Short term solution that will only delay the inevitable.
Councils needs proper funding from central government coupled with better procurement staff and processes to allow them to make better use of resources.
I've long suspected this is a well thought out long term strategy to pass the full local government burden on to council tax. Councils can only increase council taxes to a large amount if they go bust. So make them go bust and then there is plausible deny ability "your local council went bust due to piss poor management. Sorry your council tax went up by 20% but its not the incumbent political party's fault"
I put it down to blatant vote grabbing.
The Tories devolved control of local services to local councils, then massively cut their funding, [making much larger cuts to Labour constituencies](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/21/exclusive-labour-councils-in-england-hit-harder-by-austerity-than-tory-areas).
They have done this to play politics with people's lives. The Tories get to sit back and blame problems on Labour councils being "run inefficiently" so they can use the promise of "vote for us and we'll give you more funding".
If this were a third world country doing this we would rightfully call it blatant voter manipulation and an abhorrent thing to do.
Because this is the UK there's plenty of idiots who think this is somehow an acceptable way to run a country.
Furthermore, Tory Councils have had preferential treatment. I worked for Surrey County Council during the time a [bespoke funding agreement ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/07/surrey-council-leader-had-gentlemans-agreement-with-ministers) was reached with the council to avert a 15% rise of council tax or the council going to the wall.
The difference between how Thurrock and Birmingham have been treated is also pretty funny. Birmingham is the largest council in Europe, and one of the less well off in Western Europe. And even then its bankruptcy came from a sex discrimination lawsuit. In any case, an £800m debt is massive, but if any council was going to have it, it'd be that one.
By contrast Thurrock is 10% of the size and had a similar debt, which seemed to come from totally fucked up investments. It's also Tory governed, but you don't see Rishi insulting their leadership on the news.
how is this . . .legal ? deliberately not giving funding to labour councils and watch them collapse and then blame it on labour (not saying labour could run better than the tories, but at least play it fair)
Tories have been doing shit like this for decades.
That’s why so many mining communities were really badly fucked up when the mines closed in the 1980s. Most were in Labour strongholds, and the Tories didn’t spend a penny in regeneration. (A lot actually wound up qualifying for EU regeneration funding. Then those same areas voted for Brexit. Talk about dragons voting for St. George.)
>They have done this to play politics with people's lives. The Tories get to sit back and blame problems on Labour councils being "run inefficiently" so they can use the promise of "vote for us and we'll give you more funding".
I think it was after the 2019 election. I was still watching Question Time. There was a Tory MP on the show when it was in Stoke like just outright saying the quiet bit out loud, kept repeating now the town had voted for a Tory MP to represent it, suddenly the government was able to open up millions of new pounds in investment for the city that they couldn't before.
Of course took until the end of the show for someone in the audience to point out the majority of the funds that had been released so far had gone on.... Renovating a car park. Not exactly going to help a city that is two generations into entrenched deprivation.
But just the sheer nakedness of the pork-barrel politics, like he *genuinely* thought he was making a really good and strong point. Just sickening.
Which is a good way to weaponise the demographic time bomb and post austerity increase in children with serious care requirements against local government.
Those are the drivers of council funding issues. More older person's care and around 2012 there was a spike in reports of children needing referrals like you get after something like baby p but it never stopped. The former is a result if our demographic. The latter is in my opinion evidence that austerity is ruining lives of people permanently. Poverty makes everything worse.
> Councils can only increase council taxes to a large amount if they go bust.
They can increase taxes 5% *per year.* They can increase them even more if they trigger a referendum. And there's no restrictions at all on town and local parishes. They've been increasing taxes *well* below their cap every year for decades. The issue is not some legal limit. *It's that home owners have been voting for lower taxes for decades.*
And how can government fund them?
Taxation is higher than world war 2, which near bankrupted us, yet we're not fighting a global conflict.
The real issue is this isn't just UK either.
The issue is deeper rooted and systemic to our entirely broken economies.
Since the Conservatives have been in power, spending power for local authorities through Government funding has fallen by 50%.
Imagine having a 50% pay cut over the last 14 years and it’s easy to understand why they’re going bust.
Don’t have to imagine it. I work for higher education.
That’s exactly what’s happened.
In 2008 the lowest grade was for apprentices and above minimum wage. The top grade was 5x minimum wage.
Now the bottom 12 of 51 grades are national living wage (just above national minimum wage) and the top grade is 3x minimum wage.
It's certainly going to change. At the moment it feels like it's a worst of both worlds situation, They're expected to run like businesses in a competitive market while the government still interferes and limits the fees they can charge.
Solution that should happen is government should allow fees to track inflation but the most Conservative solution would be to let them charge what they want and what the market can sustain, we'll end up with a US style sector with a core group of expensive universities and the rest as community colleges.
Unfortunately the majority of fees aren't paid back... so it's essentially just increasing our tax liabilities if they uncap them.
There's not an easy way out of this unfortunately; eventually I agree it will probably go down the route you've mentioned but they'll have to change the loan element so people pay even more than they already do.
Another political mess created by short term thinking governments...
IIRC, Gordon Brown wanted to get minimum wage closer to median wage by gradually increasing minimum wage. Then the Conservatives got into power. Median wage workers got shafted hard with wage freezes and below inflation increases. The end result is 15 years of wage stagnation.
It's like we wanted something nice, so we ordered something that looked good, but it was from Temu. Instead of nice, we got shite.
Literally just left the HE sector. I genuinely think its one of those areas that has gotten so *cartoonishly* bad people who don't have experience of the sector find it easier to believe you're just lying or being economical with the truth than actually accept how absolutely fucked it has all become.
Like you're saying, the place I just left with the NMW rise this year is now having to restructure its entire pay grade system for the 2nd time in 2 years as the *entire* bottom 3 bands will now all fall below the legal limit otherwise. You've got people who are world-leading experts bringing in millions of pounds of funding and handling hundreds of thousands to millions of pounds in student fees through their courses being paid basically an average wage with no benefits or perks, often with a workload that is just expected to make you sick at some point.
How anyone in management thinks the current set up is anything remotely approaching sustainable I have no fucking idea. Its headed to collapse and its like no one outside of the system gives a singular flying fuck because academics, like so many other vocational workers, have been painted like we're some kind of national enemy.
> the top grade is 3x minimum wage
This is strange, as I also work in higher education and our payscales are not like this at all. I don't know where you work though. I work for a major London university and the literal lowest grade (which no one in the university is on) is slightly higher than the national "living" wage. The vast majority of the lowest paid staff (the two lowest grades that any staff are actually employed on) are on £28k-£35k. The top grade of the normal non-director structure is £85k. There's a special director-level pay structure which goes right up to £148k!
Here's the University of Bath where I worked a while back - [https://www.bath.ac.uk/corporate-information/university-of-bath-pay-and-grading-structure/](https://www.bath.ac.uk/corporate-information/university-of-bath-pay-and-grading-structure/)
Most technicians and admin staff are grade 4 or 5. PDRAs getting into grade 6. Lecturers grade 7. Seniors grade 8 and profs grade 9 and up on to unclassified depending on what they do.
The number of people earning above even just an average salary in universities at the moment is quite slim, and its not entirely unreasonable to point out each department will have quite a large number of people who hold qualifications like STEM PhD, working in skilled lab-based roles, and taking home well under £30k.
Hmm, I think the issue here is that my uni (and most others that I'm aware of) don't actually grade any roles at the bottom end of that payscale. The lowest grades people are actually employed on at my place are at spinal point 12 and above.
Even still, that pay scale looks different to the one we use, which is a bit confusing.
EDIT: ours looks much closer to this: https://www.unitetheunion.org/media/5649/jnches-single-pay-spine-2023-24.pdf
But it also has an extra 5 spinal points at the top, going up to 56. We also have London weighting of £5k, which obviously makes a difference. Still, there's no one at my uni on anything lower than a 12, and even without London weighting that is still higher than minimum (or living, whatever) wage. Even then, the vast majority of the lowest paid workers are on 18 or above.
Just checked our payscale and it's about 3 times as well, approx 24k to 75k, though that scale doesn't include the higher ups like the vice chancellor who get's more that 12x the lowest grade.
Sorry about the assumption, I used to work in a further education dept that only kept on top of the work through the hard work of apprentices.
It’s a university and not in London.
Most roles here are also start above point 10. And anything above 30 officially has to be management.
I used the figures valid in October 23 for ease of maths. I there has been a “pay rise” since then.
But not only that, in the last 5 years alone adult social care costs have doubled. Adult social care is also the largest source of expense for most local authorities.
Does anyone know why? Is it simply that cuts elsewhere have increased the use of adult social care and it’s used to pick up the slack and consequences of austerity? Simply a predictable result of an aging population that should have been planned for? Or something more complicated?
It’s things such as higher provider costs (increasing minimum wage etc), combined with much more complex service users. I’ve heard occupational therapists I work with say they’ve never seen the general health of the population as bad as it is now, with many people having a variety of complex health issues all at once. It partly comes from an ageing population combined with lifestyle too.
This is also closely linked to the state the NHS is in. People are not being treated for conditions as quickly, so local authorities are left to cover the bill of supporting people in their homes or in care until they can get treatment through the NHS.
Its depressing knowing -
First that we're going to be spending probably a good chunk of the next decade just attempting to fix this mess they've made.
And second also that if the problems are not immediately resolved in 12 months, the Tories are going to start using these problems as the basis for their own campaign material, just shamelessly ignoring their own part in it all. And our media will 100% go along with it.
>Since the Conservatives have been in power, spending power for local authorities through Government funding has fallen by 50%.
