from NYCC, at least York have youth clubs to cut, not one council run youth club in Selby, and it’s the Tory /Lib Dem government cuts that the council are having to cope with.
Just wait for the cuts from NYCC, at least York have youth clubs to cut, not one council run youth club in Selby, and it’s the Tory /Lib Dem government cuts that the council are having to cope with. myselby
  • Score: -113

3:18pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Madasanibbotson says...

tobefair wrote:
Last week it was £1.5million to spend on improving the market and £2.2million on improvements to Exhibition Square etc. This week it is cuts to childrens and youth services. It makes you think doesn't it?
That's Alexander and his bunch for you. They get acres of press coverage for their stupid schemes, yet try and keep cuts to services secret.

We all know what to do at the next election. Job centre for Alexander, Merrett and Simply-Laing
[quote][p][bold]tobefair[/bold] wrote: Last week it was £1.5million to spend on improving the market and £2.2million on improvements to Exhibition Square etc. This week it is cuts to childrens and youth services. It makes you think doesn't it?[/p][/quote]That's Alexander and his bunch for you. They get acres of press coverage for their stupid schemes, yet try and keep cuts to services secret. We all know what to do at the next election. Job centre for Alexander, Merrett and Simply-Laing Madasanibbotson
  • Score: -49

3:31pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Dave Ruddock says...

who is the Labour party member for transport?? who is head of the labour party. ENOUGH SAID. and "Secret Reports" of massive cuts and they still geting monoes to REJUVINATE york. bet the Tresury department is in the position on Right Hand Not knowing what left is doing whilst hear is spining out of control ... NO CONFIDENCE
who is the Labour party member for transport?? who is head of the labour party. ENOUGH SAID. and "Secret Reports" of massive cuts and they still geting monoes to REJUVINATE york. bet the Tresury department is in the position on Right Hand Not knowing what left is doing whilst hear is spining out of control ... NO CONFIDENCE Dave Ruddock
  • Score: -322

3:35pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Can't all be wrong says...

Why were these papers "secret", why were they not available for other councilors to see regardless of political affiliation. YCC obsession with secrecy and lack of transparency is almost as worrying as their financial incompetence.
To Who ever leaked these documents, well done!
Why were these papers "secret", why were they not available for other councilors to see regardless of political affiliation. YCC obsession with secrecy and lack of transparency is almost as worrying as their financial incompetence. To Who ever leaked these documents, well done! Can't all be wrong
  • Score: -321

3:51pm Mon 27 Jan 14

tonyfromitaly says...

hokey cokey wrote:
Surely the answer is obvious......trial closures of Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges. The money will come pouring in!
Correct ! shut the lot and jail the offenders, and Alice dissapeared down a deep hole and the dish ran away with the spoon.
You couldnt make it up.
[quote][p][bold]hokey cokey[/bold] wrote: Surely the answer is obvious......trial closures of Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges. The money will come pouring in![/p][/quote]Correct ! shut the lot and jail the offenders, and Alice dissapeared down a deep hole and the dish ran away with the spoon. You couldnt make it up. tonyfromitaly
  • Score: -338

3:57pm Mon 27 Jan 14

piaggio1 says...

Often wondered about the 20 plenty thingys.
Wonder if there.s any where a certain liebour councillor has 5+buy to lets.
Socialist. S? Dont you just love em.
Often wondered about the 20 plenty thingys. Wonder if there.s any where a certain liebour councillor has 5+buy to lets. Socialist. S? Dont you just love em. piaggio1
  • Score: -290

4:30pm Mon 27 Jan 14

eeoodares says...

MidnightBoo wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries.

For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will.

I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.
I do hope you never find yourself in need of foreign aid (other countries may one day need to support you). Generally speaking we are feeling the pinch but have homes to live in, clean running water, electricity, food to eat everyday (at least 3 times a day) and live free of persecution. Those in need of aid have none of these things, be it from a natural disaster or conflict. We are rich in comparison to millions sharing this planet with us. How incredibly souless your view is.
Regarding immigration, I hope you, your family and friends do not want to emigrate to another country for work or perhaps to enjoy retirement in warmer climes. That would make you immigrates, tut tut.
I think you will find that the vast majority of countries outside of the EU would require you to prove your ability to support yourself financially. Also, most countries within the EU do not have health care free at the point of use, so you would need to provide for that.

I do not see it as unreasonable that people are concerned that the UK is pumping money into countries that have a space programme, when we can not afford to grit our roads in winter....unless you are like the last Labour government, that regarded people who had concerns over immigration as being 'bigots'!
[quote][p][bold]MidnightBoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries. For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.[/p][/quote]I do hope you never find yourself in need of foreign aid (other countries may one day need to support you). Generally speaking we are feeling the pinch but have homes to live in, clean running water, electricity, food to eat everyday (at least 3 times a day) and live free of persecution. Those in need of aid have none of these things, be it from a natural disaster or conflict. We are rich in comparison to millions sharing this planet with us. How incredibly souless your view is. Regarding immigration, I hope you, your family and friends do not want to emigrate to another country for work or perhaps to enjoy retirement in warmer climes. That would make you immigrates, tut tut.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that the vast majority of countries outside of the EU would require you to prove your ability to support yourself financially. Also, most countries within the EU do not have health care free at the point of use, so you would need to provide for that. I do not see it as unreasonable that people are concerned that the UK is pumping money into countries that have a space programme, when we can not afford to grit our roads in winter....unless you are like the last Labour government, that regarded people who had concerns over immigration as being 'bigots'! eeoodares
  • Score: -287

4:37pm Mon 27 Jan 14

ouseswimmer says...

gjh wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.
10's? You're clearly out of touch with senior council staff remuneration. A few years ago Ireland cut the wages of its civil servants by a similar amount. They are now emerging from their debt problems. Its a solution which works.
[quote][p][bold]gjh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.[/p][/quote]10's? You're clearly out of touch with senior council staff remuneration. A few years ago Ireland cut the wages of its civil servants by a similar amount. They are now emerging from their debt problems. Its a solution which works. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -283

4:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

oldgoat says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
So you'd have senior posts paying £35,000 a year,lower grades on £60,000 and anyone over £40,000 down to £36,000.
Putting aside the dodgy maths, good luck filling those posts with people who have the skills to do those jobs - they'd be able to get far more in the private sector. Seriously, yes. Try hiring a CEO for £35,000.....
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]So you'd have senior posts paying £35,000 a year,lower grades on £60,000 and anyone over £40,000 down to £36,000. Putting aside the dodgy maths, good luck filling those posts with people who have the skills to do those jobs - they'd be able to get far more in the private sector. Seriously, yes. Try hiring a CEO for £35,000..... oldgoat
  • Score: 174

5:19pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Caecilius says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
gjh wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.
10's? You're clearly out of touch with senior council staff remuneration. A few years ago Ireland cut the wages of its civil servants by a similar amount. They are now emerging from their debt problems. Its a solution which works.
As gjh pointed out, UK public sector wages - including those of civil servants - have already been cut in real terms by around 10%, even though the vast majority of people affected earn nothing remotely approaching £40k. Has it saved the economy? No, because, as even a junior school pupil could figure out, people who are struggling financially aren't going to be spending money, to create demand, which creates jobs, which raise money in taxes.....
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gjh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.[/p][/quote]10's? You're clearly out of touch with senior council staff remuneration. A few years ago Ireland cut the wages of its civil servants by a similar amount. They are now emerging from their debt problems. Its a solution which works.[/p][/quote]As gjh pointed out, UK public sector wages - including those of civil servants - have already been cut in real terms by around 10%, even though the vast majority of people affected earn nothing remotely approaching £40k. Has it saved the economy? No, because, as even a junior school pupil could figure out, people who are struggling financially aren't going to be spending money, to create demand, which creates jobs, which raise money in taxes..... Caecilius
  • Score: 122

5:27pm Mon 27 Jan 14

York1900 says...

It is not only YCC that as trouble with making council budgets work most councils are having the same trouble of were the cuts fall with the rules this government have given them to work by

The biggest problem is that the government as cut funding and at the same time made local councils responsible for services that the government used to pay for so services are going to be cuts across the board but that's the price you pay for the government giving tax cuts to people and not collecting tax's from companies



\
It is not only YCC that as trouble with making council budgets work most councils are having the same trouble of were the cuts fall with the rules this government have given them to work by The biggest problem is that the government as cut funding and at the same time made local councils responsible for services that the government used to pay for so services are going to be cuts across the board but that's the price you pay for the government giving tax cuts to people and not collecting tax's from companies \ York1900
  • Score: 80

5:35pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

Cut to roads spending = £1million.

Cost of 20mph zones = £600,000.

Thanks Anna (and not to forget the 7 people out of 13,000 households in west York who also wanted the zones).
Cut to roads spending = £1million. Cost of 20mph zones = £600,000. Thanks Anna (and not to forget the 7 people out of 13,000 households in west York who also wanted the zones). Bo Jolly
  • Score: -384

5:42pm Mon 27 Jan 14

AnotherPointofView says...

hokey cokey wrote:
Surely the answer is obvious......trial closures of Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges. The money will come pouring in!
As tongue in cheek as your point may be, please don't suggest it as the numpties in West Offices will be reading this and may take your idea on board.
[quote][p][bold]hokey cokey[/bold] wrote: Surely the answer is obvious......trial closures of Ouse and Skeldergate Bridges. The money will come pouring in![/p][/quote]As tongue in cheek as your point may be, please don't suggest it as the numpties in West Offices will be reading this and may take your idea on board. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -357

5:47pm Mon 27 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Fancy this getting out before it's been dressed up and spun for public consumption, the naked truth.

Investigation, the actions of the exposed and vulnerable.
Fancy this getting out before it's been dressed up and spun for public consumption, the naked truth. Investigation, the actions of the exposed and vulnerable. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -334

5:55pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

I find it hard to believe that a Labour council is so meekly accepting of the Tory cuts. If you're going to do something controversial, oppose them! Find a way to AVOID cutting children's services and youth clubs. Take the fight to the government, be genuinely radical. Instead, at a time of massive welfare cuts, public service decimation and mass transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich our lame-duck council is mired in controversy for... closing a section of the inner ring road, to the detriment of many and the benefit of few. Their skewed priorities will lose them the next election.
I find it hard to believe that a Labour council is so meekly accepting of the Tory cuts. If you're going to do something controversial, oppose them! Find a way to AVOID cutting children's services and youth clubs. Take the fight to the government, be genuinely radical. Instead, at a time of massive welfare cuts, public service decimation and mass transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich our lame-duck council is mired in controversy for... closing a section of the inner ring road, to the detriment of many and the benefit of few. Their skewed priorities will lose them the next election. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -277

6:00pm Mon 27 Jan 14

chelk says...

No wonder they are trying to find out how it was leaked because this lot have been found out discussing cuts in secret this is something we should all know about prior to any election. What they have done to the taxpayers in my opinion is underhand and wrong. Now all we need to know is who is the Moron who Manipulates the scores.
The Muppet Show continues
No wonder they are trying to find out how it was leaked because this lot have been found out discussing cuts in secret this is something we should all know about prior to any election. What they have done to the taxpayers in my opinion is underhand and wrong. Now all we need to know is who is the Moron who Manipulates the scores. The Muppet Show continues chelk
  • Score: -319

6:06pm Mon 27 Jan 14

ouseswimmer says...

