Bradford Telegraph and ArgusBradford Council staff get prepared for impact of cuts (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting TANEWS to 80360, or email

Bradford Council staff get prepared for impact of cuts

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Rob Demaine Rob Demaine

Both Bradford Council staff and the public need to be prepared for the “heart wrenching” cuts to jobs, according to a union representing many council workers.

After the approval of the Council’s 2014/15 budget on Thursday, the authority now faces the task of cutting hundreds of jobs in numerous departments in the coming years.

While it managed to save many under threat services, its leader, Councillor David Green, warned that the money being used to keep services like children’s centres and public toilets running were not “pennies from heaven – it comes from real people losing their jobs and real cuts to services”.

And these comments have since been echoed by Rob Demaine, regional organiser of Unison.

It is estimated that the Labour-run authority will have to cut 650 equivalent full-time jobs to balance its budget and negotiations with trade unions have now begun.

A reduction in the amount of money the Council receives from central government means the authority will have to find £115 million of savings over the next three years.

Despite councillors agreeing to increase Council Tax by 1.6 per cent, the budget will still require job losses.

There will be reductions to both the number of ward officers and community wardens, as well as a review of the parks and woodland workforce that would see the number of year-round staff reduced.

In financial services there will be job cuts saving £616,000 in the next two years. The commissioning department will see job cuts saving £428,000 over two years, while the human resources department will see job cuts saving £1.2 million in that period.

There will also be a reduction in the number of staff dealing with disabled children.

Other high-profile departments facing cuts include the city solicitor’s office and the chief executive’s office, which will require “efficiencies” in the offices of the three main political groups.

Mr Demaine said: “When the cuts from Government are as big as they are then losses were inevitable – but these are really going to hurt.

“We’ll work with the Council to mitigate the job losses as much as possible. The blame really lies with the national Government which is giving more funding to the south over northern cities.

“These job loses are going to make it a really heart wrenching time. It’s unbelievable. The people who wanted to take voluntary redundancy have already pretty much gone. Inefficiencies and surplus jobs have already been cut – so these losses are going to be noticeable.”

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:38am Sat 22 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Tell this fella from the union, several jobs would be saved if £750k wasn't paid to them and was used to save jobs and the unions used the subs that their members pay in order to fund their representation.

Just an idea.

Still councillors can sleep easy knowing they are safe at least till the election.
Tell this fella from the union, several jobs would be saved if £750k wasn't paid to them and was used to save jobs and the unions used the subs that their members pay in order to fund their representation. Just an idea. Still councillors can sleep easy knowing they are safe at least till the election. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 36

9:25am Sat 22 Feb 14

Avro says...

What about a wrenching cut of Tony Reeves pay cheque!
What about a wrenching cut of Tony Reeves pay cheque! Avro
  • Score: 29

9:34am Sat 22 Feb 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Avro wrote:
What about a wrenching cut of Tony Reeves pay cheque!
He flatly refused in the past, obviously thinking he is on the breadline.

3rd paragraph from the end for our very own T&A.

http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/ne
ws/local/localbrad/8
877704.Only_500_appl
y_to_quit_Bradford_C
ouncil_posts/
[quote][p][bold]Avro[/bold] wrote: What about a wrenching cut of Tony Reeves pay cheque![/p][/quote]He flatly refused in the past, obviously thinking he is on the breadline. 3rd paragraph from the end for our very own T&A. http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/ne ws/local/localbrad/8 877704.Only_500_appl y_to_quit_Bradford_C ouncil_posts/ Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 10

10:40am Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 7

11:05am Sat 22 Feb 14

Outraged English Subject says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]Well said. Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 3

12:09pm Sat 22 Feb 14

mad matt says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
You've hit the nail on the head.
It would be a welcome change though if we got "a little honesty" from politicians of all parties! At least then, we would know where we stand.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. It would be a welcome change though if we got "a little honesty" from politicians of all parties! At least then, we would know where we stand. mad matt
  • Score: 5

12:45pm Sat 22 Feb 14

bingleybantam says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee? bingleybantam
  • Score: 35

12:55pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

mad matt wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
You've hit the nail on the head.
It would be a welcome change though if we got "a little honesty" from politicians of all parties! At least then, we would know where we stand.
I think the party system is causing a lot of the problems. If the time spent bickering between the parties and stabbing each other in the back was spent serving the public that every elected representative is elected to serve then the country would be in a much better state. What we have now is more akin to competing gangs in a playground than a democratic political system. Yah boo politics is an embarressment when there are people having to rely on foodbanks.
[quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]You've hit the nail on the head. It would be a welcome change though if we got "a little honesty" from politicians of all parties! At least then, we would know where we stand.[/p][/quote]I think the party system is causing a lot of the problems. If the time spent bickering between the parties and stabbing each other in the back was spent serving the public that every elected representative is elected to serve then the country would be in a much better state. What we have now is more akin to competing gangs in a playground than a democratic political system. Yah boo politics is an embarressment when there are people having to rely on foodbanks. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 5

1:12pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
[quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -12

1:15pm Sat 22 Feb 14

collos25 says...

