Christmas lights saved but Newport council tax set to rise by 4.5 per cent

SAVED: Newport Christmas lights

Newport Food Festival

The Big Splash

Photos Becky Matthews Words News 1.6.13 The Big Splash 2013 Street Entertainers Garaghty and Thom entertain the crowds (3920370)

First published in News
Last updated

COUNCIL tax in Newport could be set to go up by an inflation busting 4.5 per cent with rates likely to rise by £38 a year for Band D households.

A planned cut to city centre Christmas events has been dropped – with promises that funding for the events will be ring fenced for three years – but most of the rest of a package of £20 million in cuts over four years is staying on the table.

Funding for the city’s Christmas lights switch-on has been secured. And sponsorship is being sought for large-scale events Newport Food Festival and the Big Splash.

Senior councillors in the council’s cabinet made recommendations for the authority’s budget for 2014/15 at a meeting yesterday – with full council set to decide on the matters when it meets on February 25.

Estimates suggest that a 4.5 per cent rise would put council tax rates for Band D properties at £893.37 before precepts are applied – an increase of £38.48 a year, or 74p a week.

The Consumer Prices Index rate of inflation stood at 2.7 per cent last September.

With the budget having been based on a five per cent increase for council tax, Labour council leader, Councillor Bob Bright explained he was able to take the decision thanks to a surplus of more than £200,000.

He told the cabinet meeting at Newport Civic Centre that there was “enormous pressure on the budget” and that there had to be a balance between council tax and their responsibilities.

After a 4.5 per cent rise was proposed by cabinet member for skills and work Debbie Davies, Cllr Bright said the message needed to get out that Newport has one of the lowest council tax rates in Wales.

Cllr Bright told the Argus after the meeting that he was using the surplus to offset the council tax rate.

“We don’t want to make any more people redundant than absolutely necessary,” said the leader. “That’s why we need to go to 4.5 per cent.”

Cllr Davies said: “It was a difficult decision but (one) I felt fair, particularly given that we will continue to have one of the lowest council tax rates in Wales and indeed the UK.”

According to budget documents that even if Newport had raised council tax by five per cent it would still have the second lowest rate in Wales.

Tory opposition leader Cllr Matthew Evans said he recognised that there should be an increase in council tax.

However he said increases should be based on the rate of inflation.

“Clearly people are still struggling. We think it’s unfair and unreasonable to put additional burdens on council tax payers,” he argued.

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:57pm Mon 10 Feb 14

VoiceOfDaPort says...

So yet again the residents and tax payers of Newport are to be hammered by this shoddy council and for what, just to collect my bins and very little else of any benefit to me
So yet again the residents and tax payers of Newport are to be hammered by this shoddy council and for what, just to collect my bins and very little else of any benefit to me VoiceOfDaPort
  • Score: 54

6:04pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

I wonder how many Labour councillors will be attaching their 'cost of living crisis' to this news? Will be conveniently forgotten this time for sure. Incompetent muppets.
I wonder how many Labour councillors will be attaching their 'cost of living crisis' to this news? Will be conveniently forgotten this time for sure. Incompetent muppets. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 32

6:49pm Mon 10 Feb 14

cantbelieveitsnotbetter says...

less than a pound a week for those who can 'afford' it, and those who cant dont pay anyhow- the priciple of local goverment wastage does hiss me off (and is where political arguments over ride meaningful debate and action) wish that money could rightfully come from efficiencies, but it aint gonna happen anytime soon. vote for more independent s and rid ourselves of the political point scoring, out of date manifestos, party whips, expenses etc. hold em to account, easier to do with independents.
less than a pound a week for those who can 'afford' it, and those who cant dont pay anyhow- the priciple of local goverment wastage does hiss me off (and is where political arguments over ride meaningful debate and action) wish that money could rightfully come from efficiencies, but it aint gonna happen anytime soon. vote for more independent s and rid ourselves of the political point scoring, out of date manifestos, party whips, expenses etc. hold em to account, easier to do with independents. cantbelieveitsnotbetter
  • Score: 13

7:57pm Mon 10 Feb 14

askiro says...

We need to make a cut to tge amount of councillors for this so called city. 50 councillors representing less than 150000 people. If that happened in London there would be more council officials than waiters in restaurants. Lets stop this gravy train for bob bright and his chronies
We need to make a cut to tge amount of councillors for this so called city. 50 councillors representing less than 150000 people. If that happened in London there would be more council officials than waiters in restaurants. Lets stop this gravy train for bob bright and his chronies askiro
  • Score: 54

8:05pm Mon 10 Feb 14

Magor says...

My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG. Magor
  • Score: 17

9:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

Magor wrote:
My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot.

They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!!
[quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.[/p][/quote]The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!! scraptheWAG
  • Score: 5

10:51pm Mon 10 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
I wonder how many Labour councillors will be attaching their 'cost of living crisis' to this news? Will be conveniently forgotten this time for sure. Incompetent muppets.
yes i wonder if old red ed and balls will be barking on about this cost of living crisis.

It does make me laugh the people that support the welsh language tripe etc are the ones moaning about a increase who do they think pays for it all
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many Labour councillors will be attaching their 'cost of living crisis' to this news? Will be conveniently forgotten this time for sure. Incompetent muppets.[/p][/quote]yes i wonder if old red ed and balls will be barking on about this cost of living crisis. It does make me laugh the people that support the welsh language tripe etc are the ones moaning about a increase who do they think pays for it all scraptheWAG
  • Score: 14

8:44am Tue 11 Feb 14

dinnerlady52 says...