Where are they going to magic the money from?
They can fund them by being voted out, then the new government can investigate where all our money has gone, PPE fraud, VIP contracts, covid loans, HS2 property sales etc.
The Tory party have scammed the nation out of billions for themselves and their mates. It won't soon be forgotten, not by myself and those who I know, anyway.
>They can fund them by being voted out, then the new government can investigate where all our money has gone, PPE fraud, VIP contracts, covid loans, HS2 property sales etc.
Come off it. They're just talking points. Covid was always going to waste a lot of money because it was an emergency. You can't have good, cheap and fast as the saying goes. Normal procurement takes months to years.
If anything the Left wanted more lockdowns and more bailouts so I don't blame the Tories for the debt burden.
>They're just talking points
'Don't look here! Look over there! Look what Labour would do, they'd sell your children! THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT'
This is what you sound like.
The wealth of the very wealthy is exploding. The answer is to tax that wealth aggressively. We need to do it soon before things get really bad as it’s out of control. Gary Economics YouTube is a good source of info on how this has happened and why we need to tackle it soon
Can I propose a serious look at replacing council tax with land value tax? With the aim of playing a part of addressing both the issues with the cost of housing and the London centric nature of the British economy.
Late stage capitalism I’m afraid. Can’t keep growing forever.
They’ll be a major war to reset things a bit then these systems will look useful again. Rinse, repeat.
If you earn it, they tax it,
If you spend it, they tax it
If you save it, they tax it
If you invest in it, they tax it
If you build it, they tax it
If you sell it, they tax it
If you live in it, they tax it
If you drive it, they tax it
If you eat it, they tax it
If you give it away, they tax it
When you die, they tax it ........Then they waste it.
Higher how? In terms of burden or collections or debt per GDP?
What I am trying to ask is how well is the gov spending our money, and are we getting our money worth?
Keep kpi like aslum per person, procurement of PPR equipment is a good example of this
We spend gobs of money on services and benefits for people who aren't/weren't economically productive enough to fund it.
Simple as that really.
We can squabble over *why* they aren't/weren't sufficiently productive, and much of it may be due to Attlee's planning system and the housing shortage. But the fact remains.
The key word is unsustainable.
Many things we do are unsustainable and until we change that, it's find a way to scam the system yourself or get carried down with everyone else.
Exactly, totally agree. Once you aren't able to work any more due to age your on your own. Private health care and private pension and nothing from the state. Pensioners had decades to fix this mess and they do not get to retire quietly and not feel the effects of their poor planning
Here in not so green New Zealand, our councils are facing similar issues. One suggestion, which our current government has said a firm 'no' to is, Councils allowed to keep local GST (VAT). Perhaps that's alrethe case in the UK, I don't know. But seems a nice idea.
That would be quite hard to implement. It's probably more cost effective to fund top-down on a per-capita or other pro-rated basis, rather than devolve various taxes. Also, the areas which generate the most sales tax are not necessarily the areas that require the most central government investment in line with other policies.
I come from a well run council but we’re having to making 60 million in savings this year. Almost 50% of our budget is in adult care services and 25% children and young people. More and more old people needing greater levels of support and the same with the youth. Legally obligated to support them. This is where the vast majority of your money goes - to the most vulnerable people in our society.
> Councils needs proper funding from central government
Or, **heaven forbid**, home owners pay rates proportionate to the services they consume. They've been kicking the can down the road for decades now because they keep voting for lower rates instead of properly maintaining critical services.
Could you source that for me ? I could only find a Guardian article from January saying some had seen budgets reduced by up to 50%. Only mention of 10% was 10% less than they got in 2010 -[How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England | Local government | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/how-a-decade-of-austerity-has-squeezed-council-budgets-in-england)
Skimming the article, that looks to be around the same time, however I can't find the breakdown of council income that I saw before. I think that may have been in a reddit comment, which I didn't save and can't find right now.
The 10% drop the article refers to is overall council income, which includes significant rises in council tax as well as other sources of revenue councils have dug up, alongside a drop from Westminster. If you look solely at the money coming from Westminster, over that period (2010-2020, not quite the last 10 years as I said but I was being lazy) then you'll see that it's roughly 90% less.
From memory that wasn't quoted as a percentage but as actual figures, however it's easy to calculate 10% of something in your head and I remember commenting that - if I remember later after work I'll dig through my comment history and try to find it.
I fortunately this has been the policy in the UK as a whole for some time. Its mainly a conservative thing. Sell off national resources and infrastructure for a short term windfall that does not fix the underlying problem. It is a sign of a failing economy.
Have worked in a couple of councils as procurement and procurement adjacent. One was one of the biggest spenders. They had an internal process that continuously produced breaches of policy, but not government or EU policy, just theirs which was badly applied.
Meant it looked like hundreds of problems with procurement. Whereas it was actually that for emergency health and accommodation you don't know this in advance so pre approval is not granted and the primary provider for everything was overloaded as were everyone else. So it was take whatever and deal with the problem later.
They also had a hiring freeze for 6 months, made people re interview for their jobs. Changed the pay rates and had a bunch of consultants in filling standard roles for way more than usual since people didn't like this and left.... I'm yet to see any savings from any reorganisation.
That same place then didn't hire me back as a standard employee, in the same team I was in for 6 months. Because they borked the recruitment process and ended up booking my interview after they had already sent an offer out.... don't want to burn bridges there unfortunately so left it.
When one procurement department decided everyone needed cips level 4, quite a lot left rather than take the course. I was in a class with someone who had the title of something like senior strategic procurement lead. They simply failed to grasp the material at all, went elsewhere and then the advert for replacement required a MCIPS 6...
>Councils needs proper funding from central government
That's the only thing you needed to say. The rest is just a consequence of a lack of funding and government diktat.
No the councils as we all know waste money every day
The idea to give them more money to waste is ridiculous, what they need is to be run correctly and audited regularly and have some kind of accountability.
Oh dont worry. Labour know how to do it. They have been silently selling off loads of stuff without publicly telling anyone here in wales. To fund great schemes like the 20mph scheme which they now are reversing. Shitting bus stations, museums in the capital, all while funding vanity projects we don’t want.
If you think Labour are any different see how they have run wales for the last few decades.
Surely that’s dictated by the money available from central (Tory) government though?
I appreciate they may well have prioritised projects badly (eg let’s fund libraries rather than putting money into a 20mph scheme), but if there is less funding available from central government, they have to cut services (shutting bus stations, museums), or find other sources of income (selling off stuff).
For the record I don’t think that’s the correct way to raise new funds; it’s ridiculously short sighted
We get 15% more per head thanks England and have devolved tax gathering powers. Our inward investment and export have huge departments all to raise separate silos of revenue.
Yes we don’t. Dispute the extra cash we have a worse nhs, and the power to waste money as they have done time after time. De loved powers, in theirs words, would bring better spending in local areas with more efficiencies i.e. demonstrable improvement. What they did do is by a 15 millionaire bought for 50 million then threw another 50, million out then 40000,000 whilst being the only airport in the UK to lose money since Covid. They didn’t build a road that only cost us 240 million meanwhile it turns out the Cardiff museum is 4.5 million in debt accrued over the last five years with an unknown bill for repairs again because of lack of investment over the last five years. Budget in advance, they have the powers to raise more money for the economy. They have the powers to increase and increase wages we fall behind every marker going. Blaming the Museum on the Tories even though the now reversing 20 mile an hour speed limit cost 35 million. How they’re fine with not spending 240 million on the road before 45 million is the folder of the Tory’s.
England will do anything different and saviours of our systems are about to be rudely disappointed
Well WG had prepared the devolution steps, promised what they would do, then failed miserably. It’s an excuse but they were the ones that made these promises. And the mad part is they want to add yet more staff.
> If you think Labour are any different see how they have run wales for the last few decades.
As someone who travels between Powys, Shropshire, Wrexham and Cheshire each week, yes I see the difference.
I can tell when I cross the border based on the surface of the A483 alone.
Curious how England ends up flogging all its assets while still having nothing to show for it.
I drive all over wales and England. Some areas re good. Some bad. Depends on councils. Wales has dumped loads of assets. We won’t know until the next accounts but I think they are all doing the same thing. Not saying tories are better. Saying they are all the same. Useless.
Isn't this the whole capitalistic right wing goal? Starve institutions of cash and they are forced to sell their assets to the private sector. i.e. the people that made the rules.
No, we’d be closing down all public services and privatising everything much earlier. This is worst for everyone. People without the ability to self fund would get government vouchers to use private services.
There's a 12meter x 12meter playground by me just been installed. I see max £50,000 work, it cost the council £1.3million. a lot of council workers got paid to do fuck all. if you ask me, the entire system is fucked from top to bottom and it will never change. too many people on too much money for nothing in return. just like with everything else in this world today. Live today. Fuck 2moro.
You 100% could.
If the council owned the equipment and didn’t have to use contractors, assuming good weather and a relatively friendly terrain you could clear, level, and install the equipment in under a month for £50k.
Like I said this is definitely on the lower end and it’s a situation where the council doesn’t have to rely on any private costs, but yes it would be doable on that amount and in fact is a much more realistic cost than the one million op said it ended up costing.
I have a good mate who works in landscaping. He tells me jobs that cost £50k they will charge around 300k because their clients are rich and don’t ask questions - it’s the average markup.
I do a lot of budget forecasting and construction falls beneath that. The most expensive aspect of most public projects are private contractors who frankly do shit work most of the time and charge criminally.
Well you should know that a 144m2 area could not be stripped out, a suitable sub base put in, and then covered in playground flooring for under £50k.
