Tuesday 2 March 2010

Let The Culls Begin!

Tens of thousands of council jobs in England could be at risk over the next five years as local authorities struggle with the fall-out from the recession, according to a survey published today.

The survey by BBC English Regions suggested that almost one in ten of the workforce in some councils could be vulnerable as authorities are forced to cut back.
Tee hee!

There's not a lot of sympathy in the blogosphere, it's true...

And, as ever, the 'Daily Mash' skewers this story with efortless precision.
The Local Government Association (LGA) said that councils had been hit by a "perfect storm" and had little choice but to shed jobs.

"Sources of income have dropped sharply at a time when more and more people are turning to councils to help them through tough times," said LGA chairman Dame Margaret Eaton.
Really? Note that she doesn't say how, but I suspect it doesn't involve five-a-day outreach workers or diversity co-ordination and communication teams...
Tony Travers, the director of the Greater London group at the London School of Economics, warned that the scale of the cuts meant that the public would inevitably be affected.

"Nothing like this has happened for a generation. To minimise the impacts on the public would require massive efficiencies in all services, higher charges for many, and sharing back-office staff with other public bodies."
Umm, if those are all viable options, why aren't you doing them already, you leeches!

Needless to say, ministers are rolling their eyes and shifting restlessly like spooked cattle at the thought that this might affect their GE campaign:
However, the Department for Communities and Local Government - which is today issuing guidance to councils on how to avoid cuts to frontline services by improving efficiency - said local authorities should not try to blame ministers for their difficulties.

"Any decisions to cut frontline services or announce big job losses this year are very much local decisions. Councils should not try to blame Whitehall," a spokesman said.
Well, they aren't going to listen to that, are they? The only other option is to blame themselves for the top-heavy staffing situation, and that's not going to fly...
Libraries, the arts and leisure were identified as the services most vulnerable to cuts, while services for the homeless, children's social services and planning were more likely to be protected.
Well, of course. Got to make sure those cuts affect the public, and not the empire builders, after all..

4 comments:

Clarissa said...

I know that in Essex libraries they are planning cutting a whole tier of middle management (not before time). Don't know about any other possible trimming as yet.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

Massive efficiencies and sharing back-office staff?

Hmm.

There's an elephant in this room somewhere, I know there is.

Sounds like Regional Government coming soon.

Now just remind me, which supranational unelected bureacracy wants this to happen? Remember?

JohnRS said...

...I see the LGA describes its unnecesary and unfair taxes over which we have no control, have to pay, that are then wasted on community 5-a-day, cycling eco-fascist, whale watching co-ordinators as "income".

The thieving bastards wouldn't know income if flew through a wall and exploded next to them.

JuliaM said...

"I know that in Essex libraries they are planning cutting a whole tier of middle management..."

Excellent! The one thing that WILL do some good, and very little harm.

At least, if MY middle management is anything to go by!

"There's an elephant in this room somewhere, I know there is.

Sounds like Regional Government coming soon."


Hmmm, possibly. But there are doubtless efficiencies to be made.

I was told by a civil service friend about a government-wide project (called something like HR 2012?) to share HR and maybe training across all departments.

"The thieving bastards wouldn't know income if flew through a wall and exploded next to them."

Thry see 'income' as describing all monies that come in... ;)