Why is my council tax going up when the services we pay for are being reduced, as I already sweep my street because we don't have a road cleaner any more and take my rubbish to the tip can I ask for a refund please and only pay for the actual service I receive ........... yes I can ask but will I get NO............ personally I don't need the xmas lights to be saved I don't use the town centre to do my shopping so I wont be seeing them.......... refund please...NO . Next we will be reading that councillors expenses have risen that's more like the truth about the increase its not about saving xmas lights there just the excuse used .
Why is my council tax going up when the services we pay for are being reduced, as I already sweep my street because we don't have a road cleaner any more and take my rubbish to the tip can I ask for a refund please and only pay for the actual service I receive ........... yes I can ask but will I get NO............ personally I don't need the xmas lights to be saved I don't use the town centre to do my shopping so I wont be seeing them.......... refund please...NO . Next we will be reading that councillors expenses have risen that's more like the truth about the increase its not about saving xmas lights there just the excuse used . dinnerlady52
  • Score: 36

9:02am Tue 11 Feb 14

Gun her says...

In a society that is getting progressively atheistic, why do we need "Christmas Lights"
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to celebrate something which a majority don't believe in
And they say that churches are filled with hypocrites. Lol
In a society that is getting progressively atheistic, why do we need "Christmas Lights" Isn't it a bit hypocritical to celebrate something which a majority don't believe in And they say that churches are filled with hypocrites. Lol Gun her
  • Score: -15

9:12am Tue 11 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour.

In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr.

Let's do the math

112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week.
4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week.
£31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year.

With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.
I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour. In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr. Let's do the math 112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week. 4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week. £31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year. With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 14

9:12am Tue 11 Feb 14

Poolerkev says...

That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!!

Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!! Poolerkev
  • Score: -21

9:15am Tue 11 Feb 14

Bobevans says...

It is going up because they no the3 lemmings will vote them back in. In England Council tax has been frozen for 3 years
It is going up because they no the3 lemmings will vote them back in. In England Council tax has been frozen for 3 years Bobevans
  • Score: 15

9:18am Tue 11 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Poolerkev wrote:
That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!!

Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
[quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 19

9:41am Tue 11 Feb 14

kittylou87 says...

Who cares about the Christmas lights? They cause more problems due to there always being a fight/theft if not both! And half of them don't work anyway! As for the big splash - it's crap. Food festival is ok if you like people who dont get to wash their hands that often, handling your food.
If the council were active in their 'duties' it wouldn't be so bad, I begrudgingly pay council tax, they do sweet eff all apart from collect a bin every 2 weeks. Start making EVERYONE pay it - now there's a good idea!!
Who cares about the Christmas lights? They cause more problems due to there always being a fight/theft if not both! And half of them don't work anyway! As for the big splash - it's crap. Food festival is ok if you like people who dont get to wash their hands that often, handling your food. If the council were active in their 'duties' it wouldn't be so bad, I begrudgingly pay council tax, they do sweet eff all apart from collect a bin every 2 weeks. Start making EVERYONE pay it - now there's a good idea!! kittylou87
  • Score: 12

9:50am Tue 11 Feb 14

bbunny_isl says...

I'm ok with a rise, just a long as NCC have exhausted every opportunity to save money - and judging by the 'consultation' document they haven't.

There's significant savings to be made just by sharing back office services, ditching expensive legacy IT projects and changing work culture so that they are a more agile organisation - two things they won't even consider looking at... Even though neighbouring authorities have and save millions from going down this route.

As usual, lack of leadership vision, tired ideas and refusing to shift into an organisation fit for the digital age - quickly becoming the trademark of NCC.
I'm ok with a rise, just a long as NCC have exhausted every opportunity to save money - and judging by the 'consultation' document they haven't. There's significant savings to be made just by sharing back office services, ditching expensive legacy IT projects and changing work culture so that they are a more agile organisation - two things they won't even consider looking at... Even though neighbouring authorities have and save millions from going down this route. As usual, lack of leadership vision, tired ideas and refusing to shift into an organisation fit for the digital age - quickly becoming the trademark of NCC. bbunny_isl
  • Score: 8

11:10am Tue 11 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

I also think that the, frankly obscene, payments to high ranking public sector officials needs to be examined.

I think at the very least, a ten percent cut in their salaries wouldn't be unreasonable in the current circumstances. Given the amount they're paid, I'm sure they'd barely notice and it would go a long way towards making up the shortfall.

Personally though I'd be in favour of more drastic alterations to their pay and conditions. I would half their salaries as a base rate, then allow bonus payments up to the full amount, depending on their meeting various KPI's that get decided on by the full council.

I mean, if nothing is off the table, and we're all in this together and all... right?
I also think that the, frankly obscene, payments to high ranking public sector officials needs to be examined. I think at the very least, a ten percent cut in their salaries wouldn't be unreasonable in the current circumstances. Given the amount they're paid, I'm sure they'd barely notice and it would go a long way towards making up the shortfall. Personally though I'd be in favour of more drastic alterations to their pay and conditions. I would half their salaries as a base rate, then allow bonus payments up to the full amount, depending on their meeting various KPI's that get decided on by the full council. I mean, if nothing is off the table, and we're all in this together and all... right? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 10

11:30am Tue 11 Feb 14

BobEvams2014 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
What an excellent idea. Simply find a method of banning those on low incomes from voting and Bingo!!!!! What critiea should be used to prevent the low paid etc from voting ? How about banning pulic sector workersfrom voting as well ?

lets back to the old days when only the rich and landowners could vote and the workers and serfs knew their place !!!
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]What an excellent idea. Simply find a method of banning those on low incomes from voting and Bingo!!!!! What critiea should be used to prevent the low paid etc from voting ? How about banning pulic sector workersfrom voting as well ? lets back to the old days when only the rich and landowners could vote and the workers and serfs knew their place !!! BobEvams2014
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

alybal says...

With many of us on pay-freezes for several years I don't know how many times the council (and the utilities) think they can dip into this particular well. It's all very well saying it's only 74 pence a week and they can't help passing on the increases to us but there's only a finite amount of money in my particular bank account and it ain't much!!
With many of us on pay-freezes for several years I don't know how many times the council (and the utilities) think they can dip into this particular well. It's all very well saying it's only 74 pence a week and they can't help passing on the increases to us but there's only a finite amount of money in my particular bank account and it ain't much!! alybal
  • Score: 16

1:13pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Bobevans says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote:
That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!!

Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300 Bobevans
  • Score: 2

1:24pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Lewis SWA says...

Trying to justify a large hike on council tax with a 'we've got it good' attitude is pretty pathetic. Especially when you consider Newport as a percentage, is one of the UK's worst for loss of employment, empty shops, and job seeker claimants.
Trying to justify a large hike on council tax with a 'we've got it good' attitude is pretty pathetic. Especially when you consider Newport as a percentage, is one of the UK's worst for loss of employment, empty shops, and job seeker claimants. Lewis SWA
  • Score: 9

1:28pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Bobevans wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote:
That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!!

Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300
Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300[/p][/quote]Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -3

1:31pm Tue 11 Feb 14

BobEvams2014 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300
Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.
Yes that 's true, how about making those at the top exempt from Council Tax, and the same time making thoase at the bottom make up the shotfall. This and preventing plebs and serfs voting as suggested earlier would solve the problem.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300[/p][/quote]Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.[/p][/quote]Yes that 's true, how about making those at the top exempt from Council Tax, and the same time making thoase at the bottom make up the shotfall. This and preventing plebs and serfs voting as suggested earlier would solve the problem. BobEvams2014
  • Score: -5

1:58pm Tue 11 Feb 14

On the inside says...

BobEvams2014 wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300
Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.
Yes that 's true, how about making those at the top exempt from Council Tax, and the same time making thoase at the bottom make up the shotfall. This and preventing plebs and serfs voting as suggested earlier would solve the problem.
So you advocate banning the poor from voting and letting the rich pay nothing. You would be called fascists but I suspect you have no problem with that.
[quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300[/p][/quote]Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.[/p][/quote]Yes that 's true, how about making those at the top exempt from Council Tax, and the same time making thoase at the bottom make up the shotfall. This and preventing plebs and serfs voting as suggested earlier would solve the problem.[/p][/quote]So you advocate banning the poor from voting and letting the rich pay nothing. You would be called fascists but I suspect you have no problem with that. On the inside
  • Score: -1

2:05pm Tue 11 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

On the inside wrote:
BobEvams2014 wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Bobevans wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300
Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.
Yes that 's true, how about making those at the top exempt from Council Tax, and the same time making thoase at the bottom make up the shotfall. This and preventing plebs and serfs voting as suggested earlier would solve the problem.
So you advocate banning the poor from voting and letting the rich pay nothing. You would be called fascists but I suspect you have no problem with that.
Lol - once again people are struggling with the notion of satire.
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]Replace Council tax with a local income tax. Someone earning £1M with a 3% local income tax would pay £30,000 instead of about £2500. A council fat cat on a £100K would pay £3000 and someone on £10K a year would pay £300[/p][/quote]Trouble is they'd choose to live somewhere cheaper and better.[/p][/quote]Yes that 's true, how about making those at the top exempt from Council Tax, and the same time making thoase at the bottom make up the shotfall. This and preventing plebs and serfs voting as suggested earlier would solve the problem.[/p][/quote]So you advocate banning the poor from voting and letting the rich pay nothing. You would be called fascists but I suspect you have no problem with that.[/p][/quote]Lol - once again people are struggling with the notion of satire. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 10

2:22pm Tue 11 Feb 14

BobEvams2014 says...

And of course we must remember it's only Labour who put up Council tax, and that when Mr Evans and that nice wig wearing Lib Dem guy were in charge it never went up at all did it ? Although I might be wrong .......
And of course we must remember it's only Labour who put up Council tax, and that when Mr Evans and that nice wig wearing Lib Dem guy were in charge it never went up at all did it ? Although I might be wrong ....... BobEvams2014
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Tue 11 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour.

In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr.

Let's do the math

112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week.
4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week.
£31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year.

With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience.

The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour. In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr. Let's do the math 112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week. 4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week. £31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year. With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience. The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 3

5:25pm Tue 11 Feb 14

BobEvams2014 says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
Magor wrote:
My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot.

They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!!
What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all.

Would make people think before they vote .
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.[/p][/quote]The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!![/p][/quote]What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote . BobEvams2014
  • Score: -1

5:27pm Tue 11 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

grumpyandopinionated wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour.

In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr.

Let's do the math

112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week.
4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week.
£31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year.

With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience.

The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.
These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job?

Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?
[quote][p][bold]grumpyandopinionated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour. In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr. Let's do the math 112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week. 4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week. £31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year. With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience. The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.[/p][/quote]These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job? Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 4

6:00pm Tue 11 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
grumpyandopinionated wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour.

In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr.

Let's do the math

112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week.
4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week.
£31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year.

With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience.

The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.
These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job?

Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?
Thats my whole point, you should be expected to work the hours equal to the minimum wage, not be given a job that somoene would have otherwise had to have been paid to do, and not were the company will profit from. If it does go ahead and they expect me to work 40 hours a week for £70 quid there would be no way I would do it. I'd rather starve first out of principle. The list that you have should be that maybe you work alongside someone else to assist and learn, and the assistance you give makes up for the lost time that 1 person not teaching could do on thier own. But seems like you'll end up doing a job in which the company will profit from. This contry to be fair is done for. You've young adults that are woefully under experienced coming out of college and uni who don't have any practical knowledge at all or have just been to uni for the experience rather than to learn. You got ideas like this, that someone with half a brain cell can see that it just wont work and will cause more problems, will be run by overpaid underperforming public sector staff. We've got criminals getting a slap on the wrist and getting off way too lightly, costs are spiraling out of control, we go cap in hand to china to fund our power stations, banks that can do what they want when they ant too, companies and wealthy individuals that pay only a fraction of the tax that they should, the countries falling to pieces, ministers publicly critisising those that they are supposed to be in control of and just smiling for the camera as if theres nothing wrong and Europe controlling us like a puppet. Well there is something wrong, there's something very very wrong. This at one time was a great country and has become a joke. Pretty fed up and frustrated with it all now as being just 1 person I can't make any difference.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grumpyandopinionated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour. In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr. Let's do the math 112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week. 4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week. £31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year. With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience. The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.[/p][/quote]These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job? Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?[/p][/quote]Thats my whole point, you should be expected to work the hours equal to the minimum wage, not be given a job that somoene would have otherwise had to have been paid to do, and not were the company will profit from. If it does go ahead and they expect me to work 40 hours a week for £70 quid there would be no way I would do it. I'd rather starve first out of principle. The list that you have should be that maybe you work alongside someone else to assist and learn, and the assistance you give makes up for the lost time that 1 person not teaching could do on thier own. But seems like you'll end up doing a job in which the company will profit from. This contry to be fair is done for. You've young adults that are woefully under experienced coming out of college and uni who don't have any practical knowledge at all or have just been to uni for the experience rather than to learn. You got ideas like this, that someone with half a brain cell can see that it just wont work and will cause more problems, will be run by overpaid underperforming public sector staff. We've got criminals getting a slap on the wrist and getting off way too lightly, costs are spiraling out of control, we go cap in hand to china to fund our power stations, banks that can do what they want when they ant too, companies and wealthy individuals that pay only a fraction of the tax that they should, the countries falling to pieces, ministers publicly critisising those that they are supposed to be in control of and just smiling for the camera as if theres nothing wrong and Europe controlling us like a puppet. Well there is something wrong, there's something very very wrong. This at one time was a great country and has become a joke. Pretty fed up and frustrated with it all now as being just 1 person I can't make any difference. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 2

6:14pm Tue 11 Feb 14

andy83 says...

turn the light s of they just light up the joke that is Newport council
turn the light s of they just light up the joke that is Newport council andy83
  • Score: -4

6:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Dolieboy says...

VoiceOfDaPort wrote:
So yet again the residents and tax payers of Newport are to be hammered by this shoddy council and for what, just to collect my bins and very little else of any benefit to me
Reduced sized bins.
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfDaPort[/bold] wrote: So yet again the residents and tax payers of Newport are to be hammered by this shoddy council and for what, just to collect my bins and very little else of any benefit to me[/p][/quote]Reduced sized bins. Dolieboy
  • Score: 4

6:34pm Tue 11 Feb 14

bugsy93 says...

It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards.
It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.
It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards. It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles. bugsy93
  • Score: 3

6:43pm Tue 11 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

bugsy93 wrote:
It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards.
It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.
Yes but it costs more to get rid of them though when they get sacked for underperforming they claim unfair dismisal. I worked for a fabricator in North Wales and we did alot of work for the Vehicle Maintenance division of the council and chatting with the manager he said he had staff he'd love to get rid of as they were a waste of space and just drift through the day being jobs worth and mentioning "it's not in my job discription" when asked to do something that somene else would do without bating an eyelid, and so would other managers but their hands are tied and the council is to affraid of compensation claims. It's such a common thing now that those that do an excellent job are just tared with the same brush.
[quote][p][bold]bugsy93[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards. It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.[/p][/quote]Yes but it costs more to get rid of them though when they get sacked for underperforming they claim unfair dismisal. I worked for a fabricator in North Wales and we did alot of work for the Vehicle Maintenance division of the council and chatting with the manager he said he had staff he'd love to get rid of as they were a waste of space and just drift through the day being jobs worth and mentioning "it's not in my job discription" when asked to do something that somene else would do without bating an eyelid, and so would other managers but their hands are tied and the council is to affraid of compensation claims. It's such a common thing now that those that do an excellent job are just tared with the same brush. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 2

7:16pm Tue 11 Feb 14

bugsy93 says...

This legacy of these empires created within public funded bodies is costing the taxpayer a fortune. It appears that they have had money to waste when times are good and can't reverse it in times of financial restraints.The only answer, is to burden the taxpayer with more tax increases.
This legacy of these empires created within public funded bodies is costing the taxpayer a fortune. It appears that they have had money to waste when times are good and can't reverse it in times of financial restraints.The only answer, is to burden the taxpayer with more tax increases. bugsy93
  • Score: 7

7:25pm Tue 11 Feb 14

thomas35 says...

Umm! Just worked out my council tax will go up £1.3 per week...out of interest I received a letter recently from the DWP advising that when I reach the age of 80 I will be entitled to an extra 25p a week.pension...must try to remember that on my birthday????
Umm! Just worked out my council tax will go up £1.3 per week...out of interest I received a letter recently from the DWP advising that when I reach the age of 80 I will be entitled to an extra 25p a week.pension...must try to remember that on my birthday???? thomas35
  • Score: 6

7:36pm Tue 11 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

BobEvams2014 wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Magor wrote:
My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot.

They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!!
What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all.

Would make people think before they vote .
dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour
[quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.[/p][/quote]The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!![/p][/quote]What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .[/p][/quote]dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour scraptheWAG
  • Score: -5

7:39pm Tue 11 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
grumpyandopinionated wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour.

In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr.

Let's do the math

112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week.
4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week.
£31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year.

With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience.

The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.
These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job?

Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?
its outrageous expecting the unemployed to get out of bed in the morning how are they meant to sleep of there hangovers.

VOTE LABOUR
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grumpyandopinionated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour. In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr. Let's do the math 112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week. 4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week. £31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year. With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience. The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.[/p][/quote]These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job? Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?[/p][/quote]its outrageous expecting the unemployed to get out of bed in the morning how are they meant to sleep of there hangovers. VOTE LABOUR scraptheWAG
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Tue 11 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

BobEvams2014 wrote:
And of course we must remember it's only Labour who put up Council tax, and that when Mr Evans and that nice wig wearing Lib Dem guy were in charge it never went up at all did it ? Although I might be wrong .......
it doubled under the labour government it has been froze in england for the last three years . So put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it
[quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: And of course we must remember it's only Labour who put up Council tax, and that when Mr Evans and that nice wig wearing Lib Dem guy were in charge it never went up at all did it ? Although I might be wrong .......[/p][/quote]it doubled under the labour government it has been froze in england for the last three years . So put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it scraptheWAG
  • Score: 3

8:32pm Tue 11 Feb 14

Dave on his Soapbox says...