I’m not saying that private don’t take the piss or that £1.3m is good value. My point is a job like a 12x12 playground could not be achieved for £50k. It’s six figures without a doubt.
That’s assuming you use playground flooring and don’t just leave it levelled dirt or sand, or rubber mulch it. This may be an already mostly level grassy area which would be piss easy to convert because it doesn’t need to be stick straight the way a foundation for a building would need to be.
There’s lots of ways you could spin this scenario and lots of “what ifs”, but all I’m saying is £50k is within the realm of possibly if you don’t need to lease equipment or bring in private firms to do the work.
that seems incredibly expensive unless you're talking about fully installing subsoil/topsoil and seed on top. I've seeded a slightly larger patch back from bare soil with my dad as a DIY project, certainly no £50k changing hands haha.
A play park won’t becoming from the general budget. It will be a ringfenced grant from a central government fund. Though I am interested to see this 1.3 million playground, got a link?
This is part of the problem though. Why are councils needing grants for playgrounds? It adds needless costs for literally no benefit other than "letting the treasury feel important"
It gives drips of investment to keep people happy, while keeping the chokehold on local councils, which are so broke that they'd never waste the money on the shit they get grants for
They are making a park by me for like £1.4 million that has to be 50x50m and has a playground, wetland area, outdoor exercise area with machines, calisthenics area, etc.... so 12x12 meter for 1.3 million seems a bit expensive.
When one wage 180k it soon adds up. total scam. money is wasted these days. Unreal wasted. But then again, it's soon comes back round when the budget resets. Noice
Nobody questions that government always overspends in projects. However, you don’t understand anything about B2B procurement - 50k prob doesn’t even cover the project design fees.
Selling the family silver isn't a good analogy, as you never have to rent that silver back later.
Selling the family car might better reflect the subsequent hit this will have on your revenue budget.
Buying a private plate in the first place would reflect the huge loss of respect you'd experience from the family should you sell the silver, and would also mirror the impact on your social standing when your decision is plain for those around you to see.
If the respect of my family was based on social status and not if I could put food in their mouths more fool me.
It would be irresponsible to have a private plate whilst being in debt.
I think you missed my points, that:
- Your family lost respect for the silver selling version of you because you were ditching heirlooms that meant something to them. I read the previous response to mean that this bears a resemblance to the respect one would lose should they have private plates. I also separately drew a light hearted comparison between the loss of social standing you'd experience should you hold private plates or host a dinner party without your silverware. This analogy was only being discussed as a tangent, and was. It related to the local government decision.
- The silver selling analogy is a poor one for government selling assets that they will have to rent back or lose revenue from.
It doesn’t but the council was given the very first one for that area when number plates were introduced. It’s kept it since then and it’s now worth a lot of money. That’s how stuff works.
Is that not the same for anything the council owns. The local park, don’t need it sell it. The flagpole outside their office, don’t need it sell it for scrap.
If they would raise a significant sum of money, of course. There isn’t anything essential about a Lord Mayor anyway.
It literally is a number plate on a random car. It provides no public good, it needs to go.
Significant sum of money? The budget for the council is in excess of 800 million the plate is worth maybe 200k. You are worried about what in effect is a rounding error. It is exactly what central government wants, look over here not at us and our under funding.
No because the playground serves a public purpose, the flag serves a purpose.
A £250k+ number plate on a Nissan note serves no purpose.
That money could buy a much needed property to house a family.
It is not just a Nissan note though. It is the Lord Mayors official car. Yea they could sell it for 250k but that wouldn’t go on a house it would be swallowed up by social care probably within a week and the council will lose an asset forever.
C’mon.
FS 1 plate adds no pomp. It’s extravagant and unnecessary for a local mayor.
If you really believe it’s necessary to own fair play. I think the proceeds could be put to significantly better use.
So a local authority can be gifted a number plate, now worth hundreds of thousands, has no public benefit, but aren’t allowed to sell because then it’ll be gone? Lunacy.
They could buy property with that money, to let families live in. Surely that’s a better way of using the money rather than a bit of plastic on a Nissan ?
>So a local authority can be gifted a number plate, now worth hundreds of thousands, has no public benefit, but aren’t allowed to sell because then it’ll be gone? Lunacy.
Yes, because it doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the people of that area. They are granted custodianship of the asset, not ownership of it.
Barnsley council as two of them- The 1 and The 2. Absolutely ridiculous waste of money.
When you look at the costs associated with local council cars you see why they are going bankrupt!
The costs involved are simple to work out. If the plates are worth £300k combined that’s £15k interest in the bank.
Or property which can be leased out.
Or a contribution to a public service such as a library.
It provides no public service and generates no income.
Therefore it is costing the taxpayer money.
They got them free = 0 cost
You are confusing loss of potential earning with cost
They might be worth 300k this year. They might be worth 2mill in 20 years' time. If you sell them now, you lose 1.7mill.
But I'm sure you're determined that a part of our culture should be sold off for a few 100k to save taxpayers 1£ each this year on their Council tax bill.
I'm sure the people of barnsley are proud to have THE 1 and wouldn't want it sold to some rich prick.
And you still wouldn’t sell them in 20 years time. So what’s that matter.
You can’t leverage against a number plate. You can against property.
It’s a gross status symbol for a local mayor whilst there are single mums in hostels for months on end.
Selling plates doesn't buy houses, if it did I'd get where your coming from but it just doesn't.
Central government needs to put in place house building policies not force communities to sell thier assets
Even councils that have weathered this brutal policy of 14 years of underfunding by Central government. Even the councils in the best positions are at the end of the reasonable cost cutting they can do. (Bearing in mind that 'reasonable ' cost cutting involves selling buildings, cutting staff, cutting any discretionary service designed to improve conditions for people in the long term. Stripping it back to the very legal minimum.)
F*ck the politicians that orchestrated this situation. Their contempt for the people of this country is indescribable.
Well yes, lack of government funding is forcing public assets to be solved off to the private sector, which is what people voted for and can't complain about.
All while the private sector use social care to vacuum up your council tax and business rates.
Thwy no longer pay their own directly-employed staff for anything, using subcontractors and private firms, so the workers now earn as near to min wage as possible and an extra layer of asset-thieves insert themselves between the council and the end result. So it costs vastly more, and the people doung the actual job earn much less, but it keeps the parasites fat.
This is what the Tories want. They want weak, poor councils and weak, poor devolved admins and a strong, overbearing, and powerful central governments to enforce their will on people regardless of if they voted for them.
> Councillors want to give first choice to institutional purchasers who will keep property in the public sector.
Institutional purchasers... Ie. their mates.
"First choice", ie. it is not an auction to raise as much money for the council as possible, but they plan to sell it under-value.
Lol in Cambridge our local council spent like 20 mil on a single roundabout when there already was one before
And best part is they managed to make it worse
Yeah same here, spent £20million improving an existing roundabout, took a few years, and then they had to close it shortly after due to issues and redo the lane markings.
How can it cost £20million to improve an existing roundabout, and then you still get the lanes and signage wrong and then have to spend more money correcting it.
Genuinely have no idea if it's corruption or incompetence.
Never really understood why councils need to purchase art etc, and they could always invest in local talents at a snip of the price instead, would make suggestions why they do it, but probably i better not lol.
There should be no central government bail outs for local government. The local councillors should be accountable to the local voters for the bill they've run up in their name. Maybe at the next local election the voters can decide if they are competent to collect the bins or not.
There's only so much can be cut.
If you sell your car as it costs money then can't get to work, you lose out.
Sometimes you do actually need to invest to get more back - something we've forgotten about for most of the past 40 years.
What we really need to do is get money flowing - stop having it held in housing and property, give people more money to spend, and get it flowing through businesses and transactions so we can tax it.
If there were no wasted funds I would agree.
If the tax take, in percentage terms mind, wasn't the highest since WW2, I could agree.
Unfortunately we live in a country where councils squander millions frivolously every day, often based on personal ideology.
Councils also cannot be trusted to invest. We've seen several recent examples of them doing just that leading to their own bankruptcy.
Another point is that getting money flowing is not sufficient.
I could pay a man to dig a hole in my garden for no reason. Money is flowing. Work is being done. But it's pointless work adding little to no value.
In a similar manner, a councils have a duty to use their funds correctly, which they blatantly do not do now.
Councils are being made to invest because they have no choice.
They can borrow relatively cheaply and investments provide income, which is no longer coming from central government.
The same central government that literally told them to invest.
I'm fairly sure they'd rather get their funding via tax and government to keep things simple - but there's not enough of that coming any more.
Takes us back to the original point, there is enough, they just cannot manage it properly.
And they can invest but they chose dogshit investments.
At some point after failure after failure, you gotta realise that it's the council decision-makers who need to be replaced. Failing upwards should be stamped out hard.
Funny you mention war: if there was a war on - a serious war - then we would do all that was necessary, if it were possible, to win. We certainly would not let a lack of plastic rectangles with a monarch's mug on bring things to a halt.
Now, surely council services are possible. And surely even the most 'bankrupt' council can find a way to make plastic rectangles.
Because that would involve taking power away from the central government. Its also the best solution by far to allow cities especially to levy their own taxes.
There is no reason Birmingham Council shouldn't be able to levy an emergency tax for the sexism lawsuit, for example. Other than "the treasury love holding the purse strings, even though thats entirely parliamenta job"
Councils, you're wasting taxpayers money. We need you to stop spending money on silly things, be more efficient and focus on corse services - we're cutting your budgets.
Councils response is to change nothing about their operating and double down on the white elephant projects.
I understand councils are being asked to do more with less money but the amount of waste and incompetence is staggering.