Most of these cuts are party political to make you think the Conservatives are bad boys if it were the other way round it would be just the same.Cuts can be made some of them are stated above but that would never do, a useless piece of manure drawing mega thousands could go for one and you would never notice his absence ,reduce the number of councillors the most of them are just in it for the money.This council has to be one of the worst in the country and led by a person who thinks about only himself and how can I earn another buck.
Most of these cuts are party political to make you think the Conservatives are bad boys if it were the other way round it would be just the same.Cuts can be made some of them are stated above but that would never do, a useless piece of manure drawing mega thousands could go for one and you would never notice his absence ,reduce the number of councillors the most of them are just in it for the money.This council has to be one of the worst in the country and led by a person who thinks about only himself and how can I earn another buck. collos25
  • Score: 6

1:33pm Sat 22 Feb 14

bingleybantam says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had. bingleybantam
  • Score: 23

1:38pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.
Well just highlight another £113m of savings and job done.
[quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.[/p][/quote]Well just highlight another £113m of savings and job done. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -2

1:40pm Sat 22 Feb 14

collos25 says...

Lets put thinks straight this government has borrowed much much more than the last government but very little is said also the national debt has increased again far more than with the last government.
Lets put thinks straight this government has borrowed much much more than the last government but very little is said also the national debt has increased again far more than with the last government. collos25
  • Score: -9

2:07pm Sat 22 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

collos25 wrote:
Lets put thinks straight this government has borrowed much much more than the last government but very little is said also the national debt has increased again far more than with the last government.
Don't get involved in something you know nothing about. You look stupid. How many jobs could be saved if they stopped paying for Union Reps?
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: Lets put thinks straight this government has borrowed much much more than the last government but very little is said also the national debt has increased again far more than with the last government.[/p][/quote]Don't get involved in something you know nothing about. You look stupid. How many jobs could be saved if they stopped paying for Union Reps? alive and awake
  • Score: 11

2:40pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

FY 2013* £1.16 trillion
FY 2012* £1.04 trillion
FY 2011 £0.91 trillion
FY 2010 £0.76 trillion
FY 2009 £0.62 trillion
FY 2008 £0.53 trillion
http://www.ukpublics
pending.co.uk/uk_nat
ional_debt
As keeps getting pointed out Labour spent this money, what are the Tories doing?
FY 2013* £1.16 trillion FY 2012* £1.04 trillion FY 2011 £0.91 trillion FY 2010 £0.76 trillion FY 2009 £0.62 trillion FY 2008 £0.53 trillion http://www.ukpublics pending.co.uk/uk_nat ional_debt As keeps getting pointed out Labour spent this money, what are the Tories doing? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -3

2:42pm Sat 22 Feb 14

garygary50 says...

if you want to earn huge dollars just working on laptop for a few hour.its not a difficult work just copy and paste procedure, you wanna do this work plz open this link and make good future you and your childs..... get this information through this website .......WWW.WORKS23.U
S
if you want to earn huge dollars just working on laptop for a few hour.its not a difficult work just copy and paste procedure, you wanna do this work plz open this link and make good future you and your childs..... get this information through this website .......WWW.WORKS23.U S garygary50
  • Score: -7

2:50pm Sat 22 Feb 14

garygary50 says...

if you want to earn huge dollars just working on laptop for a few hour.its not a difficult work just copy and paste procedure, you wanna do this work plz open this link and make good future you and your childs..... get this information through this website........
http://x.co/3wGes
if you want to earn huge dollars just working on laptop for a few hour.its not a difficult work just copy and paste procedure, you wanna do this work plz open this link and make good future you and your childs..... get this information through this website........ http://x.co/3wGes garygary50
  • Score: -6

5:08pm Sat 22 Feb 14

awasteoftime says...