I never thought I would hear people defending high wages because its good for the economy. I suggest £140,000 is far too excessive for someone to spend each year. However I would fully back low earners being paid far more. They are the people who will spend their money and yes the economy will be massively boosted because of it. One person being paid £140,000 is indefensible. How does one spend £400 a day to help boost the economy? Give it to the low paid so they can afford to buy food and energy they will spend every penny.
I never thought I would hear people defending high wages because its good for the economy. I suggest £140,000 is far too excessive for someone to spend each year. However I would fully back low earners being paid far more. They are the people who will spend their money and yes the economy will be massively boosted because of it. One person being paid £140,000 is indefensible. How does one spend £400 a day to help boost the economy? Give it to the low paid so they can afford to buy food and energy they will spend every penny. ouseswimmer
  • Score: -321

6:18pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit:

1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62
2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43
3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23
4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23
6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64

Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?!
As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?! Bo Jolly
  • Score: -313

6:55pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

piaggio1 wrote:
Often wondered about the 20 plenty thingys.
Wonder if there.s any where a certain liebour councillor has 5+buy to lets.
Socialist. S? Dont you just love em.
I don't imagine Anna would describe herself as a socialist! There is nothing inherently socialist about 20mph zones, closing Lendal Bridge and all the other anti-car antics of the council. Its just a wafer thin veneer of self-styled radicalism to disguise their complete lack of will or ability to take on the major issues like benefit and service cuts, while the rich get richer and the working classes get poorer.
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: Often wondered about the 20 plenty thingys. Wonder if there.s any where a certain liebour councillor has 5+buy to lets. Socialist. S? Dont you just love em.[/p][/quote]I don't imagine Anna would describe herself as a socialist! There is nothing inherently socialist about 20mph zones, closing Lendal Bridge and all the other anti-car antics of the council. Its just a wafer thin veneer of self-styled radicalism to disguise their complete lack of will or ability to take on the major issues like benefit and service cuts, while the rich get richer and the working classes get poorer. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -250

7:29pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Maquis says...

You fail to understand the politics in this.
It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv"
The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time.
There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.
You fail to understand the politics in this. It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv" The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time. There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end. Maquis
  • Score: -132

7:30pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Maquis says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
I find it hard to believe that a Labour council is so meekly accepting of the Tory cuts. If you're going to do something controversial, oppose them! Find a way to AVOID cutting children's services and youth clubs. Take the fight to the government, be genuinely radical. Instead, at a time of massive welfare cuts, public service decimation and mass transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich our lame-duck council is mired in controversy for... closing a section of the inner ring road, to the detriment of many and the benefit of few. Their skewed priorities will lose them the next election.
That last post was supposed to follow this quote.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: I find it hard to believe that a Labour council is so meekly accepting of the Tory cuts. If you're going to do something controversial, oppose them! Find a way to AVOID cutting children's services and youth clubs. Take the fight to the government, be genuinely radical. Instead, at a time of massive welfare cuts, public service decimation and mass transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich our lame-duck council is mired in controversy for... closing a section of the inner ring road, to the detriment of many and the benefit of few. Their skewed priorities will lose them the next election.[/p][/quote]That last post was supposed to follow this quote. Maquis
  • Score: -404

7:44pm Mon 27 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit:

1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62
2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43
3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23
4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23
6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64

Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?!
Started 7:40pm

Clearly not allowed out of the cage until after dark.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?![/p][/quote]Started 7:40pm Clearly not allowed out of the cage until after dark. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -373

9:13pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

Maquis wrote:
You fail to understand the politics in this.
It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv"
The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time.
There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.
I don't disagree with your cynicism, but I can't see it working and I expect it would require a greater degree of organisation/coopera
tion than is actually possible. Whatever the council say - and I actually haven't heard ours blame the government very vocally for the enforced cuts, unlike some other northern councils - most people will STILL blame the council when they make the cuts. This is especially the case when they fiddle while Rome burns by spending money on unpopular pet projects. Spending £600,000 on pointless 20mph zones and (insert preferred unpopular profligate scheme here) is not a good set-up for deliberately exaggerating (in your analysis) Tory austerity.
[quote][p][bold]Maquis[/bold] wrote: You fail to understand the politics in this. It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv" The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time. There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree with your cynicism, but I can't see it working and I expect it would require a greater degree of organisation/coopera tion than is actually possible. Whatever the council say - and I actually haven't heard ours blame the government very vocally for the enforced cuts, unlike some other northern councils - most people will STILL blame the council when they make the cuts. This is especially the case when they fiddle while Rome burns by spending money on unpopular pet projects. Spending £600,000 on pointless 20mph zones and (insert preferred unpopular profligate scheme here) is not a good set-up for deliberately exaggerating (in your analysis) Tory austerity. Bo Jolly
  • Score: -362

9:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Kelvar says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit:

1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62
2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43
3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23
4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23
6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64

Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?!
21.44pm. Negative Votes approaching! THEY'RE HERE!!!
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?![/p][/quote]21.44pm. Negative Votes approaching! THEY'RE HERE!!! Kelvar
  • Score: -352

10:27pm Mon 27 Jan 14

gjh says...

Maquis wrote:
You fail to understand the politics in this.
It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv"
The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time.
There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.
Conservative North Yorkshire County Council will be cutting hard and deep as well. It is not just a Labour thing. The coalition government is wrecking the public service in this country. Cuts have already happened but then the government changes the rules again. Every council is feeling the pain and there will be many people losing their services and jobs. I was a Conservative supporter of many years standing until recently, but not now.
[quote][p][bold]Maquis[/bold] wrote: You fail to understand the politics in this. It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv" The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time. There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.[/p][/quote]Conservative North Yorkshire County Council will be cutting hard and deep as well. It is not just a Labour thing. The coalition government is wrecking the public service in this country. Cuts have already happened but then the government changes the rules again. Every council is feeling the pain and there will be many people losing their services and jobs. I was a Conservative supporter of many years standing until recently, but not now. gjh
  • Score: -334

10:30pm Mon 27 Jan 14

oi oi savaloy says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!!
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 113

11:59pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Maquis says...

gjh wrote:
Maquis wrote:
You fail to understand the politics in this.
It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv"
The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time.
There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.
Conservative North Yorkshire County Council will be cutting hard and deep as well. It is not just a Labour thing. The coalition government is wrecking the public service in this country. Cuts have already happened but then the government changes the rules again. Every council is feeling the pain and there will be many people losing their services and jobs. I was a Conservative supporter of many years standing until recently, but not now.
Yes they are cutting. It's where they choose to cut that makes the difference.
An intelligent council can save millions by renegotiating contracts with suppliers, not replacing perfectly good equipment just because it is a couple of years old and not hiring consultants where they are not needed.
York council make the cuts where they will hurt the most.