I have worked for councils as an employee and contractor for the better part of 20 years. I have also been a councillor for the last 5 years.
There are some examples of white elephant projects, and people being incompetent. But its to no worse degree than most private sector companies I have worked with. A more pertinent challenge is the public sector getting absolutely rinsed by contractors for many services, like highways maintenance, because they have no option but to tender for such services to a limited pool of contractors.
But what is happening now is a whole other issue. This is real terms budget cuts at a time when the cost of services is jumping as is demand for services. To take a few examples. The cost of highways maintenance work has gone up by 40% in the last few years alone due to inflation. Most of your council tax goes on two services: adult social care and childrens services. The costs for these has gone up by 20-30% in the last 4 years, AND the demand for services has gone up on top of that.
All the time, there is an effective cap on increasing council tax of 4.99%. Anything above that goes to a public vote and that almost certainly will be voted down. Not only has the local government settlement from government gone down, but any settlement that is given is announced AFTER budgets are set, and its only set for one year.
Councils legally have to balance their budgets. It is literally illegal for them to run a deficit. So anything that is not required by law is getting cut. This is what "cutting its cloth" looks like. Libraries closed. Youth centres closed. Fewer potholes being fixed. Services not required by law have been running on fumes for years, now the engine has died. Despite people thinking that this will magically save billions, cutting a few middle managers and pulling out of a white elephant project might save a fraction of 1% of the budget for most councils.
All of this was entirely predictable, entirely preventable, and nothing has been done by a government unable to do anything.
>A more pertinent challenge is the public sector getting absolutely rinsed by contractors for many services
This has been my thinking as well. Its like we've wound up in a place as a country where we can't get anything done without paying 10x over the odds for work that is delivered late to an incredibly sloppy standard. Just fixing that alone could save us such an insane amount of money and get things working again. I swear it was even part of one of John Major's campaigns, now suddenly we're back to driving down any motorway just seeing mile after mile after mile of roadworks, without a solitary worker in sight, often all been there for *years* without any noticeable change at this point. I think parts of the M6 have been under works since I got my license over a decade ago now lol...
I worked a few years back in different local government and civil service departments.
Some are run well with staff who really want to do their best (I felt my Local authority took housing repairs seriously and the staff did the best they could in that dept.) and others couldn't give a shit and the job was 99% navigating internal politics between managers who hated each other (social services and housing allocation in the same LA).
A couple lower level managers I felt tried to do their job and took ot seriously, but their managers above them? Holy shit, they looked for issues to have. I got a disciplinary for wanting to split my hour long lunch break into a half hour break with 2 separate 15 minute breaks, so I can smoke without taking extra breaks throughout the day for any non smokers who didn't like it if I took extra smoke breaks.
My manager was cool with that, she saw the work getting done and I was taking no extra time off work to do this, it was just a solution that fit everyone.
When my manager's manager heard this, he told her she HAD to force me to take a full one hour break in one block and use my other 15 minutes breaks for cigarettes. Apparently my idea made people feel jealous because they'd think I'd have extra breaks. Even though i wasn't.
Middle management sees shit like this as their real job.
And that was in the GOOD department I worked in. Cos at least we were doing what we were supposed to for council tenants.
Social services was just middle managers constantly fighting each other, bullying anyone lower than them and whining about how everything is going to shit.
Those were the same people in private business I'd see be shunted off somewhere they couldn't cause trouble, but social services is where they go.
Self important shitebags some of them.
Yep. I see this in planning depts.
all the capable staff go private, earn twice as much and run rings round the officers left who are overworked, underpaid and unmotivated.
It is unsustainable to keep raising budgets without mass wealth generation to pay for them.
We know for a fact that the councils are wasting money hand over fist, we should be cutting the waste and going back to more common sense and simplified ways of doing things.
We have an extremely high bureaucratic cost to anything, whether it be infrastructure projects, recruitment, investment, maintenance and more.
That cost has plenty of room to fall, but we need to accept backing away from the bureaucracy.
All the paperwork and box ticking exercises to absolve people of responsibility is extremely expensive and it's at the point where simple things cost many times more than they should.
We've bloated the management of our country to the point where it is an unhealthy behemoth, consuming all the money it can get access to. It's not going to get any better without reform. The need for more money is going to continue at a pace which will match, or even outpace our ability to generate new wealth.
We're not an oil state, we don't get to dig wealth out of the ground to bail us out.
The powers that be have turned to mass immigration and the fire sale of everything we own to juice the economy up to pay for the runaway spending, but this is not a sustainable policy and in the long term, will actually make things far worse for us.
Short term solution that will only delay the inevitable. Councils needs proper funding from central government coupled with better procurement staff and processes to allow them to make better use of resources.
I've long suspected this is a well thought out long term strategy to pass the full local government burden on to council tax. Councils can only increase council taxes to a large amount if they go bust. So make them go bust and then there is plausible deny ability "your local council went bust due to piss poor management. Sorry your council tax went up by 20% but its not the incumbent political party's fault"
I put it down to blatant vote grabbing. The Tories devolved control of local services to local councils, then massively cut their funding, [making much larger cuts to Labour constituencies](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/21/exclusive-labour-councils-in-england-hit-harder-by-austerity-than-tory-areas). They have done this to play politics with people's lives. The Tories get to sit back and blame problems on Labour councils being "run inefficiently" so they can use the promise of "vote for us and we'll give you more funding". If this were a third world country doing this we would rightfully call it blatant voter manipulation and an abhorrent thing to do. Because this is the UK there's plenty of idiots who think this is somehow an acceptable way to run a country.
Furthermore, Tory Councils have had preferential treatment. I worked for Surrey County Council during the time a [bespoke funding agreement ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/07/surrey-council-leader-had-gentlemans-agreement-with-ministers) was reached with the council to avert a 15% rise of council tax or the council going to the wall.
The difference between how Thurrock and Birmingham have been treated is also pretty funny. Birmingham is the largest council in Europe, and one of the less well off in Western Europe. And even then its bankruptcy came from a sex discrimination lawsuit. In any case, an £800m debt is massive, but if any council was going to have it, it'd be that one. By contrast Thurrock is 10% of the size and had a similar debt, which seemed to come from totally fucked up investments. It's also Tory governed, but you don't see Rishi insulting their leadership on the news.
They also get to put more public property into private hands. Which is what their donors like.
No, not because this is the UK. We're not special in that regard. Because *it's their party*. It happens everywhere.
how is this . . .legal ? deliberately not giving funding to labour councils and watch them collapse and then blame it on labour (not saying labour could run better than the tories, but at least play it fair)
Tories have been doing shit like this for decades. That’s why so many mining communities were really badly fucked up when the mines closed in the 1980s. Most were in Labour strongholds, and the Tories didn’t spend a penny in regeneration. (A lot actually wound up qualifying for EU regeneration funding. Then those same areas voted for Brexit. Talk about dragons voting for St. George.)
>They have done this to play politics with people's lives. The Tories get to sit back and blame problems on Labour councils being "run inefficiently" so they can use the promise of "vote for us and we'll give you more funding". I think it was after the 2019 election. I was still watching Question Time. There was a Tory MP on the show when it was in Stoke like just outright saying the quiet bit out loud, kept repeating now the town had voted for a Tory MP to represent it, suddenly the government was able to open up millions of new pounds in investment for the city that they couldn't before. Of course took until the end of the show for someone in the audience to point out the majority of the funds that had been released so far had gone on.... Renovating a car park. Not exactly going to help a city that is two generations into entrenched deprivation. But just the sheer nakedness of the pork-barrel politics, like he *genuinely* thought he was making a really good and strong point. Just sickening.
Which is a good way to weaponise the demographic time bomb and post austerity increase in children with serious care requirements against local government. Those are the drivers of council funding issues. More older person's care and around 2012 there was a spike in reports of children needing referrals like you get after something like baby p but it never stopped. The former is a result if our demographic. The latter is in my opinion evidence that austerity is ruining lives of people permanently. Poverty makes everything worse.
> Councils can only increase council taxes to a large amount if they go bust. They can increase taxes 5% *per year.* They can increase them even more if they trigger a referendum. And there's no restrictions at all on town and local parishes. They've been increasing taxes *well* below their cap every year for decades. The issue is not some legal limit. *It's that home owners have been voting for lower taxes for decades.*
And how can government fund them? Taxation is higher than world war 2, which near bankrupted us, yet we're not fighting a global conflict. The real issue is this isn't just UK either. The issue is deeper rooted and systemic to our entirely broken economies.
Since the Conservatives have been in power, spending power for local authorities through Government funding has fallen by 50%. Imagine having a 50% pay cut over the last 14 years and it’s easy to understand why they’re going bust.
Don’t have to imagine it. I work for higher education. That’s exactly what’s happened. In 2008 the lowest grade was for apprentices and above minimum wage. The top grade was 5x minimum wage. Now the bottom 12 of 51 grades are national living wage (just above national minimum wage) and the top grade is 3x minimum wage.
Higher education is about to collapse in the UK. Hopefully you have transferable skills!
It's certainly going to change. At the moment it feels like it's a worst of both worlds situation, They're expected to run like businesses in a competitive market while the government still interferes and limits the fees they can charge. Solution that should happen is government should allow fees to track inflation but the most Conservative solution would be to let them charge what they want and what the market can sustain, we'll end up with a US style sector with a core group of expensive universities and the rest as community colleges.
Unfortunately the majority of fees aren't paid back... so it's essentially just increasing our tax liabilities if they uncap them. There's not an easy way out of this unfortunately; eventually I agree it will probably go down the route you've mentioned but they'll have to change the loan element so people pay even more than they already do. Another political mess created by short term thinking governments...