...the trouble with all large organisations are the way they allocate and manage their budgets....and why there is so much waste.....
at the beginning of the financial year...each department is given it's money which includes normal cost...staff pay....building etc.....money for projects/new expenditure and a contingency fund for unforeseen demands.......as the year progresses the money is spent.....
however as the end of the financial year nears......because departments don't want to underspend because they'll be penalised the next year....they go on a spending frenzy running up to April....and if the money can't be spent on the thing's it was allocated for.....the money is wasted buy things that are not really needed......
If departments weren't penalised for handing back underspent budgets.....organisa
tions like councils would have even more surplus money.....but bosses won't do this as it's not their money and they want to protect their empires......
...the trouble with all large organisations are the way they allocate and manage their budgets....and why there is so much waste..... at the beginning of the financial year...each department is given it's money which includes normal cost...staff pay....building etc.....money for projects/new expenditure and a contingency fund for unforeseen demands.......as the year progresses the money is spent..... however as the end of the financial year nears......because departments don't want to underspend because they'll be penalised the next year....they go on a spending frenzy running up to April....and if the money can't be spent on the thing's it was allocated for.....the money is wasted buy things that are not really needed...... If departments weren't penalised for handing back underspent budgets.....organisa tions like councils would have even more surplus money.....but bosses won't do this as it's not their money and they want to protect their empires...... Dave on his Soapbox
  • Score: 2

2:26am Wed 12 Feb 14

gathin says...

"Lets do the math?"
We aren't officially in the US (even though a lot of their corporations are doing very lucrative business here) so please call it maths!
"Lets do the math?" We aren't officially in the US (even though a lot of their corporations are doing very lucrative business here) so please call it maths! gathin
  • Score: 1

7:05am Wed 12 Feb 14

Mr Angry says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
BobEvams2014 wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Magor wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!!
What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .
dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour
You don't like people taking the mick do you ?
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.[/p][/quote]The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!![/p][/quote]What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .[/p][/quote]dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour[/p][/quote]You don't like people taking the mick do you ? Mr Angry
  • Score: -1

7:09am Wed 12 Feb 14

Mr Angry says...

scraptheWAG wrote:
BobEvams2014 wrote:
And of course we must remember it's only Labour who put up Council tax, and that when Mr Evans and that nice wig wearing Lib Dem guy were in charge it never went up at all did it ? Although I might be wrong .......
it doubled under the labour government it has been froze in england for the last three years . So put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it
I dont think this spoof account has stated where his loyalties lie, he's never said he's a socialist, however he is clearly getting under your skin, more power to him / her
[quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: And of course we must remember it's only Labour who put up Council tax, and that when Mr Evans and that nice wig wearing Lib Dem guy were in charge it never went up at all did it ? Although I might be wrong .......[/p][/quote]it doubled under the labour government it has been froze in england for the last three years . So put that in your socialist pipe and smoke it[/p][/quote]I dont think this spoof account has stated where his loyalties lie, he's never said he's a socialist, however he is clearly getting under your skin, more power to him / her Mr Angry
  • Score: -2

7:27am Wed 12 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

bugsy93 wrote:
It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards.
It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.
Exactly so.

Consider, if you will, David Cameron earns £142,500 for running the entire UK - population 63 million. Will Godfrey earns £134,638 for running Newport - population 55,000 - therefore he receives 95% of Cameron's remuneration for 0.09% of the responsibility.

Outrageous frankly.
[quote][p][bold]bugsy93[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards. It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.[/p][/quote]Exactly so. Consider, if you will, David Cameron earns £142,500 for running the entire UK - population 63 million. Will Godfrey earns £134,638 for running Newport - population 55,000 - therefore he receives 95% of Cameron's remuneration for 0.09% of the responsibility. Outrageous frankly. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 12

7:30am Wed 12 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
bugsy93 wrote:
It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards.
It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.
Exactly so.

Consider, if you will, David Cameron earns £142,500 for running the entire UK - population 63 million. Will Godfrey earns £134,638 for running Newport - population 55,000 - therefore he receives 95% of Cameron's remuneration for 0.09% of the responsibility.

Outrageous frankly.
Sorry, that should have been 155,000 population in Newport which is 0.25%
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bugsy93[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards. It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.[/p][/quote]Exactly so. Consider, if you will, David Cameron earns £142,500 for running the entire UK - population 63 million. Will Godfrey earns £134,638 for running Newport - population 55,000 - therefore he receives 95% of Cameron's remuneration for 0.09% of the responsibility. Outrageous frankly.[/p][/quote]Sorry, that should have been 155,000 population in Newport which is 0.25% GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 7

8:14am Wed 12 Feb 14

BobEvams2014 says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
bugsy93 wrote: It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards. It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.
Exactly so. Consider, if you will, David Cameron earns £142,500 for running the entire UK - population 63 million. Will Godfrey earns £134,638 for running Newport - population 55,000 - therefore he receives 95% of Cameron's remuneration for 0.09% of the responsibility. Outrageous frankly.
Of course we must remember that Cameron needs the money .
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bugsy93[/bold] wrote: It's amazing how our most incompetent Council Executives and dormant salary paid Councillors are getting paid for failure. Look back when our local Councils were far more efficient without the need for obscene rewards. It appears that we are just paying Council tax for the fat cats in the public sector to enjoy lavish lifestyles.[/p][/quote]Exactly so. Consider, if you will, David Cameron earns £142,500 for running the entire UK - population 63 million. Will Godfrey earns £134,638 for running Newport - population 55,000 - therefore he receives 95% of Cameron's remuneration for 0.09% of the responsibility. Outrageous frankly.[/p][/quote]Of course we must remember that Cameron needs the money . BobEvams2014
  • Score: -5