You wish to know what the Gov.t is spending its money on, well we give over £11 billion away in Foreign Aid even to India who has Nuclear weapons and a space program. We also send £57million/day to Brussels so pay for the EU.
It seems we are good at spending money overseas but not good at spending it at home. Why does Bradford need 90 Councillors ie 3 per Ward, maybe we could mange with only 60 ie 2 per ward, that would save us some cash as well as the other ideas above ?.
You wish to know what the Gov.t is spending its money on, well we give over £11 billion away in Foreign Aid even to India who has Nuclear weapons and a space program. We also send £57million/day to Brussels so pay for the EU. It seems we are good at spending money overseas but not good at spending it at home. Why does Bradford need 90 Councillors ie 3 per Ward, maybe we could mange with only 60 ie 2 per ward, that would save us some cash as well as the other ideas above ?. awasteoftime
  • Score: 19

5:15pm Sat 22 Feb 14

collos25 says...

alive and awake wrote:
collos25 wrote:
Lets put thinks straight this government has borrowed much much more than the last government but very little is said also the national debt has increased again far more than with the last government.
Don't get involved in something you know nothing about. You look stupid. How many jobs could be saved if they stopped paying for Union Reps?
Why do you not read all the posts you will find I agree with you ,I know nothing about finance having a degree in economics and before I retired I worked for one of the largest banking groups.Idiot
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: Lets put thinks straight this government has borrowed much much more than the last government but very little is said also the national debt has increased again far more than with the last government.[/p][/quote]Don't get involved in something you know nothing about. You look stupid. How many jobs could be saved if they stopped paying for Union Reps?[/p][/quote]Why do you not read all the posts you will find I agree with you ,I know nothing about finance having a degree in economics and before I retired I worked for one of the largest banking groups.Idiot collos25
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

awasteoftime wrote:
You wish to know what the Gov.t is spending its money on, well we give over £11 billion away in Foreign Aid even to India who has Nuclear weapons and a space program. We also send £57million/day to Brussels so pay for the EU.
It seems we are good at spending money overseas but not good at spending it at home. Why does Bradford need 90 Councillors ie 3 per Ward, maybe we could mange with only 60 ie 2 per ward, that would save us some cash as well as the other ideas above ?.
As you can see from the figures I posted earlier the national debt has doubled since 2008. Now as far as I'm aware we were still in the EU when Labour were in office and we were still dishing out foreign aid so whilst there may have been a small increase over this time it does not account for a doubling of our debt. I vaguely recall the Tories telling us prior to the election how unfair it was that our children would be lumbered with this debt (I would look up the exact wording but all pre election speeches have been flushed down the memory hole). Why is it any fairer that our children are now lumbered with twice the debt?
[quote][p][bold]awasteoftime[/bold] wrote: You wish to know what the Gov.t is spending its money on, well we give over £11 billion away in Foreign Aid even to India who has Nuclear weapons and a space program. We also send £57million/day to Brussels so pay for the EU. It seems we are good at spending money overseas but not good at spending it at home. Why does Bradford need 90 Councillors ie 3 per Ward, maybe we could mange with only 60 ie 2 per ward, that would save us some cash as well as the other ideas above ?.[/p][/quote]As you can see from the figures I posted earlier the national debt has doubled since 2008. Now as far as I'm aware we were still in the EU when Labour were in office and we were still dishing out foreign aid so whilst there may have been a small increase over this time it does not account for a doubling of our debt. I vaguely recall the Tories telling us prior to the election how unfair it was that our children would be lumbered with this debt (I would look up the exact wording but all pre election speeches have been flushed down the memory hole). Why is it any fairer that our children are now lumbered with twice the debt? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -3

6:59pm Sat 22 Feb 14

BD16 says...

Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?
Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up? BD16
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

BD16 wrote:
Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?
So you recon it's all gone to private companies to whom we are presumably in debt? That makes sense. Hang on though weren't the banks bailed out in 2008? Have they kept coming back with the begging bowl saying something along the lines of "please sir can we have some more"? Ok I doubt they'd have said please and they'd have been the ones getting called sir. I thought it was all down to those scummy people who haven't got the jobs they've failed to create due to the banks reluctance to lend which has stifled investment who they are currently encouraging to live on less and less as the cost of living spirals out of control and for whom there is most definitely no more. I feel misled by the daily mail.
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?[/p][/quote]So you recon it's all gone to private companies to whom we are presumably in debt? That makes sense. Hang on though weren't the banks bailed out in 2008? Have they kept coming back with the begging bowl saying something along the lines of "please sir can we have some more"? Ok I doubt they'd have said please and they'd have been the ones getting called sir. I thought it was all down to those scummy people who haven't got the jobs they've failed to create due to the banks reluctance to lend which has stifled investment who they are currently encouraging to live on less and less as the cost of living spirals out of control and for whom there is most definitely no more. I feel misled by the daily mail. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 1