And bo jolly, I deal with the council regularly and I have heard them blame the government every time the cuts are mentioned. Search the press website and you will see back heeling on almost every comment from the Labour councillors.
[quote][p][bold]gjh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maquis[/bold] wrote: You fail to understand the politics in this. It was obvious when we got a Labour council what was going to happen. They make the cuts hurt as much as possible and blame the government. The government look like the bad guys, Labour say "not my fault guv" The government look bad and people vote a labour government back in next time. There were ways to save these millions without anywhere near as much pain, but it isnt in the labour parties interest and just remember that James wants to get offered a seat as an MP so this will help him no end.[/p][/quote]Conservative North Yorkshire County Council will be cutting hard and deep as well. It is not just a Labour thing. The coalition government is wrecking the public service in this country. Cuts have already happened but then the government changes the rules again. Every council is feeling the pain and there will be many people losing their services and jobs. I was a Conservative supporter of many years standing until recently, but not now.[/p][/quote]Yes they are cutting. It's where they choose to cut that makes the difference. An intelligent council can save millions by renegotiating contracts with suppliers, not replacing perfectly good equipment just because it is a couple of years old and not hiring consultants where they are not needed. York council make the cuts where they will hurt the most. And bo jolly, I deal with the council regularly and I have heard them blame the government every time the cuts are mentioned. Search the press website and you will see back heeling on almost every comment from the Labour councillors. Maquis
  • Score: -6

1:30am Tue 28 Jan 14

Rocking Horse says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
piaggio1 wrote: Often wondered about the 20 plenty thingys. Wonder if there.s any where a certain liebour councillor has 5+buy to lets. Socialist. S? Dont you just love em.
I don't imagine Anna would describe herself as a socialist! There is nothing inherently socialist about 20mph zones, closing Lendal Bridge and all the other anti-car antics of the council. Its just a wafer thin veneer of self-styled radicalism to disguise their complete lack of will or ability to take on the major issues like benefit and service cuts, while the rich get richer and the working classes get poorer.
Check Coun Semlyen's register of interests on the council website - she has five (or six ?) buy to let properties - she's no socialist !
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: Often wondered about the 20 plenty thingys. Wonder if there.s any where a certain liebour councillor has 5+buy to lets. Socialist. S? Dont you just love em.[/p][/quote]I don't imagine Anna would describe herself as a socialist! There is nothing inherently socialist about 20mph zones, closing Lendal Bridge and all the other anti-car antics of the council. Its just a wafer thin veneer of self-styled radicalism to disguise their complete lack of will or ability to take on the major issues like benefit and service cuts, while the rich get richer and the working classes get poorer.[/p][/quote]Check Coun Semlyen's register of interests on the council website - she has five (or six ?) buy to let properties - she's no socialist ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -20

1:33am Tue 28 Jan 14

Rocking Horse says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote: As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?!
Started 7:40pm Clearly not allowed out of the cage until after dark.
He/she was working late at the Council, obviously !
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?![/p][/quote]Started 7:40pm Clearly not allowed out of the cage until after dark.[/p][/quote]He/she was working late at the Council, obviously ! Rocking Horse
  • Score: -23

2:46am Tue 28 Jan 14

marvell says...

The reason the 20mph scheme went ahead is that a Labour councillor is also a paid employee of the national 20mph campaign group - total conflict of interests and arguably bordering on corrupt. Total waste of £600k that could be spent on road repairs.
The reason the 20mph scheme went ahead is that a Labour councillor is also a paid employee of the national 20mph campaign group - total conflict of interests and arguably bordering on corrupt. Total waste of £600k that could be spent on road repairs. marvell
  • Score: 27

3:03am Tue 28 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

Well considering the top comment has -670 votes so far, I think it's safe to say the council have hacked this article too.

But my view is short and simple, a £1m cut to the roads budget is barbaric. As it is, our roads are some of the worst urban streets I know of - even Manchester does better and that's a far bigger city. Here's an example: Whenby Grove in Huntington has a stretch near where it meets Yearsley Grove that is in a poor condition - it is rougher than a teenagers' face. Potholes pop up and are spot-filled (eventually) BUT no bitumen sealent s used around the edges of the hole, so then water gets in at the edges and creates new holes - so each pothole in essence breeds 3 0r 4 new potholes; these are then filled in the same way without sealant and then more potholes spread out from that... and the last lot of spot-fills weren't even flattened down to the level of the road surface (and this is in addition to EXTRA tarmac having been applied to a speed hump near the Huntington Road end of the street in order to make it even higher than it was before). When I went down there recently, Anthea Drive had yellow markings to suggest the surveyors had been along the street, but they must have been recently punched in the face because only 2 holes were filled and they've left some really wide potholes that go right down to the hardcore under the road surface completely unfilled....

... and this is BEFORE they cut the budget by £1m. If they do cut the budget, we'll end up with people from Africa who are used to riding along sand roads littered with tree roots saying "ooh this road is rough"!
Well considering the top comment has -670 votes so far, I think it's safe to say the council have hacked this article too. But my view is short and simple, a £1m cut to the roads budget is barbaric. As it is, our roads are some of the worst urban streets I know of - even Manchester does better and that's a far bigger city. Here's an example: Whenby Grove in Huntington has a stretch near where it meets Yearsley Grove that is in a poor condition - it is rougher than a teenagers' face. Potholes pop up and are spot-filled (eventually) BUT no bitumen sealent s used around the edges of the hole, so then water gets in at the edges and creates new holes - so each pothole in essence breeds 3 0r 4 new potholes; these are then filled in the same way without sealant and then more potholes spread out from that... and the last lot of spot-fills weren't even flattened down to the level of the road surface (and this is in addition to EXTRA tarmac having been applied to a speed hump near the Huntington Road end of the street in order to make it even higher than it was before). When I went down there recently, Anthea Drive had yellow markings to suggest the surveyors had been along the street, but they must have been recently punched in the face because only 2 holes were filled and they've left some really wide potholes that go right down to the hardcore under the road surface completely unfilled.... ... and this is BEFORE they cut the budget by £1m. If they do cut the budget, we'll end up with people from Africa who are used to riding along sand roads littered with tree roots saying "ooh this road is rough"! Magicman!
  • Score: 10

7:26am Tue 28 Jan 14

roy_batty says...