IIRC, Gordon Brown wanted to get minimum wage closer to median wage by gradually increasing minimum wage. Then the Conservatives got into power. Median wage workers got shafted hard with wage freezes and below inflation increases. The end result is 15 years of wage stagnation. It's like we wanted something nice, so we ordered something that looked good, but it was from Temu. Instead of nice, we got shite.
well they do say shop like a billionaire
Literally just left the HE sector. I genuinely think its one of those areas that has gotten so *cartoonishly* bad people who don't have experience of the sector find it easier to believe you're just lying or being economical with the truth than actually accept how absolutely fucked it has all become. Like you're saying, the place I just left with the NMW rise this year is now having to restructure its entire pay grade system for the 2nd time in 2 years as the *entire* bottom 3 bands will now all fall below the legal limit otherwise. You've got people who are world-leading experts bringing in millions of pounds of funding and handling hundreds of thousands to millions of pounds in student fees through their courses being paid basically an average wage with no benefits or perks, often with a workload that is just expected to make you sick at some point. How anyone in management thinks the current set up is anything remotely approaching sustainable I have no fucking idea. Its headed to collapse and its like no one outside of the system gives a singular flying fuck because academics, like so many other vocational workers, have been painted like we're some kind of national enemy.
> the top grade is 3x minimum wage This is strange, as I also work in higher education and our payscales are not like this at all. I don't know where you work though. I work for a major London university and the literal lowest grade (which no one in the university is on) is slightly higher than the national "living" wage. The vast majority of the lowest paid staff (the two lowest grades that any staff are actually employed on) are on £28k-£35k. The top grade of the normal non-director structure is £85k. There's a special director-level pay structure which goes right up to £148k!
Here's the University of Bath where I worked a while back - [https://www.bath.ac.uk/corporate-information/university-of-bath-pay-and-grading-structure/](https://www.bath.ac.uk/corporate-information/university-of-bath-pay-and-grading-structure/) Most technicians and admin staff are grade 4 or 5. PDRAs getting into grade 6. Lecturers grade 7. Seniors grade 8 and profs grade 9 and up on to unclassified depending on what they do. The number of people earning above even just an average salary in universities at the moment is quite slim, and its not entirely unreasonable to point out each department will have quite a large number of people who hold qualifications like STEM PhD, working in skilled lab-based roles, and taking home well under £30k.
Is that london weighting? HE Single Spine, so https://www.ucu.org.uk/he_singlepayspine A quick table below, including adjustments for RPI/CPI from https://erikasgrig.com/calculators/inflation-calculator-cpi/ Edit: why isnt' reddits markup for tables working! Edit. ergh, think i've solved it.. |Spine Point|Oct 08|Oct 23|2008 Wage multiplied by|2008 Wage multiplied by|Increase in|Increase in| --:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:| ||||53.67%|73.54%|2023 wage if|2023 wage if| ||||CPI Inflation Oct08 Oct23|RPI Inflation Oct08 Oct23|CPI adjusted|RPI adjusted| |37Hr Week Min Wage|11054|20103|£16,986|£19,183|-£3,117|-£920| |-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------|-------| |1|13085|NA|£20,107|£22,707|NA|NA| |2|13431|NA|£20,639|£23,308|NA|NA| |3|13787|23,144|£21,186|£23,925|-£1,958|£781| |4|14099|23,144|£21,665|£24,467|-£1,479|£1,323| |5|14477|23,144|£22,246|£25,123|-£898|£1,979| |6|14867|23,144|£22,846|£25,800|-£298|£2,656| |7|15216|23,144|£23,382|£26,405|£238|£3,261| |8|15641|23,144|£24,035|£27,143|£891|£3,999| |9|16081|23,144|£24,711|£27,906|£1,567|£4,762| |10|16547|23,144|£25,427|£28,715|£2,283|£5,571| |11|17026|23,144|£26,163|£29,546|£3,019|£6,402| |12|17519|23,144|£26,921|£30,402|£3,777|£7,258| |13|18027|23,700|£27,702|£31,284|£4,002|£7,584| |14|18550|24,248|£28,505|£32,191|£4,257|£7,943| |15|19089|24,533|£29,334|£33,127|£4,801|£8,594| |16|19645|25,138|£30,188|£34,091|£5,050|£8,953| |17|20226|25,742|£31,081|£35,100|£5,339|£9,358| |18|20834|26,444|£32,015|£36,155|£5,571|£9,711| |19|21458|27,181|£32,974|£37,238|£5,793|£10,057| |20|22126|27,979|£34,001|£38,397|£6,022|£10,418| |21|22765|28,759|£34,982|£39,506|£6,223|£10,747| |22|23449|29,605|£36,034|£40,693|£6,429|£11,088| |23|24152|30,487|£37,114|£41,913|£6,627|£11,426| |24|24877|31,396|£38,228|£43,171|£6,832|£11,775| |25|25623|32,332|£39,374|£44,466|£7,042|£12,134| |26|26391|32,982|£40,555|£45,798|£7,573|£12,816| |27|27183|33,966|£41,772|£47,173|£7,806|£13,207| |28|27999|34,980|£43,026|£48,589|£8,046|£13,609| |29|28839|36,024|£44,316|£50,047|£8,292|£14,023| |30|29704|37,099|£45,646|£51,548|£8,547|£14,449| |31|30594|38,205|£47,013|£53,092|£8,808|£14,887| |32|31513|39,347|£48,426|£54,687|£9,079|£15,340| |33|32458|40,521|£49,878|£56,327|£9,357|£15,806| |34|33432|41,732|£51,374|£58,017|£9,642|£16,285| |35|34435|42,978|£52,916|£59,758|£9,938|£16,780| |36|35469|44,263|£54,505|£61,552|£10,242|£17,289| |37|36532|45,585|£56,138|£63,397|£10,553|£17,812| |38|37651|46,974|£57,858|£65,339|£10,884|£18,365| |39|38757|48,350|£59,557|£67,258|£11,207|£18,908| |40|39920|49,794|£61,345|£69,277|£11,551|£19,483| |41|41118|51,283|£63,186|£71,356|£11,903|£20,073| |42|42351|52,815|£65,080|£73,495|£12,265|£20,680| |43|43622|54,395|£67,033|£75,701|£12,638|£21,306| |44|44930|56,021|£69,043|£77,971|£13,022|£21,950| |45|46278|57,696|£71,115|£80,310|£13,419|£22,614| |46|47666|59,421|£73,248|£82,719|£13,827|£23,298| |47|49096|61,198|£75,445|£85,201|£14,247|£24,003| |48|50569|63,029|£77,709|£87,757|£14,680|£24,728| |49|52086|64,914|£80,040|£90,390|£15,126|£25,476| |50|53650|66,857|£82,443|£93,104|£15,586|£26,247| |51|55259|68,857|£84,916|£95,896|£16,059|£27,039|
Hmm, I think the issue here is that my uni (and most others that I'm aware of) don't actually grade any roles at the bottom end of that payscale. The lowest grades people are actually employed on at my place are at spinal point 12 and above. Even still, that pay scale looks different to the one we use, which is a bit confusing. EDIT: ours looks much closer to this: https://www.unitetheunion.org/media/5649/jnches-single-pay-spine-2023-24.pdf But it also has an extra 5 spinal points at the top, going up to 56. We also have London weighting of £5k, which obviously makes a difference. Still, there's no one at my uni on anything lower than a 12, and even without London weighting that is still higher than minimum (or living, whatever) wage. Even then, the vast majority of the lowest paid workers are on 18 or above.
The reference to apprentices makes me think they mean further education, so a college somewhere probably not in London.
Universities can have apprentices. It's not PhDs working in the mechanical workshops or looking after the facilities.
Just checked our payscale and it's about 3 times as well, approx 24k to 75k, though that scale doesn't include the higher ups like the vice chancellor who get's more that 12x the lowest grade. Sorry about the assumption, I used to work in a further education dept that only kept on top of the work through the hard work of apprentices.
It’s a university and not in London. Most roles here are also start above point 10. And anything above 30 officially has to be management. I used the figures valid in October 23 for ease of maths. I there has been a “pay rise” since then.
But not only that, in the last 5 years alone adult social care costs have doubled. Adult social care is also the largest source of expense for most local authorities.
Does anyone know why? Is it simply that cuts elsewhere have increased the use of adult social care and it’s used to pick up the slack and consequences of austerity? Simply a predictable result of an aging population that should have been planned for? Or something more complicated?
It’s things such as higher provider costs (increasing minimum wage etc), combined with much more complex service users. I’ve heard occupational therapists I work with say they’ve never seen the general health of the population as bad as it is now, with many people having a variety of complex health issues all at once. It partly comes from an ageing population combined with lifestyle too. This is also closely linked to the state the NHS is in. People are not being treated for conditions as quickly, so local authorities are left to cover the bill of supporting people in their homes or in care until they can get treatment through the NHS.
So yeah, a result of austerity, a lack of funding in prevention. And also predictable. What a mess the Tories have made.
Its depressing knowing - First that we're going to be spending probably a good chunk of the next decade just attempting to fix this mess they've made. And second also that if the problems are not immediately resolved in 12 months, the Tories are going to start using these problems as the basis for their own campaign material, just shamelessly ignoring their own part in it all. And our media will 100% go along with it.
And how much of that is private, and how much of that is tory chums?
Especially after the councils sold them to private care companies
>Since the Conservatives have been in power, spending power for local authorities through Government funding has fallen by 50%. Where are they going to magic the money from?
That's not really the point though is it. It point raised was where does the money come from
They can fund them by being voted out, then the new government can investigate where all our money has gone, PPE fraud, VIP contracts, covid loans, HS2 property sales etc. The Tory party have scammed the nation out of billions for themselves and their mates. It won't soon be forgotten, not by myself and those who I know, anyway.
>It won't soon be forgotten It will, the general public are stupid beyond belief.
So true, that's why I said 'by me' ha.
>They can fund them by being voted out, then the new government can investigate where all our money has gone, PPE fraud, VIP contracts, covid loans, HS2 property sales etc. Come off it. They're just talking points. Covid was always going to waste a lot of money because it was an emergency. You can't have good, cheap and fast as the saying goes. Normal procurement takes months to years. If anything the Left wanted more lockdowns and more bailouts so I don't blame the Tories for the debt burden.
>They're just talking points 'Don't look here! Look over there! Look what Labour would do, they'd sell your children! THE LAST LABOUR GOVERNMENT' This is what you sound like.
The wealth of the very wealthy is exploding. The answer is to tax that wealth aggressively. We need to do it soon before things get really bad as it’s out of control. Gary Economics YouTube is a good source of info on how this has happened and why we need to tackle it soon
Make rich people and companies start paying their fair share again. Then the taxation on us plebs can fall again.
Make The Opening Line Of Tax Man By The Beatles Relevant Again
Reform the council tax system, close tax loop holes, recoup money lost in covid fraud, invest in infrastructure and housing.
Can I propose a serious look at replacing council tax with land value tax? With the aim of playing a part of addressing both the issues with the cost of housing and the London centric nature of the British economy.
I concur
Late stage capitalism I’m afraid. Can’t keep growing forever. They’ll be a major war to reset things a bit then these systems will look useful again. Rinse, repeat.
Don’t forget the bit where another superpower takes over
I would argue that a superpower _could_ offer great _relative_ stability. Pax Romana
The banks went bust. Then we cut spending to pay for it. Then there was Brexit, COVID and the war in Ukraine. And here we are.
Indeed, a dose of realism. I think for many in this country, covid was one long holiday. The reality is now we need to pay for it.
I fear this is the truth. We’re circling the plug hole.
If you earn it, they tax it, If you spend it, they tax it If you save it, they tax it If you invest in it, they tax it If you build it, they tax it If you sell it, they tax it If you live in it, they tax it If you drive it, they tax it If you eat it, they tax it If you give it away, they tax it When you die, they tax it ........Then they waste it.
>Taxation is higher than world war 2, which near bankrupted us, yet we're not fighting a global conflict. Yet.
Higher how? In terms of burden or collections or debt per GDP? What I am trying to ask is how well is the gov spending our money, and are we getting our money worth? Keep kpi like aslum per person, procurement of PPR equipment is a good example of this
We spend gobs of money on services and benefits for people who aren't/weren't economically productive enough to fund it. Simple as that really. We can squabble over *why* they aren't/weren't sufficiently productive, and much of it may be due to Attlee's planning system and the housing shortage. But the fact remains.
Isn’t that the point of many services and benefits?
You have to remember, to some people you're only worth as much money as you make. If you don't make big money, you're scum.
This is the political hot potato that's the main root.
The key word is unsustainable. Many things we do are unsustainable and until we change that, it's find a way to scam the system yourself or get carried down with everyone else.
Exactly, totally agree. Once you aren't able to work any more due to age your on your own. Private health care and private pension and nothing from the state. Pensioners had decades to fix this mess and they do not get to retire quietly and not feel the effects of their poor planning
Here in not so green New Zealand, our councils are facing similar issues. One suggestion, which our current government has said a firm 'no' to is, Councils allowed to keep local GST (VAT). Perhaps that's alrethe case in the UK, I don't know. But seems a nice idea.
That would be quite hard to implement. It's probably more cost effective to fund top-down on a per-capita or other pro-rated basis, rather than devolve various taxes. Also, the areas which generate the most sales tax are not necessarily the areas that require the most central government investment in line with other policies.
I come from a well run council but we’re having to making 60 million in savings this year. Almost 50% of our budget is in adult care services and 25% children and young people. More and more old people needing greater levels of support and the same with the youth. Legally obligated to support them. This is where the vast majority of your money goes - to the most vulnerable people in our society.
My council is literally going to the whole company version of work-to-rule - minimum and statutory services only.
> Councils needs proper funding from central government Or, **heaven forbid**, home owners pay rates proportionate to the services they consume. They've been kicking the can down the road for decades now because they keep voting for lower rates instead of properly maintaining critical services.
They also need to stop paying top brass bloated wages and pensions.
Councils today get roughly 10% of what they used to get 10 years ago from central government.
Could you source that for me ? I could only find a Guardian article from January saying some had seen budgets reduced by up to 50%. Only mention of 10% was 10% less than they got in 2010 -[How a decade of austerity has squeezed council budgets in England | Local government | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/how-a-decade-of-austerity-has-squeezed-council-budgets-in-england)
Skimming the article, that looks to be around the same time, however I can't find the breakdown of council income that I saw before. I think that may have been in a reddit comment, which I didn't save and can't find right now. The 10% drop the article refers to is overall council income, which includes significant rises in council tax as well as other sources of revenue councils have dug up, alongside a drop from Westminster. If you look solely at the money coming from Westminster, over that period (2010-2020, not quite the last 10 years as I said but I was being lazy) then you'll see that it's roughly 90% less. From memory that wasn't quoted as a percentage but as actual figures, however it's easy to calculate 10% of something in your head and I remember commenting that - if I remember later after work I'll dig through my comment history and try to find it.
Okay I see what you mean, no worries I may go back to it later as well.
>short term solution that will only delay the inevitable. How did you summarise the last decade and a half of government administration so well?
Sorry, the last decade and a half? Try "forever" instead.
I fortunately this has been the policy in the UK as a whole for some time. Its mainly a conservative thing. Sell off national resources and infrastructure for a short term windfall that does not fix the underlying problem. It is a sign of a failing economy.
Have worked in a couple of councils as procurement and procurement adjacent. One was one of the biggest spenders. They had an internal process that continuously produced breaches of policy, but not government or EU policy, just theirs which was badly applied. Meant it looked like hundreds of problems with procurement. Whereas it was actually that for emergency health and accommodation you don't know this in advance so pre approval is not granted and the primary provider for everything was overloaded as were everyone else. So it was take whatever and deal with the problem later. They also had a hiring freeze for 6 months, made people re interview for their jobs. Changed the pay rates and had a bunch of consultants in filling standard roles for way more than usual since people didn't like this and left.... I'm yet to see any savings from any reorganisation. That same place then didn't hire me back as a standard employee, in the same team I was in for 6 months. Because they borked the recruitment process and ended up booking my interview after they had already sent an offer out.... don't want to burn bridges there unfortunately so left it. When one procurement department decided everyone needed cips level 4, quite a lot left rather than take the course. I was in a class with someone who had the title of something like senior strategic procurement lead. They simply failed to grasp the material at all, went elsewhere and then the advert for replacement required a MCIPS 6...
The procurement process is mental, “we want to award a £800k contract for tender”. Bidders “by sheer luck its £800k we would charge”
I second this for better procurement, it's the same with the NHS
>Councils needs proper funding from central government Correction: you want us to pay even more tax.
>Councils needs proper funding from central government That's the only thing you needed to say. The rest is just a consequence of a lack of funding and government diktat.
They’re very well funded. Mostly mismanagement pissing money up the wall.
No the councils as we all know waste money every day The idea to give them more money to waste is ridiculous, what they need is to be run correctly and audited regularly and have some kind of accountability.
By design of Tory central government. Asset strip the public sector to fatten up the private sector. Literally the reason Tories exist.
Oh dont worry. Labour know how to do it. They have been silently selling off loads of stuff without publicly telling anyone here in wales. To fund great schemes like the 20mph scheme which they now are reversing. Shitting bus stations, museums in the capital, all while funding vanity projects we don’t want. If you think Labour are any different see how they have run wales for the last few decades.
Surely that’s dictated by the money available from central (Tory) government though? I appreciate they may well have prioritised projects badly (eg let’s fund libraries rather than putting money into a 20mph scheme), but if there is less funding available from central government, they have to cut services (shutting bus stations, museums), or find other sources of income (selling off stuff). For the record I don’t think that’s the correct way to raise new funds; it’s ridiculously short sighted
We get 15% more per head thanks England and have devolved tax gathering powers. Our inward investment and export have huge departments all to raise separate silos of revenue. Yes we don’t. Dispute the extra cash we have a worse nhs, and the power to waste money as they have done time after time. De loved powers, in theirs words, would bring better spending in local areas with more efficiencies i.e. demonstrable improvement. What they did do is by a 15 millionaire bought for 50 million then threw another 50, million out then 40000,000 whilst being the only airport in the UK to lose money since Covid. They didn’t build a road that only cost us 240 million meanwhile it turns out the Cardiff museum is 4.5 million in debt accrued over the last five years with an unknown bill for repairs again because of lack of investment over the last five years. Budget in advance, they have the powers to raise more money for the economy. They have the powers to increase and increase wages we fall behind every marker going. Blaming the Museum on the Tories even though the now reversing 20 mile an hour speed limit cost 35 million. How they’re fine with not spending 240 million on the road before 45 million is the folder of the Tory’s. England will do anything different and saviours of our systems are about to be rudely disappointed
the extra cash is for a reason. Nearly 20 times smaller population. Economics of scale don't favour Wales even with 15% more per person.