8:32pm Sat 22 Feb 14

tinytoonster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.
Well just highlight another £113m of savings and job done.
what do you know about jobs?
labour got us stuck in the afghanistan war.
costs money.
sold out our eu rights
costs money.
gigantic benefit bill.
costs money.
goodnight.....
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.[/p][/quote]Well just highlight another £113m of savings and job done.[/p][/quote]what do you know about jobs? labour got us stuck in the afghanistan war. costs money. sold out our eu rights costs money. gigantic benefit bill. costs money. goodnight..... tinytoonster
  • Score: 9

8:48pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

tinytoonster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.
Well just highlight another £113m of savings and job done.
what do you know about jobs?
labour got us stuck in the afghanistan war.
costs money.
sold out our eu rights
costs money.
gigantic benefit bill.
costs money.
goodnight.....
Ah Tinytoonbrain you always make me chuckle. Just remind me about that vote they had in parliament last year about going into Syria. Who's idea was that?
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]Central government may have cut the budget, however it took me 5 minutes to highlight nearly £2m of saving. The budget cuts are not the problem, it is the mis-management of the funds they have had.[/p][/quote]Well just highlight another £113m of savings and job done.[/p][/quote]what do you know about jobs? labour got us stuck in the afghanistan war. costs money. sold out our eu rights costs money. gigantic benefit bill. costs money. goodnight.....[/p][/quote]Ah Tinytoonbrain you always make me chuckle. Just remind me about that vote they had in parliament last year about going into Syria. Who's idea was that? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -6

10:24pm Sat 22 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?
So you recon it's all gone to private companies to whom we are presumably in debt? That makes sense. Hang on though weren't the banks bailed out in 2008? Have they kept coming back with the begging bowl saying something along the lines of "please sir can we have some more"? Ok I doubt they'd have said please and they'd have been the ones getting called sir. I thought it was all down to those scummy people who haven't got the jobs they've failed to create due to the banks reluctance to lend which has stifled investment who they are currently encouraging to live on less and less as the cost of living spirals out of control and for whom there is most definitely no more. I feel misled by the daily mail.
You really have no idea do you? The net result of the banking crisis will be a handsome profit for UK.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?[/p][/quote]So you recon it's all gone to private companies to whom we are presumably in debt? That makes sense. Hang on though weren't the banks bailed out in 2008? Have they kept coming back with the begging bowl saying something along the lines of "please sir can we have some more"? Ok I doubt they'd have said please and they'd have been the ones getting called sir. I thought it was all down to those scummy people who haven't got the jobs they've failed to create due to the banks reluctance to lend which has stifled investment who they are currently encouraging to live on less and less as the cost of living spirals out of control and for whom there is most definitely no more. I feel misled by the daily mail.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea do you? The net result of the banking crisis will be a handsome profit for UK. alive and awake
  • Score: 4

10:33pm Sat 22 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BD16 wrote:
Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?
So you recon it's all gone to private companies to whom we are presumably in debt? That makes sense. Hang on though weren't the banks bailed out in 2008? Have they kept coming back with the begging bowl saying something along the lines of "please sir can we have some more"? Ok I doubt they'd have said please and they'd have been the ones getting called sir. I thought it was all down to those scummy people who haven't got the jobs they've failed to create due to the banks reluctance to lend which has stifled investment who they are currently encouraging to live on less and less as the cost of living spirals out of control and for whom there is most definitely no more. I feel misled by the daily mail.
You really have no idea do you? The net result of the banking crisis will be a handsome profit for UK.
You forgot the PLC. When's this gonna happen then?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: Hasn't it gone on keeping the banks afloat after they were not properly regulated over a number of years and then crashed when the US went t1ts up?[/p][/quote]So you recon it's all gone to private companies to whom we are presumably in debt? That makes sense. Hang on though weren't the banks bailed out in 2008? Have they kept coming back with the begging bowl saying something along the lines of "please sir can we have some more"? Ok I doubt they'd have said please and they'd have been the ones getting called sir. I thought it was all down to those scummy people who haven't got the jobs they've failed to create due to the banks reluctance to lend which has stifled investment who they are currently encouraging to live on less and less as the cost of living spirals out of control and for whom there is most definitely no more. I feel misled by the daily mail.[/p][/quote]You really have no idea do you? The net result of the banking crisis will be a handsome profit for UK.[/p][/quote]You forgot the PLC. When's this gonna happen then? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -6

1:04pm Sun 23 Feb 14

BierleyBoy says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician. BierleyBoy
  • Score: 8

3:49pm Sun 23 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
[quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -4

4:06pm Sun 23 Feb 14

tabster says...

Apart from social services and LD Services you could pretty much sack all of Bradford Councils staff and still see no negative effect on the level of service rate payers receive.