The reinvigorate York scheme shows this council for what it really thinks to the council tax paying resident!

Quote: Labour cabinet and senior officials also include a £350,000 reduction for the school improvement service and a £115,000 cut for the authority’s apprenticeship scheme in 2015/16.

we have 2 cuts there totally £465,000, big question resident's should ask themselves straight away, how much money did the Labour run council waste on ??

Approximately £490,000 according to York.gov.uk , but we all know that means more like £750,000.

http://www.york.gov.
uk/info/200174/plann
ing_and_building_con
trol/686/reinvigorat
e_york/4
And how many millions on Exhibition Square? How many more millions wasted on unnecessary vanity projects?

How much did Ann Semilyn waste on the 20 is plenty campaign? £600,000 i think is mentioned.

How much of a pay rise did they give this guy this year?

https://twitter.com/
PEdmondsonJones

So much money wasted by this Labour council, proof that they can not be trusted with YOUR money!
The reinvigorate York scheme shows this council for what it really thinks to the council tax paying resident! Quote: Labour cabinet and senior officials also include a £350,000 reduction for the school improvement service and a £115,000 cut for the authority’s apprenticeship scheme in 2015/16. we have 2 cuts there totally £465,000, big question resident's should ask themselves straight away, how much money did the Labour run council waste on ?? Approximately £490,000 according to York.gov.uk , but we all know that means more like £750,000. http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200174/plann ing_and_building_con trol/686/reinvigorat e_york/4 And how many millions on Exhibition Square? How many more millions wasted on unnecessary vanity projects? How much did Ann Semilyn waste on the 20 is plenty campaign? £600,000 i think is mentioned. How much of a pay rise did they give this guy this year? https://twitter.com/ PEdmondsonJones So much money wasted by this Labour council, proof that they can not be trusted with YOUR money! roy_batty
  • Score: 23

7:28am Tue 28 Jan 14

roy_batty says...

roy_batty wrote:
The reinvigorate York scheme shows this council for what it really thinks to the council tax paying resident!

Quote: Labour cabinet and senior officials also include a £350,000 reduction for the school improvement service and a £115,000 cut for the authority’s apprenticeship scheme in 2015/16.

we have 2 cuts there totally £465,000, big question resident's should ask themselves straight away, how much money did the Labour run council waste on ??

Approximately £490,000 according to York.gov.uk , but we all know that means more like £750,000.

http://www.york.gov.

uk/info/200174/plann

ing_and_building_con

trol/686/reinvigorat

e_york/4
And how many millions on Exhibition Square? How many more millions wasted on unnecessary vanity projects?

How much did Ann Semilyn waste on the 20 is plenty campaign? £600,000 i think is mentioned.

How much of a pay rise did they give this guy this year?

https://twitter.com/

PEdmondsonJones

So much money wasted by this Labour council, proof that they can not be trusted with YOUR money!
*Kings Square* should have been in the *big question* oops :) but i am sure you knew that
[quote][p][bold]roy_batty[/bold] wrote: The reinvigorate York scheme shows this council for what it really thinks to the council tax paying resident! Quote: Labour cabinet and senior officials also include a £350,000 reduction for the school improvement service and a £115,000 cut for the authority’s apprenticeship scheme in 2015/16. we have 2 cuts there totally £465,000, big question resident's should ask themselves straight away, how much money did the Labour run council waste on ?? Approximately £490,000 according to York.gov.uk , but we all know that means more like £750,000. http://www.york.gov. uk/info/200174/plann ing_and_building_con trol/686/reinvigorat e_york/4 And how many millions on Exhibition Square? How many more millions wasted on unnecessary vanity projects? How much did Ann Semilyn waste on the 20 is plenty campaign? £600,000 i think is mentioned. How much of a pay rise did they give this guy this year? https://twitter.com/ PEdmondsonJones So much money wasted by this Labour council, proof that they can not be trusted with YOUR money![/p][/quote]*Kings Square* should have been in the *big question* oops :) but i am sure you knew that roy_batty
  • Score: 14

8:21am Tue 28 Jan 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Rocking Horse wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Bo Jolly wrote: As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?!
Started 7:40pm Clearly not allowed out of the cage until after dark.
He/she was working late at the Council, obviously !
Or more likely late home from the office (where ever it be).

I often wondered how you could represent desperation as a number, I think the answer is all over this page.
[quote][p][bold]Rocking Horse[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: As of 6.15pm Monday evening, the pro-council voting fairy has yet to visit: 1st comment: 'cut senior officials' wages' +62 2nd: 'officials/labour councillors have lost faith in the leadership' +43 3rd: 'bankers caused the crisis, but Lab/Con/Lib expect us to pay' +23 4th/5th: 'sarcasm re wage cuts proposal' -23 6th: 'end 20mph and vanity projects' +64 Maybe they won't come because the story doesn't directly involve bicycles or bridges?![/p][/quote]Started 7:40pm Clearly not allowed out of the cage until after dark.[/p][/quote]He/she was working late at the Council, obviously ![/p][/quote]Or more likely late home from the office (where ever it be). I often wondered how you could represent desperation as a number, I think the answer is all over this page. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 12

8:48am Tue 28 Jan 14

Kevin Turvey says...

Is this info that was ‘leaked’ genuine or are we missing something here?

Is this really gold dust or chaff?

Is it really ‘leaked’ and it’s actually just a deliberate attempt at misinformation to hide the real more damaging numbers that are the reality?

Maybe I am crediting the council with too much intelligence/compete
nce/strategy.

I’m just throwing that one out into the forum for further debate.



I see the vote change fairy has had a long night again,

Message to vote change fairy/idiot/clown/co
uncillor/propaganda minion/troll (delete as appropriate):

Nobody takes any notice anymore of the voting system due to your diligent but non eventful existence.

