ChatterBank0 min ago
The Big Society stich up - by labour
28 Answers
While it's hard not to feel sympathy for those whose worthy causes will face the axe, some councils have deliberately decided to slash the cash for popular services.
Their cynical aim? To embarrass the Government.
Take Manchester. Local Labour bosses have targeted for closure five libraries, two swimming pools, five leisure centres, help for the disabled and 18 of their 19 public toilets (the exception? The one in City Hall).
But as we reveal today, the fat cats on the local payroll are NOT having their salaries cut.
EVEN THOUGH Chief Executive Sir Howard Bernstein rakes in £232,000 including pension contributions - UP more than 30 per cent in five years and dwarfing the Prime Minister's pay.
EVEN THOUGH there are ten executives scooping up more than £100,000 and 156 council workers on £50,000-plus.
Recent non-jobs on offer include a "Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat" officer and a Facebook and Twitter tsar both on around £38,000.
Yet as they target the vulnerable, Manchester holds the record for uncollected council tax.
That doesn't stop local bigwigs blaming the Government when they slash popular and vital services.
It's not just Manchester. Nearly half of all council bosses are paid more than £150,000 - that's more than the Prime Minister gets.
So whats more important. Apolitical stand or services to the people?
I think we know where Red Ed's cronies stand
Their cynical aim? To embarrass the Government.
Take Manchester. Local Labour bosses have targeted for closure five libraries, two swimming pools, five leisure centres, help for the disabled and 18 of their 19 public toilets (the exception? The one in City Hall).
But as we reveal today, the fat cats on the local payroll are NOT having their salaries cut.
EVEN THOUGH Chief Executive Sir Howard Bernstein rakes in £232,000 including pension contributions - UP more than 30 per cent in five years and dwarfing the Prime Minister's pay.
EVEN THOUGH there are ten executives scooping up more than £100,000 and 156 council workers on £50,000-plus.
Recent non-jobs on offer include a "Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat" officer and a Facebook and Twitter tsar both on around £38,000.
Yet as they target the vulnerable, Manchester holds the record for uncollected council tax.
That doesn't stop local bigwigs blaming the Government when they slash popular and vital services.
It's not just Manchester. Nearly half of all council bosses are paid more than £150,000 - that's more than the Prime Minister gets.
So whats more important. Apolitical stand or services to the people?
I think we know where Red Ed's cronies stand
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nice try by the right whingers
Make massive cuts then blame the people forced to carry them out.
Rely on the fact that people are just too lazy to do the numbers which would expose what a pile of rubbish they are talking!
Manchester are having for example to make £109 Million worth of cuts.
Ignore that - concentrate on the salary of the execs
Lets sack the lot of the ones you're objecting to
Where's the other £98 Million comming from?
Make massive cuts then blame the people forced to carry them out.
Rely on the fact that people are just too lazy to do the numbers which would expose what a pile of rubbish they are talking!
Manchester are having for example to make £109 Million worth of cuts.
Ignore that - concentrate on the salary of the execs
Lets sack the lot of the ones you're objecting to
Where's the other £98 Million comming from?
rov //The whole system stinks! If these high flying executives get so much money how can the public get rid of them? All I know is that come local election time you vote for one of the parties? Are they there on a permanent basis?//
Yes rov they are there on a permanent basis . Manchester is Labour , end of story.
Yes rov they are there on a permanent basis . Manchester is Labour , end of story.
Don't know enough about it.
I do know that they are concentrating on salaries that represent 1% of the cuts hoping to deflect attention and shift blame onto local Government.
It's aimed at people who are bad at maths and are easily distracted from the main point.
Along with phrases like the "mess we inherited from the last Government"
Never pointing out that the mess was caused by their chums in the City.
Every man woman and child in this country is having to find £4,000 to cover Lloyds bank alone!
But no let's look at the £100K the head of Manchester gets and not worry too much about the £2 Million golden handshake the head of Lloyds got!
Like I said - nice try but not everybody's as gullible as the Sun seems to think
I do know that they are concentrating on salaries that represent 1% of the cuts hoping to deflect attention and shift blame onto local Government.
It's aimed at people who are bad at maths and are easily distracted from the main point.
Along with phrases like the "mess we inherited from the last Government"
Never pointing out that the mess was caused by their chums in the City.
Every man woman and child in this country is having to find £4,000 to cover Lloyds bank alone!
But no let's look at the £100K the head of Manchester gets and not worry too much about the £2 Million golden handshake the head of Lloyds got!
Like I said - nice try but not everybody's as gullible as the Sun seems to think
As to worth their money?
Find me someone in the Private sector with a budget staff and responsibility same as the Chief executive of Manchester who's salary is even remotely close and we'll talk.
To listen to some people you'd think that public sector workers should be dressed in sack cloth and ashes, pay us for the privelege and deliver a world class service.
Seems to me certain people don't understand the difference between the public sector and a charity
Find me someone in the Private sector with a budget staff and responsibility same as the Chief executive of Manchester who's salary is even remotely close and we'll talk.
To listen to some people you'd think that public sector workers should be dressed in sack cloth and ashes, pay us for the privelege and deliver a world class service.
Seems to me certain people don't understand the difference between the public sector and a charity
Talk about bad maths and deflection...
The salaries highlighted superficially represent 8% (not 1%) of the amount to be cut and are to be thought of as negligible.
The £109million to be cut represents 7% of Manchester City Council's total budget of £1.65billion and are described as "massive".
Nice try though.
The salaries highlighted superficially represent 8% (not 1%) of the amount to be cut and are to be thought of as negligible.
The £109million to be cut represents 7% of Manchester City Council's total budget of £1.65billion and are described as "massive".
Nice try though.
jake // But no let's look at the £100K the head of Manchester gets //
ymb // Chief Executive Sir Howard Bernstein rakes in £232,000 //
Are we talking about the same man ?
If I was you jake I would point to Wandsworth's Gerald Jones £299,925 and five other Tory exec each creaming off over £200k, but then ymb would counter with Newhams £242K and five other Labour exec. walking off with more than ~~£200k each .
Pigs and troughs come to mind .
In fairness ymb did say // It's not just Manchester. Nearly half of all council bosses are paid more than £150,000 //
ymb // Chief Executive Sir Howard Bernstein rakes in £232,000 //
Are we talking about the same man ?
If I was you jake I would point to Wandsworth's Gerald Jones £299,925 and five other Tory exec each creaming off over £200k, but then ymb would counter with Newhams £242K and five other Labour exec. walking off with more than ~~£200k each .
Pigs and troughs come to mind .
In fairness ymb did say // It's not just Manchester. Nearly half of all council bosses are paid more than £150,000 //
-- answer removed --
From the question..."Recent non-jobs on offer include a "Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretariat" officer and a Facebook and TWITTER TSAR (my emboldening) both on around £38,000."
In the article - literally half an inch away - next to this Sun rant was another which emphasised in its opening paragraphs the notion that the 30-years of brutal dictatorship by Hosni Mubarak in Egypt had been brought to an end by...guess what...TWITTER!
Just maybe it's a good idea that people SHOULD be made aware of the impact Twitter can have in the advancement of people power and that perhaps £38,000 is not too much to pay for that.
In the article - literally half an inch away - next to this Sun rant was another which emphasised in its opening paragraphs the notion that the 30-years of brutal dictatorship by Hosni Mubarak in Egypt had been brought to an end by...guess what...TWITTER!
Just maybe it's a good idea that people SHOULD be made aware of the impact Twitter can have in the advancement of people power and that perhaps £38,000 is not too much to pay for that.
-- answer removed --
Chief executives' pay is an issue that probably gets us all a bit hot under the collar. Most people (including myself) do feel pretty hacked off when they find out some top council bod gets a salary in excess of £200,000.
But as Jake and Quiz rightly point out, this is just a smoke screen to distract those readers who struggle with a fog index greater than 12. The cuts being implemented by central Government are vast – they dwarf the top executives' salaries by an order of magnitude.
Take the above example. Manchester council needs to make £109 million in cuts. Take off the aforementioned 'top' salaries and we're left with approximately £100 million. Given that most council employees earn less than about £20k a year, in simple everyday jobs that's an equivalent loss of about 5,000 people. That's 5,000 people who are currently paying tax and national insurance and not claiming unemployment benefit, etc. Throwing tens of thousands of people out of work and expecting the private sector to scoop them up and give them gainful (and adequately remunerated) employment is an exercise in wishful thinking.
Highlighting the very high salaries of a relatively small number of public sector employees sells newspapers and gets people's dander up. But if you're mad about that, wait until tens of thousands of people suddenly find themselves without work and then you'll see real anger.
As the Chinese say, “May you live in interesting times”. I think that this coming summer may prove to be very 'interesting' indeed.
But as Jake and Quiz rightly point out, this is just a smoke screen to distract those readers who struggle with a fog index greater than 12. The cuts being implemented by central Government are vast – they dwarf the top executives' salaries by an order of magnitude.
Take the above example. Manchester council needs to make £109 million in cuts. Take off the aforementioned 'top' salaries and we're left with approximately £100 million. Given that most council employees earn less than about £20k a year, in simple everyday jobs that's an equivalent loss of about 5,000 people. That's 5,000 people who are currently paying tax and national insurance and not claiming unemployment benefit, etc. Throwing tens of thousands of people out of work and expecting the private sector to scoop them up and give them gainful (and adequately remunerated) employment is an exercise in wishful thinking.
Highlighting the very high salaries of a relatively small number of public sector employees sells newspapers and gets people's dander up. But if you're mad about that, wait until tens of thousands of people suddenly find themselves without work and then you'll see real anger.
As the Chinese say, “May you live in interesting times”. I think that this coming summer may prove to be very 'interesting' indeed.
>>>Make massive cuts then blame the people forced to carry them out.
If Labour did not keep bankrupting the country every time they were in power then the party that comes in after them would not have to clean up the mess.
Labour always seem to think the money in this country is theirs to squander and give away, always leaving us bankrupt when their term of office ends.
If Labour did not keep bankrupting the country every time they were in power then the party that comes in after them would not have to clean up the mess.
Labour always seem to think the money in this country is theirs to squander and give away, always leaving us bankrupt when their term of office ends.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Film, Media & TV15 mins ago
Home & Garden16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.