It is the worst council in the history of all councils with zero process management, structure and zombie staff with no brain cells.

I remember over the years trying to get simple jobs sorted and having to jump through lots of hoops and have lots of conversations with different managers - sack them all as far as I am concerned.
Apart from social services and LD Services you could pretty much sack all of Bradford Councils staff and still see no negative effect on the level of service rate payers receive. It is the worst council in the history of all councils with zero process management, structure and zombie staff with no brain cells. I remember over the years trying to get simple jobs sorted and having to jump through lots of hoops and have lots of conversations with different managers - sack them all as far as I am concerned. tabster
  • Score: -3

4:18pm Sun 23 Feb 14

tabster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise. tabster
  • Score: 6

4:31pm Sun 23 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

tabster wrote:
Apart from social services and LD Services you could pretty much sack all of Bradford Councils staff and still see no negative effect on the level of service rate payers receive.

It is the worst council in the history of all councils with zero process management, structure and zombie staff with no brain cells.

I remember over the years trying to get simple jobs sorted and having to jump through lots of hoops and have lots of conversations with different managers - sack them all as far as I am concerned.
Well said, we have a very poor Council. Led by Green what do you expect, he doesn't understand Bradford or it's history and it's people, how could he?
It is a measure of the arrogance of the man the fact that he thinks he can.
I would like Cameron to treat us as a special case and send in a rescue team before it is too late. 1.6% increase in rates is diabolical and we should not stand for it. STOP PAYING THE UNIONS, AND CUT OUT THE WASTE!
[quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: Apart from social services and LD Services you could pretty much sack all of Bradford Councils staff and still see no negative effect on the level of service rate payers receive. It is the worst council in the history of all councils with zero process management, structure and zombie staff with no brain cells. I remember over the years trying to get simple jobs sorted and having to jump through lots of hoops and have lots of conversations with different managers - sack them all as far as I am concerned.[/p][/quote]Well said, we have a very poor Council. Led by Green what do you expect, he doesn't understand Bradford or it's history and it's people, how could he? It is a measure of the arrogance of the man the fact that he thinks he can. I would like Cameron to treat us as a special case and send in a rescue team before it is too late. 1.6% increase in rates is diabolical and we should not stand for it. STOP PAYING THE UNIONS, AND CUT OUT THE WASTE! alive and awake
  • Score: 8

4:45pm Sun 23 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?
[quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -8

5:16pm Sun 23 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?
Sounds like Communism to me
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?[/p][/quote]Sounds like Communism to me alive and awake
  • Score: 7

5:24pm Sun 23 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?
Sounds like Communism to me
I suppose if took to an extreme that is what it would be. Despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe we don't live in a world where only the extremes exist. There is a wide spectrum of political thought. I consider myself a socialist but unfortunately that became a dirty word too.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?[/p][/quote]Sounds like Communism to me[/p][/quote]I suppose if took to an extreme that is what it would be. Despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe we don't live in a world where only the extremes exist. There is a wide spectrum of political thought. I consider myself a socialist but unfortunately that became a dirty word too. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -4

7:33pm Sun 23 Feb 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?
Sounds like Communism to me
I suppose if took to an extreme that is what it would be. Despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe we don't live in a world where only the extremes exist. There is a wide spectrum of political thought. I consider myself a socialist but unfortunately that became a dirty word too.
The word Socialist is not a dirty word, but the type of person who hides behind it are very dirty indeed. They often lie, con, cheat, bully, rob, the lesser educated amongst us, and at the same time prevent the populace gaining proper education. Sound like anybody you've heard of.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]No what I suggest is that we pay a reasonable wage to public sector workers which can then be used as a benchmark for the private sector wages to stop this race to the bottom. Whilst you seem to frown upon the public sector I feel that more use of it should be made in giving people a first step on the road back to work. Why we have a situation where we are forcing people into private sector jobs where the taxpayer is forced to subsidise their wages in order to ultimately profit the shareholders is beyond me. This low wage minimally staffed utopia you dream of leaves too many behind, reduces the flow of cash in the local economies and thus creates more unemployment. To me the question of whether we should have a council at all boils down to whether or not you have faith in capitalist businessmen not to rip you off. We used to have a much bigger public sector until the Thatcherite privatisation of everything. We still get the same services at a cost and shareholders rather than the people get the profits. The system we have at this moment in time is not the best we can do. Unfortunatley none of the parties are offering any sort of vision preferring instead to point fingers at one another. What is required is a meeting of minds, a consensus, but we don't do things like that in Britain do we?[/p][/quote]Sounds like Communism to me[/p][/quote]I suppose if took to an extreme that is what it would be. Despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe we don't live in a world where only the extremes exist. There is a wide spectrum of political thought. I consider myself a socialist but unfortunately that became a dirty word too.[/p][/quote]The word Socialist is not a dirty word, but the type of person who hides behind it are very dirty indeed. They often lie, con, cheat, bully, rob, the lesser educated amongst us, and at the same time prevent the populace gaining proper education. Sound like anybody you've heard of. alive and awake
  • Score: 4