Individuals actually read the comments properly now whereas before they may have just scanned the comments and relied on the common consensus of the voting.

However you have actually strengthened attitudes to people reading and understanding the comments and then adding views to the debate further and therefore actually going against your intention of discrediting the commenters who opinions and values are not like your own.

A resounding shot in your own foot I would say!

You have obviously nothing better to do with your life and maybe some form of obsessive disorder, perhaps some professional help/treatment may be in order, preferably that which involves the inability to use a computer keyboard afterwards.
Is this info that was ‘leaked’ genuine or are we missing something here? Is this really gold dust or chaff? Is it really ‘leaked’ and it’s actually just a deliberate attempt at misinformation to hide the real more damaging numbers that are the reality? Maybe I am crediting the council with too much intelligence/compete nce/strategy. I’m just throwing that one out into the forum for further debate. I see the vote change fairy has had a long night again, Message to vote change fairy/idiot/clown/co uncillor/propaganda minion/troll (delete as appropriate): Nobody takes any notice anymore of the voting system due to your diligent but non eventful existence. Individuals actually read the comments properly now whereas before they may have just scanned the comments and relied on the common consensus of the voting. However you have actually strengthened attitudes to people reading and understanding the comments and then adding views to the debate further and therefore actually going against your intention of discrediting the commenters who opinions and values are not like your own. A resounding shot in your own foot I would say! You have obviously nothing better to do with your life and maybe some form of obsessive disorder, perhaps some professional help/treatment may be in order, preferably that which involves the inability to use a computer keyboard afterwards. Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 13

9:17am Tue 28 Jan 14

bloodaxe says...

oi oi savaloy wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!!
How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.
[quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!![/p][/quote]How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party. bloodaxe
  • Score: -15

9:41am Tue 28 Jan 14

Bo Jolly says...

bloodaxe wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!!
How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.
I don't necessarily disagree with elements of what you say but I'd like to query, "In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything."

It sounds benign, but in the context of this story are you suggesting that unqualified volunteers should run and staff children's centres? Are there not potential problems with that (to put it mildly)? Happy bands of local people cheerfully laying tarmac, perhaps? As a general point I disagree strongly: why should public services be cut in one of the wealthiest counties in the world, just so that rich peoples' taxes can be lowered even more?
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!![/p][/quote]How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.[/p][/quote]I don't necessarily disagree with elements of what you say but I'd like to query, "In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything." It sounds benign, but in the context of this story are you suggesting that unqualified volunteers should run and staff children's centres? Are there not potential problems with that (to put it mildly)? Happy bands of local people cheerfully laying tarmac, perhaps? As a general point I disagree strongly: why should public services be cut in one of the wealthiest counties in the world, just so that rich peoples' taxes can be lowered even more? Bo Jolly
  • Score: 8

9:55am Tue 28 Jan 14

roskoboskovic says...

after trying ever other means to get rid of motorists in york this despicable council have come to the conclusion that letting the roads fall into total disrepair is their last resort.soon they ll only be fit for horses and carts though they ll probably maintain the cycle paths.
after trying ever other means to get rid of motorists in york this despicable council have come to the conclusion that letting the roads fall into total disrepair is their last resort.soon they ll only be fit for horses and carts though they ll probably maintain the cycle paths. roskoboskovic
  • Score: 25

12:01pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Maquis says...

bloodaxe wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!!
How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.
Either you are frighteningly naive, or a Labour apologist to use the percentage of GDP figures that you mention,
Maybe it was lower as a percentage of GDP, but that was because Brown had hidden all the PFI contracts off the balance sheet which left us in hoc for billions extra, and the GDP you mention in 1997 was on a strong stable economy, in 2007, it was only lower because the GDP was massively gorged by the huge bubble that you talk about which burst soon after. Try that figure again for 2008!.
It like taking out a loan based on lottery winnings as your income - fake, dangerous and irresponsible. But that's Labour for you, both nationally and locally.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!![/p][/quote]How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.[/p][/quote]Either you are frighteningly naive, or a Labour apologist to use the percentage of GDP figures that you mention, Maybe it was lower as a percentage of GDP, but that was because Brown had hidden all the PFI contracts off the balance sheet which left us in hoc for billions extra, and the GDP you mention in 1997 was on a strong stable economy, in 2007, it was only lower because the GDP was massively gorged by the huge bubble that you talk about which burst soon after. Try that figure again for 2008!. It like taking out a loan based on lottery winnings as your income - fake, dangerous and irresponsible. But that's Labour for you, both nationally and locally. Maquis
  • Score: 17

1:58pm Tue 28 Jan 14

MidnightBoo says...

eeoodares wrote:
MidnightBoo wrote:
Grey Lady wrote:
There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries.

For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will.

I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.
I do hope you never find yourself in need of foreign aid (other countries may one day need to support you). Generally speaking we are feeling the pinch but have homes to live in, clean running water, electricity, food to eat everyday (at least 3 times a day) and live free of persecution. Those in need of aid have none of these things, be it from a natural disaster or conflict. We are rich in comparison to millions sharing this planet with us. How incredibly souless your view is.
Regarding immigration, I hope you, your family and friends do not want to emigrate to another country for work or perhaps to enjoy retirement in warmer climes. That would make you immigrates, tut tut.
I think you will find that the vast majority of countries outside of the EU would require you to prove your ability to support yourself financially. Also, most countries within the EU do not have health care free at the point of use, so you would need to provide for that.