10:23am Wed 12 Feb 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
BobEvams2014 wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Magor wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!!
What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .
dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour
You don't like people taking the mick do you ?
I think perhaps that, if you are going to try irony, at least make it good and entertaining. This is bargain basement stuff at best.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.[/p][/quote]The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!![/p][/quote]What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .[/p][/quote]dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour[/p][/quote]You don't like people taking the mick do you ?[/p][/quote]I think perhaps that, if you are going to try irony, at least make it good and entertaining. This is bargain basement stuff at best. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

10:29am Wed 12 Feb 14

Mr Angry says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mr Angry wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
BobEvams2014 wrote:
scraptheWAG wrote:
Magor wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.
The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!!
What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .
dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour
You don't like people taking the mick do you ?
I think perhaps that, if you are going to try irony, at least make it good and entertaining. This is bargain basement stuff at best.
Getting under your skin to ? Or maybe some of the comments are too close to the truth for your sort ?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Angry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BobEvams2014[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scraptheWAG[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: My Council tax doubled under Blair and Brown,and I got re-valued thanks to WAG.[/p][/quote]The WAG have been given money by westminster to freeze council tax and yes in good old labour style they have wasted the lot. They should make all the labour voters pay the increase but i suspect many dont pay it!![/p][/quote]What an excellent idea, at the next Council Elections when UKIP take control of all Councils in the UK, Nigel should appoint an operative to sift through all ballot papers looking for all non UKIP votes, these can be traced by the matching of the number of the ballot paper to the number placed on the tellers register, these voters can then be sent an higher amended Council Tax bill, whilst all UKIP voters will pay no Council Tax at all. Would make people think before they vote .[/p][/quote]dont vote ukip vote labour they have done a marvelous job in newport and wales and your father voted labour[/p][/quote]You don't like people taking the mick do you ?[/p][/quote]I think perhaps that, if you are going to try irony, at least make it good and entertaining. This is bargain basement stuff at best.[/p][/quote]Getting under your skin to ? Or maybe some of the comments are too close to the truth for your sort ? Mr Angry
  • Score: -3

2:30pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

VoiceOfDaPort wrote:
So yet again the residents and tax payers of Newport are to be hammered by this shoddy council and for what, just to collect my bins and very little else of any benefit to me
Agree, and that is all they do for me, collect my bins.
In Spain they charge you 45 euros a year to do that and that is every day including weekends.
[quote][p][bold]VoiceOfDaPort[/bold] wrote: So yet again the residents and tax payers of Newport are to be hammered by this shoddy council and for what, just to collect my bins and very little else of any benefit to me[/p][/quote]Agree, and that is all they do for me, collect my bins. In Spain they charge you 45 euros a year to do that and that is every day including weekends. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 3

2:37pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
I also think that the, frankly obscene, payments to high ranking public sector officials needs to be examined.

I think at the very least, a ten percent cut in their salaries wouldn't be unreasonable in the current circumstances. Given the amount they're paid, I'm sure they'd barely notice and it would go a long way towards making up the shortfall.

Personally though I'd be in favour of more drastic alterations to their pay and conditions. I would half their salaries as a base rate, then allow bonus payments up to the full amount, depending on their meeting various KPI's that get decided on by the full council.

I mean, if nothing is off the table, and we're all in this together and all... right?
Totally agree.
There appear to be far too many Councillors per head of population as indicated above.
As everyone else has had to effectively take a pay cut, so should they.
But it won't happen unfortunately.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I also think that the, frankly obscene, payments to high ranking public sector officials needs to be examined. I think at the very least, a ten percent cut in their salaries wouldn't be unreasonable in the current circumstances. Given the amount they're paid, I'm sure they'd barely notice and it would go a long way towards making up the shortfall. Personally though I'd be in favour of more drastic alterations to their pay and conditions. I would half their salaries as a base rate, then allow bonus payments up to the full amount, depending on their meeting various KPI's that get decided on by the full council. I mean, if nothing is off the table, and we're all in this together and all... right?[/p][/quote]Totally agree. There appear to be far too many Councillors per head of population as indicated above. As everyone else has had to effectively take a pay cut, so should they. But it won't happen unfortunately. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 2

2:41pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
grumpyandopinionated wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour.

In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr.

Let's do the math

112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week.
4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week.
£31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year.

With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.
I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience.

The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.
These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job?

Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?
I am also aware of local companies employing prisoners from Prescoed for effectively nothing at all.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grumpyandopinionated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I was interested, (or perhaps 'appalled' would be a better word), to discover recently that it's been widely reported, (though as far as I'm aware, not in the Argus) that Newport City Council's notion of 'efficiency savings' includes making redundant full time staff and replacing them with free workfare (slave) labour. In a worrying national trend that has seen councils exploit over half a million unpaid hours of work, Newport has had its share. At least a hundred and twelve placements so far, that see workers doing full time jobs for benefits - giving earnings of less than £2/hr. Let's do the math 112 x 37.5 = 4200 hours per week. 4200 x (say) £7.50/hr = £31,500 per week. £31,500 x 52 = £1,638,000 per year. With such (ahem) efficiencies being available, one has to wonder how many other full time staff the council are planning on replacing with slave labour.[/p][/quote]I understand what you are saying, I do agree with the placements though, but if your getting £70 a week JSA then you should be expected to do atleast 10 hours a week unpaid work, not do the work then you don't get anything, save some money by having the more experienced unemployed as organisers and supervisors. I don't think that you should do the work that someone has, should or would normally get paid for, but the type of work that would be benificial to the community, maybe even as far as doing the odd days work for companies that are struggling and in return for the help the person doing the work gets a bit of experience. The current system for the unemployed is just not worth it or working. It's an absolute joke looking for work. The system that should be employed it that that everyone on jsa is put into the central computer, and actually matched with the jobs availible, the system tracks any actual attempts to look for work, employers update the system when someone attends interviews, ticks a box when an application is recived etc that way those that are not looking for work can be filtered out rapidly.[/p][/quote]These aren't ten hour a week placements though - they're full time. And it isn't just councils that are benefitting - all sorts of businesses throughout South Wales are signing up for this scheme. There are restaurants, cafes, customer service, supermarkets, grounds maintenance, garages, youth work, support workers, laundery workers, shops, nurseries, offices, taxi firms, recyclers, recruitment agencies, beauticians, child care, housekeepers, delivery drivers, veg growers, housing associations... I have the list right here in front of me...all sorts of companies that would have had to hire someone for the (full time) job - that now don't have to. NCC for example are currently looking for someone to work in IT support... how is that not taking someone's job? Frankly, it's appalling exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to the idea of working for your benefits... as long as it's paid at a fair rate - but what could you do that wouldn't take a paid job from someone else?[/p][/quote]I am also aware of local companies employing prisoners from Prescoed for effectively nothing at all. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -1