9:27am Mon 24 Feb 14

Andy2010 says...

tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
He wont listen to a word of it

For Rollie its very very simple....Tory Government = Bad....Labour Government = Good

He will argue till the cows come home about "living wages" etc etc etc etc but will never understand the bigger picture at all
[quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]He wont listen to a word of it For Rollie its very very simple....Tory Government = Bad....Labour Government = Good He will argue till the cows come home about "living wages" etc etc etc etc but will never understand the bigger picture at all Andy2010
  • Score: 4

9:46am Mon 24 Feb 14

tabster says...

Andy2010 wrote:
tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
He wont listen to a word of it

For Rollie its very very simple....Tory Government = Bad....Labour Government = Good

He will argue till the cows come home about "living wages" etc etc etc etc but will never understand the bigger picture at all
I did not mean and intend to be rude to Roland or anyone else. And I do find this idea of conservative bad and labour good and very naive. Living wages and the rest of it are all fine, my father worked for 50 years in textiles for peanuts and I know growing up me and my siblings would have welcomed a "living wage" being paid to my father - but the distinguishing point for me is that the job they are being paid to do has to offer "value", has to deliver a efficient and effective outcome and ultimately give.
some satisfaction to the people who finance these jobs (rate payers). I simply do nit believe the council
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]He wont listen to a word of it For Rollie its very very simple....Tory Government = Bad....Labour Government = Good He will argue till the cows come home about "living wages" etc etc etc etc but will never understand the bigger picture at all[/p][/quote]I did not mean and intend to be rude to Roland or anyone else. And I do find this idea of conservative bad and labour good and very naive. Living wages and the rest of it are all fine, my father worked for 50 years in textiles for peanuts and I know growing up me and my siblings would have welcomed a "living wage" being paid to my father - but the distinguishing point for me is that the job they are being paid to do has to offer "value", has to deliver a efficient and effective outcome and ultimately give. some satisfaction to the people who finance these jobs (rate payers). I simply do nit believe the council tabster
  • Score: 1

2:05pm Mon 24 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.
It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -1

2:14pm Mon 24 Feb 14

tabster says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.
That said Roland I for one do not want to be financing the machinery of those local unscrupulous politicians by financing jobs for their buddies in the council. Another problem which is particular to Bradford is that there are to many uneducated, uncultured, mostly Asian counselors. Many of whom are illiterate, totally unaware about how government is supposed to work, with no interest in democracy who are elected to post on the back of their gullible communities. I say this as an Asian. Net result there nit able to hold council officers to account hence failed council. Net result these useless councellors
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.[/p][/quote]That said Roland I for one do not want to be financing the machinery of those local unscrupulous politicians by financing jobs for their buddies in the council. Another problem which is particular to Bradford is that there are to many uneducated, uncultured, mostly Asian counselors. Many of whom are illiterate, totally unaware about how government is supposed to work, with no interest in democracy who are elected to post on the back of their gullible communities. I say this as an Asian. Net result there nit able to hold council officers to account hence failed council. Net result these useless councellors tabster
  • Score: 2

2:51pm Mon 24 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

Simply putting the breaks on all the Vanity projects would be a good way to start
Simply putting the breaks on all the Vanity projects would be a good way to start G_Firth
  • Score: 2

3:37pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.
As has been the case......forever through history

Right back since records began the "rich" have done exactly what they are doing now.

Its just the way things are and rightly or wrongly it will NEVER change no matter who is in power.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.[/p][/quote]As has been the case......forever through history Right back since records began the "rich" have done exactly what they are doing now. Its just the way things are and rightly or wrongly it will NEVER change no matter who is in power. Andy2010
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Mon 24 Feb 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.
As has been the case......forever through history

Right back since records began the "rich" have done exactly what they are doing now.

