Topic: | Re:Re:How the cut in Council tax gets paid for | |
Posted by: | Dan Filson | |
Date/Time: | 04/05/09 21:25:00 |
"Saving £4 million by reducing our reliance on agency staff" - was that by bringing the staffing in-house, i.e. directly employing them, or by cutting the services so there was no need for the agnecy staff, or by putting the entire service out to contract so the staff involved (or others) were employed by the contractor? "Saving £4 million~" always sounds good, but read between the lines. Mention was made of the pensions increase as a justification for meals on wheels increases above inflation. The point about the Government increases in pensions is to give pensioners an increase in real terms, not so that it gets immediately gobbled by increased chrges. Meals on wheels are to enable a meal to reach people unable to leave their homes. There was a time when these were delivered hot, and when the home help service was free. I would not want to be a disabled housebound resident of any local authority now, in a climate where every resident thinks only of the equation between what they pay and what they get back, as if there should be an equilibrium for everyone. Fact is, the cost of social services is high and benefits a smallish minority of each local authority's residents. When the shit hits the fan, everyone hollers and looks for scapegoats. Until then they bellyache about what they pay and damn the consequences. You get the council and councillors you vote for. If the turnout was 60-70% or more, you would get a different result! |