I do not see it as unreasonable that people are concerned that the UK is pumping money into countries that have a space programme, when we can not afford to grit our roads in winter....unless you are like the last Labour government, that regarded people who had concerns over immigration as being 'bigots'!
Some of your points are correct although irrelevant as you're missed my point. I was not stating 'Lady Grey' was bigotted or racist or xenophobic, I was implying her view on immigration are hypocritical and in the case of foreign aid, distasteful to say the least. This thread was supposed to be about local issues not foreign policy. I'm surprised she didn't throw Lendal Bridge in there as that seems to make it into every comment thread going!
To try and compare winter grit with the harse, brutal and grotesque lives some of the 7 billion on this planet find themselves leading by being born in the wrong place at the wrong time is simply appalling. Shame on anyone that thinks so small.
I don't normally post comments however on this occasion I felt the need. 'Lady Grey's original post was ill judged. Starving babies, ophan children, brutally beaten people, etc etc, whether we agree with the regime in which they live, should always be supported. Turning a blind eye is obsence. We have a moral duty and financial duty, as a rich democratic society, to support whenever we can, and the reality is we can afford to, we have agreed to and will continue to.
Now lets get back to discussing how we can make our community better with an ever reducing budget.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MidnightBoo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grey Lady[/bold] wrote: There will always be unpopular decisions made by whomever is in power, be it local or national government, you can't please all of the people all of the time, however, if the country as a whole is in such dire financial straights, why are the government "lending" billions of pounds in aid to other countries. For some people getting a job, however menial is difficult, yet now we are letting in even more immigrant workers, and if you are on job seekers allowance, the benefits agency, if they can find any excuse to penalise you they will. I sometimes wonder how long it will be before there is all out revolution and we sack the muppets in power.[/p][/quote]I do hope you never find yourself in need of foreign aid (other countries may one day need to support you). Generally speaking we are feeling the pinch but have homes to live in, clean running water, electricity, food to eat everyday (at least 3 times a day) and live free of persecution. Those in need of aid have none of these things, be it from a natural disaster or conflict. We are rich in comparison to millions sharing this planet with us. How incredibly souless your view is. Regarding immigration, I hope you, your family and friends do not want to emigrate to another country for work or perhaps to enjoy retirement in warmer climes. That would make you immigrates, tut tut.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that the vast majority of countries outside of the EU would require you to prove your ability to support yourself financially. Also, most countries within the EU do not have health care free at the point of use, so you would need to provide for that. I do not see it as unreasonable that people are concerned that the UK is pumping money into countries that have a space programme, when we can not afford to grit our roads in winter....unless you are like the last Labour government, that regarded people who had concerns over immigration as being 'bigots'![/p][/quote]Some of your points are correct although irrelevant as you're missed my point. I was not stating 'Lady Grey' was bigotted or racist or xenophobic, I was implying her view on immigration are hypocritical and in the case of foreign aid, distasteful to say the least. This thread was supposed to be about local issues not foreign policy. I'm surprised she didn't throw Lendal Bridge in there as that seems to make it into every comment thread going! To try and compare winter grit with the harse, brutal and grotesque lives some of the 7 billion on this planet find themselves leading by being born in the wrong place at the wrong time is simply appalling. Shame on anyone that thinks so small. I don't normally post comments however on this occasion I felt the need. 'Lady Grey's original post was ill judged. Starving babies, ophan children, brutally beaten people, etc etc, whether we agree with the regime in which they live, should always be supported. Turning a blind eye is obsence. We have a moral duty and financial duty, as a rich democratic society, to support whenever we can, and the reality is we can afford to, we have agreed to and will continue to. Now lets get back to discussing how we can make our community better with an ever reducing budget. MidnightBoo
  • Score: -4

6:45pm Tue 28 Jan 14

oi oi savaloy says...

bloodaxe wrote:
oi oi savaloy wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!!
How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.
sorry but what have the 'financial disservices industry' got to do with my comment??
and what as GDP got to do with my comment?
my point is labour are a corrupt party and they corrupted councils up and down the country... and as for" In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything." comment , residential taxpayers pay a lot of money for 'services' and we don't expect them to do everything BUT we do expect them to do what we pay in quite a lot of circumstances £1400 p.a.

the fact that you got so wound up by my comment can only mean that your last sentence is indeed a lie and you are labour and more than likely a councillor.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oi oi savaloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]the fact that your comment (which is probably what the vast amount of tax paying citizens think), gets a massive thumbs down proves that there must be some kind of york labour party email campaign going on to thumbs down anything negative said about the labour run council... absolutely no one on the council should be paid more than 40K , when the labour party got in power in 1997, councils became one big gravy train, exec wages have just spiralled out of control, and services have been cut year on end! and all alexander and his cronies do is blame government cuts, absolute disgrace!![/p][/quote]How original. Have you considered writing adult fiction as a career ? If you really want to blame any single body why not start with the financial disservices industry, whose greed and duplicity created the bubble which burst so spectacularly in 2007. Remember that debt as a percentage of GDP in 2007 was lower than it had been under John Major in 1996. As for the council, improvements to the city's public spaces are long overdue. Investment in culture and tourism always brings in more money than is invested. A lot of that money goes to private firms. The council was criticised for "wasting" money on new offices when in reality the overall cost was much lower than the headline figure because of leases for substandard accommodation no longer having to be paid and in long-term savings. I wonder how many of the contributors the general moanfest ever run for office or contribute to social/voluntary programmes. In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything. No I am not and have never been on the council and am not a member of any party.[/p][/quote]sorry but what have the 'financial disservices industry' got to do with my comment?? and what as GDP got to do with my comment? my point is labour are a corrupt party and they corrupted councils up and down the country... and as for" In the long run we're going to have to become much more actively involved in our communities rather than expecting the public sector to do everything." comment , residential taxpayers pay a lot of money for 'services' and we don't expect them to do everything BUT we do expect them to do what we pay in quite a lot of circumstances £1400 p.a. the fact that you got so wound up by my comment can only mean that your last sentence is indeed a lie and you are labour and more than likely a councillor. oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 8

7:01pm Tue 28 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

oldgoat wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote:
Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
So you'd have senior posts paying £35,000 a year,lower grades on £60,000 and anyone over £40,000 down to £36,000.
Putting aside the dodgy maths, good luck filling those posts with people who have the skills to do those jobs - they'd be able to get far more in the private sector. Seriously, yes. Try hiring a CEO for £35,000.....
I have read this argument so many times that it is like a 1970's K-Tel album. Can anybody provide a study or figures to show how many civil servants have been tempted away by the private sector?
Re the "votebot" it seems to me the Press must be aware of this and their computers will presumably show them who the culprit is. Why aren't they doing anything about it?
[quote][p][bold]oldgoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]So you'd have senior posts paying £35,000 a year,lower grades on £60,000 and anyone over £40,000 down to £36,000. Putting aside the dodgy maths, good luck filling those posts with people who have the skills to do those jobs - they'd be able to get far more in the private sector. Seriously, yes. Try hiring a CEO for £35,000.....[/p][/quote]I have read this argument so many times that it is like a 1970's K-Tel album. Can anybody provide a study or figures to show how many civil servants have been tempted away by the private sector? Re the "votebot" it seems to me the Press must be aware of this and their computers will presumably show them who the culprit is. Why aren't they doing anything about it? Pinza-C55
  • Score: -111

2:06am Wed 29 Jan 14

Non-corporate entity says...