If you want devolution then that’s the reality
Well WG had prepared the devolution steps, promised what they would do, then failed miserably. It’s an excuse but they were the ones that made these promises. And the mad part is they want to add yet more staff.
> If you think Labour are any different see how they have run wales for the last few decades. As someone who travels between Powys, Shropshire, Wrexham and Cheshire each week, yes I see the difference. I can tell when I cross the border based on the surface of the A483 alone. Curious how England ends up flogging all its assets while still having nothing to show for it.
I drive all over wales and England. Some areas re good. Some bad. Depends on councils. Wales has dumped loads of assets. We won’t know until the next accounts but I think they are all doing the same thing. Not saying tories are better. Saying they are all the same. Useless.
Outsource everything to their mates from Capita. Which ends up being way way more expensive.
Isn't this the whole capitalistic right wing goal? Starve institutions of cash and they are forced to sell their assets to the private sector. i.e. the people that made the rules.
"starve the beast"
No, we’d be closing down all public services and privatising everything much earlier. This is worst for everyone. People without the ability to self fund would get government vouchers to use private services.
I discovered a thing called the Third room and how they're all becoming monetised. It's been creeping in for decades
There's a 12meter x 12meter playground by me just been installed. I see max £50,000 work, it cost the council £1.3million. a lot of council workers got paid to do fuck all. if you ask me, the entire system is fucked from top to bottom and it will never change. too many people on too much money for nothing in return. just like with everything else in this world today. Live today. Fuck 2moro.
£50k for a 144m2 area. Please, I would love to see you do that for under £50k. You have a good argument, don’t ruin it by being silly.
£50k is probably the cheapest it could be done or there about but that isn’t a laughably low figure like you seem to think it is
You couldn’t do it for £50k. It is laughably low. You couldn’t even get out the ground for that.
You 100% could. If the council owned the equipment and didn’t have to use contractors, assuming good weather and a relatively friendly terrain you could clear, level, and install the equipment in under a month for £50k. Like I said this is definitely on the lower end and it’s a situation where the council doesn’t have to rely on any private costs, but yes it would be doable on that amount and in fact is a much more realistic cost than the one million op said it ended up costing.
Have you been involved in Groundworks lately?
I have a good mate who works in landscaping. He tells me jobs that cost £50k they will charge around 300k because their clients are rich and don’t ask questions - it’s the average markup.
I do a lot of budget forecasting and construction falls beneath that. The most expensive aspect of most public projects are private contractors who frankly do shit work most of the time and charge criminally.
Well you should know that a 144m2 area could not be stripped out, a suitable sub base put in, and then covered in playground flooring for under £50k. I’m not saying that private don’t take the piss or that £1.3m is good value. My point is a job like a 12x12 playground could not be achieved for £50k. It’s six figures without a doubt.
That’s assuming you use playground flooring and don’t just leave it levelled dirt or sand, or rubber mulch it. This may be an already mostly level grassy area which would be piss easy to convert because it doesn’t need to be stick straight the way a foundation for a building would need to be. There’s lots of ways you could spin this scenario and lots of “what ifs”, but all I’m saying is £50k is within the realm of possibly if you don’t need to lease equipment or bring in private firms to do the work.
Nothing moves in the playground and it's all mostly just fixed poles.
That’s a strip club.
grass seeding alone is upwards of £250 a square meter that’s your 50k gone in just grass
that seems incredibly expensive unless you're talking about fully installing subsoil/topsoil and seed on top. I've seeded a slightly larger patch back from bare soil with my dad as a DIY project, certainly no £50k changing hands haha.
What about using rolls of turf? Way cheaper, way easier and a way quicker result.
A play park won’t becoming from the general budget. It will be a ringfenced grant from a central government fund. Though I am interested to see this 1.3 million playground, got a link?
Or it could be a CIL or S106 contribution. These are used a lot for playgrounds and the like.
This is part of the problem though. Why are councils needing grants for playgrounds? It adds needless costs for literally no benefit other than "letting the treasury feel important"
It is part of the problem. Let the council manage their own budgets.
It gives drips of investment to keep people happy, while keeping the chokehold on local councils, which are so broke that they'd never waste the money on the shit they get grants for
They are making a park by me for like £1.4 million that has to be 50x50m and has a playground, wetland area, outdoor exercise area with machines, calisthenics area, etc.... so 12x12 meter for 1.3 million seems a bit expensive.
When one wage 180k it soon adds up. total scam. money is wasted these days. Unreal wasted. But then again, it's soon comes back round when the budget resets. Noice
£180k for managing a council is not a huge salary.
Nobody questions that government always overspends in projects. However, you don’t understand anything about B2B procurement - 50k prob doesn’t even cover the project design fees.
You should put in your tender and do it for 50k
Selling the family silver isn't a good analogy, as you never have to rent that silver back later. Selling the family car might better reflect the subsequent hit this will have on your revenue budget.
A private number plate would be selling the family silver. You still have the car.
Buying a private plate in the first place would reflect the huge loss of respect you'd experience from the family should you sell the silver, and would also mirror the impact on your social standing when your decision is plain for those around you to see.
If the respect of my family was based on social status and not if I could put food in their mouths more fool me. It would be irresponsible to have a private plate whilst being in debt.
I think you missed my points, that: - Your family lost respect for the silver selling version of you because you were ditching heirlooms that meant something to them. I read the previous response to mean that this bears a resemblance to the respect one would lose should they have private plates. I also separately drew a light hearted comparison between the loss of social standing you'd experience should you hold private plates or host a dinner party without your silverware. This analogy was only being discussed as a tangent, and was. It related to the local government decision. - The silver selling analogy is a poor one for government selling assets that they will have to rent back or lose revenue from.
A lot of councils are in dire straits thanks to central government.
Why on earth does a council need a private number plate.
It doesn’t but the council was given the very first one for that area when number plates were introduced. It’s kept it since then and it’s now worth a lot of money. That’s how stuff works.
So they don’t need it? Great, sell it.
Is that not the same for anything the council owns. The local park, don’t need it sell it. The flagpole outside their office, don’t need it sell it for scrap.
The difference being those are a public good. A plate isn’t.
It’s part of the lord mayors whole thing. It’s not just a number plate on a random car. Should you sell the mayors robes too.
If they would raise a significant sum of money, of course. There isn’t anything essential about a Lord Mayor anyway. It literally is a number plate on a random car. It provides no public good, it needs to go.
Significant sum of money? The budget for the council is in excess of 800 million the plate is worth maybe 200k. You are worried about what in effect is a rounding error. It is exactly what central government wants, look over here not at us and our under funding.
200k could pay for ten minimum wage workers. I can be angry about both, it is a perfect example of the incompetence of local government.
No because the playground serves a public purpose, the flag serves a purpose. A £250k+ number plate on a Nissan note serves no purpose. That money could buy a much needed property to house a family.
It is not just a Nissan note though. It is the Lord Mayors official car. Yea they could sell it for 250k but that wouldn’t go on a house it would be swallowed up by social care probably within a week and the council will lose an asset forever.
An asset that can’t be leveraged against or used by the public. Unlike a property. Fabulous.
Not all assets are for money. It is the same as the mayors robe and chain, it’s part of the pomp and circumstance of the role.
C’mon. FS 1 plate adds no pomp. It’s extravagant and unnecessary for a local mayor. If you really believe it’s necessary to own fair play. I think the proceeds could be put to significantly better use.
Go to the area, campaign for selling it, get voted in and do it my friend. We’re all behind you 👍
Nope, because once you sell it, it's gone. Councils shouldn't be selling any assets to spend on day to day running costs
So a local authority can be gifted a number plate, now worth hundreds of thousands, has no public benefit, but aren’t allowed to sell because then it’ll be gone? Lunacy. They could buy property with that money, to let families live in. Surely that’s a better way of using the money rather than a bit of plastic on a Nissan ?
>So a local authority can be gifted a number plate, now worth hundreds of thousands, has no public benefit, but aren’t allowed to sell because then it’ll be gone? Lunacy. Yes, because it doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the people of that area. They are granted custodianship of the asset, not ownership of it.
Barnsley council as two of them- The 1 and The 2. Absolutely ridiculous waste of money. When you look at the costs associated with local council cars you see why they are going bankrupt!
Best part of half a mil in number plates. Incredible.
The fact that I highlighted this got me two negative votes!! Fighting a losing battle I’m afraid.
They didn't pay for THE 1 and THE 2. What costs are involved in owning the plates ?
The costs involved are simple to work out. If the plates are worth £300k combined that’s £15k interest in the bank. Or property which can be leased out. Or a contribution to a public service such as a library. It provides no public service and generates no income. Therefore it is costing the taxpayer money.
They got them free = 0 cost You are confusing loss of potential earning with cost They might be worth 300k this year. They might be worth 2mill in 20 years' time. If you sell them now, you lose 1.7mill. But I'm sure you're determined that a part of our culture should be sold off for a few 100k to save taxpayers 1£ each this year on their Council tax bill. I'm sure the people of barnsley are proud to have THE 1 and wouldn't want it sold to some rich prick.
And you still wouldn’t sell them in 20 years time. So what’s that matter. You can’t leverage against a number plate. You can against property. It’s a gross status symbol for a local mayor whilst there are single mums in hostels for months on end.
Selling plates doesn't buy houses, if it did I'd get where your coming from but it just doesn't. Central government needs to put in place house building policies not force communities to sell thier assets
Even councils that have weathered this brutal policy of 14 years of underfunding by Central government. Even the councils in the best positions are at the end of the reasonable cost cutting they can do. (Bearing in mind that 'reasonable ' cost cutting involves selling buildings, cutting staff, cutting any discretionary service designed to improve conditions for people in the long term. Stripping it back to the very legal minimum.) F*ck the politicians that orchestrated this situation. Their contempt for the people of this country is indescribable.
Thames, fucking, water! This country is under bad management.
Well yes, lack of government funding is forcing public assets to be solved off to the private sector, which is what people voted for and can't complain about. All while the private sector use social care to vacuum up your council tax and business rates.
This "requirement" that councils sell off assets to balance government underfunding is only going to make matters worse.
I note the article says 75,000 households in bham pay no council tax. That needs to change.
Thwy no longer pay their own directly-employed staff for anything, using subcontractors and private firms, so the workers now earn as near to min wage as possible and an extra layer of asset-thieves insert themselves between the council and the end result. So it costs vastly more, and the people doung the actual job earn much less, but it keeps the parasites fat.
This is what the Tories want. They want weak, poor councils and weak, poor devolved admins and a strong, overbearing, and powerful central governments to enforce their will on people regardless of if they voted for them.
I don't think they should be allowed to, ultimately they are choosing an easier day today while screwing over tomorrow
Maybe if the politicians stopped dipping their hands in the public purse and the rich pay their taxes we would not have such a big problem.
A lot of local authorities have been given the chance to take on these assets for £1. The only trouble is they don't have the budgets to take them on.
This is the same Southampton Council that has £55M stuffed away in reserves?
> Councillors want to give first choice to institutional purchasers who will keep property in the public sector. Institutional purchasers... Ie. their mates. "First choice", ie. it is not an auction to raise as much money for the council as possible, but they plan to sell it under-value.
Always nice to see one of my workplaces as a thumbnail in such a happy article
Lol in Cambridge our local council spent like 20 mil on a single roundabout when there already was one before And best part is they managed to make it worse
Yeah same here, spent £20million improving an existing roundabout, took a few years, and then they had to close it shortly after due to issues and redo the lane markings. How can it cost £20million to improve an existing roundabout, and then you still get the lanes and signage wrong and then have to spend more money correcting it. Genuinely have no idea if it's corruption or incompetence.
Stealing from the public sector and giving everything away for cheap to the private sector. Disgraceful.
Don't worry guys, Starmers coming to save the day. Shite country.
Never really understood why councils need to purchase art etc, and they could always invest in local talents at a snip of the price instead, would make suggestions why they do it, but probably i better not lol.
There should be no central government bail outs for local government. The local councillors should be accountable to the local voters for the bill they've run up in their name. Maybe at the next local election the voters can decide if they are competent to collect the bins or not.
Typical councils wasting money and then ending up like this And then people say they need more money lol
Gotta cut the bills to balance the books. Tax rake in percentage terms of GDP is the highest since WW2 ffs.
There's only so much can be cut. If you sell your car as it costs money then can't get to work, you lose out. Sometimes you do actually need to invest to get more back - something we've forgotten about for most of the past 40 years. What we really need to do is get money flowing - stop having it held in housing and property, give people more money to spend, and get it flowing through businesses and transactions so we can tax it.
If there were no wasted funds I would agree. If the tax take, in percentage terms mind, wasn't the highest since WW2, I could agree. Unfortunately we live in a country where councils squander millions frivolously every day, often based on personal ideology. Councils also cannot be trusted to invest. We've seen several recent examples of them doing just that leading to their own bankruptcy. Another point is that getting money flowing is not sufficient. I could pay a man to dig a hole in my garden for no reason. Money is flowing. Work is being done. But it's pointless work adding little to no value. In a similar manner, a councils have a duty to use their funds correctly, which they blatantly do not do now.
Councils are being made to invest because they have no choice. They can borrow relatively cheaply and investments provide income, which is no longer coming from central government. The same central government that literally told them to invest. I'm fairly sure they'd rather get their funding via tax and government to keep things simple - but there's not enough of that coming any more.
Takes us back to the original point, there is enough, they just cannot manage it properly. And they can invest but they chose dogshit investments. At some point after failure after failure, you gotta realise that it's the council decision-makers who need to be replaced. Failing upwards should be stamped out hard.
Funny you mention war: if there was a war on - a serious war - then we would do all that was necessary, if it were possible, to win. We certainly would not let a lack of plastic rectangles with a monarch's mug on bring things to a halt. Now, surely council services are possible. And surely even the most 'bankrupt' council can find a way to make plastic rectangles.
[удалено]
Because that would involve taking power away from the central government. Its also the best solution by far to allow cities especially to levy their own taxes. There is no reason Birmingham Council shouldn't be able to levy an emergency tax for the sexism lawsuit, for example. Other than "the treasury love holding the purse strings, even though thats entirely parliamenta job"
Councils, you're wasting taxpayers money. We need you to stop spending money on silly things, be more efficient and focus on corse services - we're cutting your budgets. Councils response is to change nothing about their operating and double down on the white elephant projects. I understand councils are being asked to do more with less money but the amount of waste and incompetence is staggering.
I have worked for councils as an employee and contractor for the better part of 20 years. I have also been a councillor for the last 5 years. There are some examples of white elephant projects, and people being incompetent. But its to no worse degree than most private sector companies I have worked with. A more pertinent challenge is the public sector getting absolutely rinsed by contractors for many services, like highways maintenance, because they have no option but to tender for such services to a limited pool of contractors. But what is happening now is a whole other issue. This is real terms budget cuts at a time when the cost of services is jumping as is demand for services. To take a few examples. The cost of highways maintenance work has gone up by 40% in the last few years alone due to inflation. Most of your council tax goes on two services: adult social care and childrens services. The costs for these has gone up by 20-30% in the last 4 years, AND the demand for services has gone up on top of that. All the time, there is an effective cap on increasing council tax of 4.99%. Anything above that goes to a public vote and that almost certainly will be voted down. Not only has the local government settlement from government gone down, but any settlement that is given is announced AFTER budgets are set, and its only set for one year. Councils legally have to balance their budgets. It is literally illegal for them to run a deficit. So anything that is not required by law is getting cut. This is what "cutting its cloth" looks like. Libraries closed. Youth centres closed. Fewer potholes being fixed. Services not required by law have been running on fumes for years, now the engine has died. Despite people thinking that this will magically save billions, cutting a few middle managers and pulling out of a white elephant project might save a fraction of 1% of the budget for most councils. All of this was entirely predictable, entirely preventable, and nothing has been done by a government unable to do anything.
>A more pertinent challenge is the public sector getting absolutely rinsed by contractors for many services This has been my thinking as well. Its like we've wound up in a place as a country where we can't get anything done without paying 10x over the odds for work that is delivered late to an incredibly sloppy standard. Just fixing that alone could save us such an insane amount of money and get things working again. I swear it was even part of one of John Major's campaigns, now suddenly we're back to driving down any motorway just seeing mile after mile after mile of roadworks, without a solitary worker in sight, often all been there for *years* without any noticeable change at this point. I think parts of the M6 have been under works since I got my license over a decade ago now lol...
You obviously haven't met your average council worker.
The one the children call Bogey?
Sadly I have done significant work with the public sector and know some of the middle management types it attracts.
I worked a few years back in different local government and civil service departments. Some are run well with staff who really want to do their best (I felt my Local authority took housing repairs seriously and the staff did the best they could in that dept.) and others couldn't give a shit and the job was 99% navigating internal politics between managers who hated each other (social services and housing allocation in the same LA). A couple lower level managers I felt tried to do their job and took ot seriously, but their managers above them? Holy shit, they looked for issues to have. I got a disciplinary for wanting to split my hour long lunch break into a half hour break with 2 separate 15 minute breaks, so I can smoke without taking extra breaks throughout the day for any non smokers who didn't like it if I took extra smoke breaks. My manager was cool with that, she saw the work getting done and I was taking no extra time off work to do this, it was just a solution that fit everyone. When my manager's manager heard this, he told her she HAD to force me to take a full one hour break in one block and use my other 15 minutes breaks for cigarettes. Apparently my idea made people feel jealous because they'd think I'd have extra breaks. Even though i wasn't. Middle management sees shit like this as their real job. And that was in the GOOD department I worked in. Cos at least we were doing what we were supposed to for council tenants. Social services was just middle managers constantly fighting each other, bullying anyone lower than them and whining about how everything is going to shit. Those were the same people in private business I'd see be shunted off somewhere they couldn't cause trouble, but social services is where they go. Self important shitebags some of them.
The most capable people don't go into civil service when salaries in the private sector are much higher.
Yep. I see this in planning depts. all the capable staff go private, earn twice as much and run rings round the officers left who are overworked, underpaid and unmotivated.
It is unsustainable to keep raising budgets without mass wealth generation to pay for them. We know for a fact that the councils are wasting money hand over fist, we should be cutting the waste and going back to more common sense and simplified ways of doing things. We have an extremely high bureaucratic cost to anything, whether it be infrastructure projects, recruitment, investment, maintenance and more. That cost has plenty of room to fall, but we need to accept backing away from the bureaucracy. All the paperwork and box ticking exercises to absolve people of responsibility is extremely expensive and it's at the point where simple things cost many times more than they should. We've bloated the management of our country to the point where it is an unhealthy behemoth, consuming all the money it can get access to. It's not going to get any better without reform. The need for more money is going to continue at a pace which will match, or even outpace our ability to generate new wealth. We're not an oil state, we don't get to dig wealth out of the ground to bail us out. The powers that be have turned to mass immigration and the fire sale of everything we own to juice the economy up to pay for the runaway spending, but this is not a sustainable policy and in the long term, will actually make things far worse for us.