Its just the way things are and rightly or wrongly it will NEVER change no matter who is in power.
Oh I see. We've been getting screwed over forever and now it's traditional and who are we to try and change tradition? Nothing can be changed so it's best to just shut up, bend over and grit your teeth unless of course you can afford some lubricant to smooth out the process. Makes you wonder how the human race ever progressed when the things that are so obviously wrong are not to be challenged as that's just the way things are?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.[/p][/quote]As has been the case......forever through history Right back since records began the "rich" have done exactly what they are doing now. Its just the way things are and rightly or wrongly it will NEVER change no matter who is in power.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. We've been getting screwed over forever and now it's traditional and who are we to try and change tradition? Nothing can be changed so it's best to just shut up, bend over and grit your teeth unless of course you can afford some lubricant to smooth out the process. Makes you wonder how the human race ever progressed when the things that are so obviously wrong are not to be challenged as that's just the way things are? RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

8:55am Tue 25 Feb 14

Andy2010 says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.
As has been the case......forever through history

Right back since records began the "rich" have done exactly what they are doing now.

Its just the way things are and rightly or wrongly it will NEVER change no matter who is in power.
Oh I see. We've been getting screwed over forever and now it's traditional and who are we to try and change tradition? Nothing can be changed so it's best to just shut up, bend over and grit your teeth unless of course you can afford some lubricant to smooth out the process. Makes you wonder how the human race ever progressed when the things that are so obviously wrong are not to be challenged as that's just the way things are?
No they are not wrong. Things happen this way in order to keep economies turning and the world continuing. Its been the case since the dawn of time and it works so rebel all you want but you are never going to change anything because that's the way things are.

At least with the advent of the internet it has given you somewhere to moan about things.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: It's not a case of Tory bad Labour good at all. I'm not convinced any of the parties have any vision as to what's best for the people of this country but then again I'm not convinced that that is who the politicians believe they are elected to serve. The interests of the people seem to come a distant second at best behind the heavily financed lobby groups. Corporate interest seems to be the priority and this is not the understanding given to the voters when the elections come around.[/p][/quote]As has been the case......forever through history Right back since records began the "rich" have done exactly what they are doing now. Its just the way things are and rightly or wrongly it will NEVER change no matter who is in power.[/p][/quote]Oh I see. We've been getting screwed over forever and now it's traditional and who are we to try and change tradition? Nothing can be changed so it's best to just shut up, bend over and grit your teeth unless of course you can afford some lubricant to smooth out the process. Makes you wonder how the human race ever progressed when the things that are so obviously wrong are not to be challenged as that's just the way things are?[/p][/quote]No they are not wrong. Things happen this way in order to keep economies turning and the world continuing. Its been the case since the dawn of time and it works so rebel all you want but you are never going to change anything because that's the way things are. At least with the advent of the internet it has given you somewhere to moan about things. Andy2010
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Tue 25 Feb 14

notvery funny says...

bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
£750,000 paid to Unions... if a union can not function with employee funding them by there subs….. Why is the tax payer expected to fund them? Are you sure that the information is correct….
[quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions... if a union can not function with employee funding them by there subs….. Why is the tax payer expected to fund them? Are you sure that the information is correct…. notvery funny
  • Score: 0

9:43am Wed 26 Feb 14

Tinybantam says...

Andy2010 wrote:
tabster wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
BierleyBoy wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
bingleybantam wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?
£750,000 paid to Unions
£250,000 paid to The Bulls
£300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp
£200,000 paid to home stray horses.
£350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter

Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?
That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?
If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing.

Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent.

Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income.

We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it.

The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased.

All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North.

Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they?

There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out.

I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.
And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?
This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?!

For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.
He wont listen to a word of it

For Rollie its very very simple....Tory Government = Bad....Labour Government = Good