I'd like to know where are all these dislikes are coming from?
I'd like to know where are all these dislikes are coming from? Non-corporate entity
  • Score: 11

10:11am Wed 29 Jan 14

YorkCityLuke says...

Non-corporate entity wrote:
I'd like to know where are all these dislikes are coming from?
Me too. Stinks of local petty political involvement.
[quote][p][bold]Non-corporate entity[/bold] wrote: I'd like to know where are all these dislikes are coming from?[/p][/quote]Me too. Stinks of local petty political involvement. YorkCityLuke
  • Score: 8

12:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

YSTClinguist says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
gjh wrote:
ouseswimmer wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.
If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.
10's? You're clearly out of touch with senior council staff remuneration. A few years ago Ireland cut the wages of its civil servants by a similar amount. They are now emerging from their debt problems. Its a solution which works.
They also cut teachers wages by 12.5% which is why so many are leaving the country. The knock-on effect on childrens education doesn't bode well for the future of EIRE.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gjh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Where do we start? A senior position paying £140,000? That's far too much about £115,000 too much. Nobody can eat that much food in a year. Cuts can be simply made by cutting wages. Anyone earnign over £75,000 a year can sustain a 20% wage cut and anyone over £40,000 a year can take a 10% cut. That measure alone will save all the money the council needs. The alternative is to cut services to the bone until eventually there are no services but plenty of highly paid people to run them.[/p][/quote]If only it were that simple. You would have to have about 700 people earning over 75K to make that sort of saving. The number actually earning that will probably be in the 10s. Public sector wages have hardly risen in the last few years which amounts to about a 9% cut in real terms since the coalition came to power, but this has had little effect. Cutting wages is not enough to satisfy the cutting demands of the government; there will be a loss of jobs, a loss of services and people will suffer. York is not alone having to do this.[/p][/quote]10's? You're clearly out of touch with senior council staff remuneration. A few years ago Ireland cut the wages of its civil servants by a similar amount. They are now emerging from their debt problems. Its a solution which works.[/p][/quote]They also cut teachers wages by 12.5% which is why so many are leaving the country. The knock-on effect on childrens education doesn't bode well for the future of EIRE. YSTClinguist
  • Score: 1

3:33pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Dr Brian says...

Dave Ruddock wrote:
who is the Labour party member for transport?? who is head of the labour party. ENOUGH SAID. and "Secret Reports" of massive cuts and they still geting monoes to REJUVINATE york. bet the Tresury department is in the position on Right Hand Not knowing what left is doing whilst hear is spining out of control ... NO CONFIDENCE
Minus 324 votes for this when I reckon 80 per cent of York agree with this - but the Alexander Mafie think that by voting down any criticism will convince people that Labour are right and people who disagree are wrong. The sonner Alexander goes the better!
[quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: who is the Labour party member for transport?? who is head of the labour party. ENOUGH SAID. and "Secret Reports" of massive cuts and they still geting monoes to REJUVINATE york. bet the Tresury department is in the position on Right Hand Not knowing what left is doing whilst hear is spining out of control ... NO CONFIDENCE[/p][/quote]Minus 324 votes for this when I reckon 80 per cent of York agree with this - but the Alexander Mafie think that by voting down any criticism will convince people that Labour are right and people who disagree are wrong. The sonner Alexander goes the better! Dr Brian
  • Score: 7

3:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Dr Brian says...

Dr Brian wrote:
Dave Ruddock wrote:
who is the Labour party member for transport?? who is head of the labour party. ENOUGH SAID. and "Secret Reports" of massive cuts and they still geting monoes to REJUVINATE york. bet the Tresury department is in the position on Right Hand Not knowing what left is doing whilst hear is spining out of control ... NO CONFIDENCE
Minus 324 votes for this when I reckon 80 per cent of York agree with this - but the Alexander Mafie think that by voting down any criticism will convince people that Labour are right and people who disagree are wrong. The sonner Alexander goes the better!
Apologies for my typos Mafia and sooner - (and any other I have made ha ha)
[quote][p][bold]Dr Brian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave Ruddock[/bold] wrote: who is the Labour party member for transport?? who is head of the labour party. ENOUGH SAID. and "Secret Reports" of massive cuts and they still geting monoes to REJUVINATE york. bet the Tresury department is in the position on Right Hand Not knowing what left is doing whilst hear is spining out of control ... NO CONFIDENCE[/p][/quote]Minus 324 votes for this when I reckon 80 per cent of York agree with this - but the Alexander Mafie think that by voting down any criticism will convince people that Labour are right and people who disagree are wrong. The sonner Alexander goes the better![/p][/quote]Apologies for my typos Mafia and sooner - (and any other I have made ha ha) Dr Brian
  • Score: 5

8:10pm Mon 3 Feb 14

York1234 says...

How about the new £70,000 job being created for a current member of staff who was going to move on. Pay now gone from 50k to 70k. Then there's the 70k for the person who was in charge of More for York - the failed transformation programme which shut down after the fiasco with Northgate Kendric Ash - now in charge of the Transformation programme. Same old people, more money, no results.
How about the new £70,000 job being created for a current member of staff who was going to move on. Pay now gone from 50k to 70k. Then there's the 70k for the person who was in charge of More for York - the failed transformation programme which shut down after the fiasco with Northgate Kendric Ash - now in charge of the Transformation programme. Same old people, more money, no results. York1234
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree