Birmingham City Council approves disastrous budget cuts

LessoftheLip

LessoftheLip

Well-known member
10% Council Tax increase. 600 jobs lost. Fortnightly bin collections. Arts grants cut.

Yes it's a Labour run council but don't be in any doubt this is a consequence of 14 years of Tory austerity.

www.theguardian.com

Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history

Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Tories will no doubt be banging on about it tomorrow, thinking they can lure voters. At this point they have no chance. Everyone is wise to them now.
 
ThePrisoner said:
Tories will no doubt be banging on about it tomorrow, thinking they can lure voters. At this point they have no chance. Everyone is wise to them now
Click to expand...

It still works to a point. Was speaking to one of my London colleagues this morning. He's a civil servant, relatively senior management position and he came out with "not sure I can vote for anyone. Can't vote tory but the Labour council round here is responsible for the place going to the dogs".

I can't even be bothered getting into it with people now, but he should know better. The fact he doesn't is actually a bit scary.

The saving grace is it no longer works to lure voters, but still works for putting (some) people off Labour.

A massive problem with where we are as a country is it's taken people far far too long to wake up and smell the coffee, did they really have to get this bad before people started to notice? Apparently so.
 
festa5 said:
It still works to a point. Was speaking to one of my London colleagues this morning. He's a civil servant, relatively senior management position and he came out with "not sure I can vote for anyone. Can't vote tory but the Labour council round here is responsible for the place going to the dogs".

I can't even be bothered getting into it with people now, but he should know better. The fact he doesn't is actually a bit scary.

The saving grace is it no longer works to lure voters, but still works for putting (some) people off Labour.

A massive problem with where we are as a country is it's taken people far far too long to wake up and smell the coffee, did they really have to get this bad before people started to notice? Apparently so.
Click to expand...

Surely as a civil servant he shouldn’t be doing that?

Your job is to be impartial
 
Whilst I can understand they are a large council with lost of residents and businesses to support, they made some serious errors with equal pay claims and a poor IT system. That lies with the council. That must have cost a lot of money to rectify their error.
 
LessoftheLip said:
10% Council Tax increase. 600 jobs lost. Fortnightly bin collections. Arts grants cut.

Yes it's a Labour run council but don't be in any doubt this is a consequence of 14 years of Tory austerity.

www.theguardian.com

Birmingham council approves biggest budget cuts in local authority history

Up to 600 council jobs to be lost, arts grants scrapped, libraries closed and bin collections reduced to fortnightly
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
You must be extremely close to the ins and outs of the finances of Birmingham City Council to come to such a definitive, seemingly non-evidenced based, conclusion. A more cynical person than me may suggest that you are blinkered by your flag. Who knows, it may be the case that they all **** in the same pot and feed from the same trough. Be it blue or red…
 
There is an abstract missing piece which will never be fixed and this piece is a direct consequence of austerity. Birmingham isn't the only authority.... Northampton was another prime example of financial 'mismanagement' etc.

At the very core of these issues are staffing costs for social care and predominantly children's social care. I worked on Northampton before their section 114 notice and there was approximately 85% of frontline staff on agency contracts. Agency social care staff are paid more than double the salary of non agency equivalent. In fact some agency social workers are paid on the region of £80k. This adds up. I worked in one team with 8 workers on that type of salary. The two managers were agency and so was the service manager. The cost for one team will have been in excess of £1 million..... And they wonder why Northampton became bankrupt.

Birmingham had the same issues - high levels of agency social care staff on high pay rates means the council haemorrhages funds to cover the costs of children's social care. This issue is rarely mentioned.

The link to austerity - local authorities closed children's centres.... Sure start projects.... Early help teams.... Voluntary services ....

The impact was..... Social care teams had to absorb the work they could absorb..... The work they couldn't didn't get done.

The net impact - social workers case loads increased..... To the point it was unmanageable..... Social workers left and went agency..... They did this because austerity meant more work and no pay rise.

In the first five years I worked as a social worker - I worked alongside only two agency staff in total.... In every team I've work in for the last ten years.... Agency staff always outnumber permanent staff. Generally permanent staff are newly qualified.

So until then issue of children's and adult (for that matter) social care is sorted, and how this is financed..... The Local authority funding circle will never be squared!

I know there are clearly other issues - but the above isn't party political at a local level. Whichever political party runs the authority - it has the same issue. And local authorities don't cut front line children's social care services - they cut other services which end up being a false economy!
 
naively_optimistic said:
There is an abstract missing piece which will never be fixed and this piece is a direct consequence of austerity. Birmingham isn't the only authority.... Northampton was another prime example of financial 'mismanagement' etc.

At the very core of these issues are staffing costs for social care and predominantly children's social care. I worked on Northampton before their section 114 notice and there was approximately 85% of frontline staff on agency contracts. Agency social care staff are paid more than double the salary of non agency equivalent. In fact some agency social workers are paid on the region of £80k. This adds up. I worked in one team with 8 workers on that type of salary. The two managers were agency and so was the service manager. The cost for one team will have been in excess of £1 million..... And they wonder why Northampton became bankrupt.

Birmingham had the same issues - high levels of agency social care staff on high pay rates means the council haemorrhages funds to cover the costs of children's social care. This issue is rarely mentioned.

The link to austerity - local authorities closed children's centres.... Sure start projects.... Early help teams.... Voluntary services ....

The impact was..... Social care teams had to absorb the work they could absorb..... The work they couldn't didn't get done.

The net impact - social workers case loads increased..... To the point it was unmanageable..... Social workers left and went agency..... They did this because austerity meant more work and no pay rise.

In the first five years I worked as a social worker - I worked alongside only two agency staff in total.... In every team I've work in for the last ten years.... Agency staff always outnumber permanent staff. Generally permanent staff are newly qualified.

So until then issue of children's and adult (for that matter) social care is sorted, and how this is financed..... The Local authority funding circle will never be squared!

I know there are clearly other issues - but the above isn't party political at a local level. Whichever political party runs the authority - it has the same issue. And local authorities don't cut front line children's social care services - they cut other services which end up being a false economy!
Click to expand...

The privatisation and outsourcing of care in all forms are preposterous and at the core of the matter ( alongside deliberate and chronic government underfunding for 14 years )

Just for clarity , were the social workers actually paid 80k ?
Or was that the cost of them ?
 
outoftown said:
The privatisation and outsourcing of care in all forms are preposterous and at the core of the matter ( alongside deliberate and chronic government underfunding for 14 years )

Just for clarity , were the social workers actually paid 80k ?
Or was that the cost of them ?
Click to expand...
Yes and they still are - between £42 to £45 per hour x 37 hour week is around £80k (after ENI is deducted)

I'm paid £40 per hour at present and my last two contracts were £43 and £42 per hour. I work bloody hard for it, but that isn't the point. The whole system is broken. I'm now working for an authority who pay a realistic salary for the job and in thinking of going permanent and getting the job security and benefits.
 
outoftown said:
The privatisation and outsourcing of care in all forms are preposterous and at the core of the matter ( alongside deliberate and chronic government underfunding for 14 years )

Just for clarity , were the social workers actually paid 80k ?
Or was that the cost of them ?
Click to expand...
Agency takes a cut but they are paid more. It comes with risk eg no statutory sick pay or job security.

The North East authorities I believe have a consortium agreement designed to cap agency pay.

That goes out of the window however when a local authority are struggling. Eg Middlesbrough and South Tyneside recently.
 
outoftown said:
The privatisation and outsourcing of care in all forms are preposterous and at the core of the matter ( alongside deliberate and chronic government underfunding for 14 years )

Just for clarity , were the social workers actually paid 80k ?
Or was that the cost of them ?
Click to expand...

That would be the pay but agency workers lose a huge amount of that salary in deductions. Many don’t realise that agency workers have to pay both the employee and employer national insurance contributions for example.
 
Agency staff lose 13.8% for ENI and that's it really. Most agency workers take home pay is the equivalent between £70 and £80k

I turned down a contact at NE Lincs last year for £50 per hour.

As said above - local agreements are not followed when local authorities can't fill the vacancies.

Recruitment agencies are generally paid £2 per hour and the contract vendor is roundabout the same. So there's an extras £4 per hour on those hourly rates....
 
Because most agency workers where I have worked will accrue toil and be paid for 52 weeks.
It depends on hourly rate which is usually £42 to £45, sometimes more....

£42 - 13.8% = 36.20 x 37x52 = £69,648
£45 - 13.8% = 38.79x 37x52 = £74, 631

and there are workers on higher rates than that - NDAs also quite common now.

I have an NDA in my current role and I did last year in Barnsley as well.
 
gizasqueezemister said:
You must be extremely close to the ins and outs of the finances of Birmingham City Council to come to such a definitive, seemingly non-evidenced based, conclusion. A more cynical person than me may suggest that you are blinkered by your flag. Who knows, it may be the case that they all **** in the same pot and feed from the same trough. Be it blue or red…
Click to expand...
What you fail to comprehend is just how many councils ll at once have fallen or are falling into financial oblivion.

That cannot be coincidence, that has to be based on a common root cause. Yes of course there will be some aggrevating factors of overspending on projects and services but for all these councils to be struggling at the same time after 14 years of having central funding sagged it’s pretty obvious what the root cause is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top