He will argue till the cows come home about "living wages" etc etc etc etc but will never understand the bigger picture at all
Well said Sir. Whatever a Tory government did it would not please him, even if they did give the pay rises he wishes for, but that are unsustainable at this moment in time. Like you say.....Tory = BAD Labour = GOOD. My feeling is that he does not vote by looking at all the issues, policies and manifesto's in an unbiased way, and then makes a clear cut decision, but gives his vote to the colour of the rosette. He probably votes the way that his Father and Grandfather voted. Before any one jumps to conclusions, I am NOT a Tory voter. I actually voted Labour for 40 years, until the idiots Blair, Brown and Balls were elected, and instead of serving the country, decided to feather their own nests. I voted Tory last time, and even though I have been happy with the performance of my MP I have not been happy with the amount of broken promises of Cameron. Therefore I think a vote for UKIP is in order next time around.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tabster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bingleybantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Lets have a little honesty here. These cuts are being imposed by central government who have been borrowing money left right and center since getting into office. Labour spent too much is the much repeated mantra on here and yes there is some truth to that but currently borrowing is higher than when Labour were in office and I for one can't see what it is being spent on. Perhaps the Tory supporters on here can fill me in on that one although they have failed to do so on the numerous occasions that I've asked the same question in the past. When we are told we must suffer for the incompetence, nay criminality, of rich bankers who are still pocketing massive bonuses by a prime minister who now claims "money is no object" when a homes in the Tory heartlands get flooded then this sits slightly wrong with me. It's easy to make your opposition look bad when you're holding the purse strings isn't it?[/p][/quote]£750,000 paid to Unions £250,000 paid to The Bulls £300,000 paid to renovate a Traveller Camp £200,000 paid to home stray horses. £350,000 paid for that Community Newsletter Nearly £2m in savings there, without cutting jobs...where do I send my £100,000 invoice for consultancy fee?[/p][/quote]That's not what I asked which was what central government was spending the money they have borrowed on? I really couldn't give a monkey's about Rugby but even I know that it brings people in and therefore is worthy of the investment. If I remember rightly the money spent on the traveler site was due to a legal responsibility for it's upkeep. The community newsletter is the only means other than this pityful rag of keeping the electorate informed about what the council is doing and if it was to go I can't see how this would not cost jobs? Could you explain why people should have to rely on a corporate entity such as the T&A for their information about council activity?[/p][/quote]If you had an ounce of intelligence you would see that the debt is accumulating, not because of an increase in spending, but as a result of the income streams from banks and the housing bubble disappearing. Under the last labour government, public spending doubled to £640 billion a year. The national debt was not reduced at all, every penny and more that was coming in was spent. Once the income streams stopped, the spending had to be addressed. However, in order to avoid the country going into meltdown, the cuts in public spending have not been as severe as required. They have been ameliorated by the government borrowing money to offset the loss in income. We are now at the point where the cuts have to come to control the debt and reduce it. The fact that Bradford Council has shed 1500 jobs without a single compulsory redundancy highlights just how much money has been wasted over many years, and each year council tax has increased. All that we hear from the corrupt Green & his left wing cohorts is that the cuts are disproportionate and loaded against the North. Well Mr Green, if Bradford Council had not been so bloated and inefficient in the first place, these cuts wouldn't have had to happen would they? There is still huge waste in Bradford Council, the items noted by other posters are just some of the more easily identifiable savings. I'd imagine if the public had access to the details of where all the money was spent, there would be plenty more to pick out. I for one would scrap the office of mayor. A pointless role for which 'work' is found to justify it's existence and an ego trip for a politician.[/p][/quote]And if you had an ounce of sense you would realise that due to the cuts, the pay freezes and the destruction of the private sector they have further compounded the problem by starving the public of any disposable income with which to keep the wheels of the economy turning. It was reported on here just last week that workers in Bradford were on average £25 pw worse off than they would have been in wages had continued to rise with inflation since 2010. This at a time when fuel bill and food prices have been steadily rising. If the Tories cannot see that there is much more to the economy than banks and housing, which were admittedly in a slump mainly due to the fact that they had overestimated their true values, then they should not be in charge of the economy. We have a service economy and a leisure industry which rely heavily on that disposable income as well as taxis, takeaways ect Whilst crying the poor tale why not explain the logic of giving millionaires a tax cut immediately on gaining office? Now as you have stated Labour had borrowed and spent. The economy was doing well enough to justify this up until the banks threw a spanner in the works. The Tories have borrowed twice as much but are not spending, so where is the money going?[/p][/quote]This is a stupid comment. So your solution is to pay bloated salaries to public sector workers who deliver zero value - financed by poor sods who work hard for their money and by borrowing from international markets?! For a sustainable long term growth strategy we need to cut inefficiencies - which means getting rid of local government machines which offer zero value. The money we save should be ploughed into enterprise.[/p][/quote]He wont listen to a word of it For Rollie its very very simple....Tory Government = Bad....Labour Government = Good He will argue till the cows come home about "living wages" etc etc etc etc but will never understand the bigger picture at all[/p][/quote]Well said Sir. Whatever a Tory government did it would not please him, even if they did give the pay rises he wishes for, but that are unsustainable at this moment in time. Like you say.....Tory = BAD Labour = GOOD. My feeling is that he does not vote by looking at all the issues, policies and manifesto's in an unbiased way, and then makes a clear cut decision, but gives his vote to the colour of the rosette. He probably votes the way that his Father and Grandfather voted. Before any one jumps to conclusions, I am NOT a Tory voter. I actually voted Labour for 40 years, until the idiots Blair, Brown and Balls were elected, and instead of serving the country, decided to feather their own nests. I voted Tory last time, and even though I have been happy with the performance of my MP I have not been happy with the amount of broken promises of Cameron. Therefore I think a vote for UKIP is in order next time around. Tinybantam
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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