3:02pm Wed 12 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Cymru Am Beth wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
I also think that the, frankly obscene, payments to high ranking public sector officials needs to be examined.

I think at the very least, a ten percent cut in their salaries wouldn't be unreasonable in the current circumstances. Given the amount they're paid, I'm sure they'd barely notice and it would go a long way towards making up the shortfall.

Personally though I'd be in favour of more drastic alterations to their pay and conditions. I would half their salaries as a base rate, then allow bonus payments up to the full amount, depending on their meeting various KPI's that get decided on by the full council.

I mean, if nothing is off the table, and we're all in this together and all... right?
Totally agree.
There appear to be far too many Councillors per head of population as indicated above.
As everyone else has had to effectively take a pay cut, so should they.
But it won't happen unfortunately.
I wasn't talking about the councillors, I was talking about the unelected piggies that run the council. Like godfrey, who earns more than ten times the salary of your avergae councillor.
[quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: I also think that the, frankly obscene, payments to high ranking public sector officials needs to be examined. I think at the very least, a ten percent cut in their salaries wouldn't be unreasonable in the current circumstances. Given the amount they're paid, I'm sure they'd barely notice and it would go a long way towards making up the shortfall. Personally though I'd be in favour of more drastic alterations to their pay and conditions. I would half their salaries as a base rate, then allow bonus payments up to the full amount, depending on their meeting various KPI's that get decided on by the full council. I mean, if nothing is off the table, and we're all in this together and all... right?[/p][/quote]Totally agree. There appear to be far too many Councillors per head of population as indicated above. As everyone else has had to effectively take a pay cut, so should they. But it won't happen unfortunately.[/p][/quote]I wasn't talking about the councillors, I was talking about the unelected piggies that run the council. Like godfrey, who earns more than ten times the salary of your avergae councillor. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 5

4:42pm Wed 12 Feb 14

County Snakeman says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Poolerkev wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!!
Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.
OMG I think that's the best idea I've ever heard! Don't let the unemployed vote, so we won't have to suffer Labour running anything ever again, including the UK overall, and we may yet have a chance.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Poolerkev[/bold] wrote: That's really topped it now. Where will all those band d householders find another 74p from each week? I know what I would do..... Scrap the WG!! Better plans would be to give a 20% increase to bands E and above and a 2% increase to bands d and below. Make those pay who have more. My father would and so would I!!![/p][/quote]Totally rubbish idea. For a start, some people living in larger houses have retired so are on smaller incomes. The size of someone's house is no indicator of disposable income. Better idea would be to stop the thousands who pay nothing from voting because they just elect in incompetent Labour politicians and then expect others to pay for their mismanagement.[/p][/quote]OMG I think that's the best idea I've ever heard! Don't let the unemployed vote, so we won't have to suffer Labour running anything ever again, including the UK overall, and we may yet have a chance. County Snakeman
  • Score: 2

7:25pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cymruamblyth says...

Mr Angry give it a rest!! Why is when Bob Evans, Karlo Marko or WAG posts you troll the thread by making personnel comments about them..

I remember after one particularly nasty piece of prolific board trolling you got warned about your behavior.. You said some BS about them insulting your disabled family member.. Funny those posts always conveniently and the lengths you will go to forward this pointless personal vendetta.. I doubt they' didn't really care 10 minutes later.. What I find really sad is you resorted to registering the Bob Evans 2014 moniker and pretending to be him
Mr Angry give it a rest!! Why is when Bob Evans, Karlo Marko or WAG posts you troll the thread by making personnel comments about them.. I remember after one particularly nasty piece of prolific board trolling you got warned about your behavior.. You said some BS about them insulting your disabled family member.. Funny those posts always conveniently and the lengths you will go to forward this pointless personal vendetta.. I doubt they' didn't really care 10 minutes later.. What I find really sad is you resorted to registering the Bob Evans 2014 moniker and pretending to be him cymruamblyth
  • Score: -1

8:07pm Wed 12 Feb 14

Mr Angry says...

Ooooooo touchy !!!! What you gonna do about it, and I am not the spoof account, however you seem content to let Bob Evans tell lies then fine
Ooooooo touchy !!!! What you gonna do about it, and I am not the spoof account, however you seem content to let Bob Evans tell lies then fine Mr Angry
  • Score: -4

8:58pm Wed 12 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

cymruamblyth wrote:
Mr Angry give it a rest!! Why is when Bob Evans, Karlo Marko or WAG posts you troll the thread by making personnel comments about them..

I remember after one particularly nasty piece of prolific board trolling you got warned about your behavior.. You said some BS about them insulting your disabled family member.. Funny those posts always conveniently and the lengths you will go to forward this pointless personal vendetta.. I doubt they' didn't really care 10 minutes later.. What I find really sad is you resorted to registering the Bob Evans 2014 moniker and pretending to be him
So you expect someone called Mr. Angry to be..... nice?

As for WAG, he asks for it.
[quote][p][bold]cymruamblyth[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry give it a rest!! Why is when Bob Evans, Karlo Marko or WAG posts you troll the thread by making personnel comments about them.. I remember after one particularly nasty piece of prolific board trolling you got warned about your behavior.. You said some BS about them insulting your disabled family member.. Funny those posts always conveniently and the lengths you will go to forward this pointless personal vendetta.. I doubt they' didn't really care 10 minutes later.. What I find really sad is you resorted to registering the Bob Evans 2014 moniker and pretending to be him[/p][/quote]So you expect someone called Mr. Angry to be..... nice? As for WAG, he asks for it. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 2

11:33pm Wed 12 Feb 14

cymruamblyth says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
cymruamblyth wrote:
Mr Angry give it a rest!! Why is when Bob Evans, Karlo Marko or WAG posts you troll the thread by making personnel comments about them..

I remember after one particularly nasty piece of prolific board trolling you got warned about your behavior.. You said some BS about them insulting your disabled family member.. Funny those posts always conveniently and the lengths you will go to forward this pointless personal vendetta.. I doubt they' didn't really care 10 minutes later.. What I find really sad is you resorted to registering the Bob Evans 2014 moniker and pretending to be him
So you expect someone called Mr. Angry to be..... nice?

As for WAG, he asks for it.
Karlo Marko is a legend, I think the Argus should give him his column.. Wag the poster don't know much about him, agree the Cardiff Wag is as much use as a Chocolate Teapot..

Why Karlo should be on the Argus
When Karlo does a push up, he pushes the world down.
When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Karlo Marko.
Karlo Marko doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.
Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Karlo Marko.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruamblyth[/bold] wrote: Mr Angry give it a rest!! Why is when Bob Evans, Karlo Marko or WAG posts you troll the thread by making personnel comments about them.. I remember after one particularly nasty piece of prolific board trolling you got warned about your behavior.. You said some BS about them insulting your disabled family member.. Funny those posts always conveniently and the lengths you will go to forward this pointless personal vendetta.. I doubt they' didn't really care 10 minutes later.. What I find really sad is you resorted to registering the Bob Evans 2014 moniker and pretending to be him[/p][/quote]So you expect someone called Mr. Angry to be..... nice? As for WAG, he asks for it.[/p][/quote]Karlo Marko is a legend, I think the Argus should give him his column.. Wag the poster don't know much about him, agree the Cardiff Wag is as much use as a Chocolate Teapot.. Why Karlo should be on the Argus When Karlo does a push up, he pushes the world down. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Karlo Marko. Karlo Marko doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be on the same planet with Karlo Marko. cymruamblyth
  • Score: 0

7:55am Thu 13 Feb 14

Katie Re-Registered says...

"Christmas lights saved but Newport council tax set to rise by 4.5 per cent"

Ho ho ho...

This is one careers option I'm seriously going to have to consider if my local Council Tax rate goes up any more by next Christmas.
"Christmas lights saved but Newport council tax set to rise by 4.5 per cent" Ho ho ho... This is one careers option I'm seriously going to have to consider if my local Council Tax rate goes up any more by next Christmas. Katie Re-Registered
  • Score: 3

1:05am Fri 14 Feb 14

Spinflight says...

Council tax up by 4.5% and they've managed to find the money to vote themselves a payrise...

Pathetic doesn't cover it.

www.ukipnewport.com
Council tax up by 4.5% and they've managed to find the money to vote themselves a payrise... Pathetic doesn't cover it. www.ukipnewport.com Spinflight
  • Score: 7

11:36am Fri 14 Feb 14

Mwy Eira says...

If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch!
If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch! Mwy Eira
  • Score: 5

9:48am Sat 15 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

Spinflight wrote:
Council tax up by 4.5% and they've managed to find the money to vote themselves a payrise...

Pathetic doesn't cover it.

www.ukipnewport.com
you have my vote all your policies make great sense but i feel the benefits culture in wales will always give the old labour the edge
[quote][p][bold]Spinflight[/bold] wrote: Council tax up by 4.5% and they've managed to find the money to vote themselves a payrise... Pathetic doesn't cover it. www.ukipnewport.com[/p][/quote]you have my vote all your policies make great sense but i feel the benefits culture in wales will always give the old labour the edge scraptheWAG
  • Score: 2

3:38pm Sat 15 Feb 14

ihatewhingers says...

Mwy Eira wrote:
If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch!
What free buffets?! You obviously have no idea what happens inside council buildings. Jumping on the bandwagon of "all NCC employees get paid too much and have free food and drink". You have no idea at all.
[quote][p][bold]Mwy Eira[/bold] wrote: If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch![/p][/quote]What free buffets?! You obviously have no idea what happens inside council buildings. Jumping on the bandwagon of "all NCC employees get paid too much and have free food and drink". You have no idea at all. ihatewhingers
  • Score: -1

8:44pm Sat 15 Feb 14

scraptheWAG says...

ihatewhingers wrote:
Mwy Eira wrote:
If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch!
What free buffets?! You obviously have no idea what happens inside council buildings. Jumping on the bandwagon of "all NCC employees get paid too much and have free food and drink". You have no idea at all.
having worked in the public sector the amount of management is ridiculous layer upon layer upon layer to do a role a school leaver could do. There is no need to pay someone 6 figures slaries to work in wales.

BUT what i also discovered if they do not spend the budget in the year it had to be returned to the treasury so alot is deliberately wasted
[quote][p][bold]ihatewhingers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mwy Eira[/bold] wrote: If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch![/p][/quote]What free buffets?! You obviously have no idea what happens inside council buildings. Jumping on the bandwagon of "all NCC employees get paid too much and have free food and drink". You have no idea at all.[/p][/quote]having worked in the public sector the amount of management is ridiculous layer upon layer upon layer to do a role a school leaver could do. There is no need to pay someone 6 figures slaries to work in wales. BUT what i also discovered if they do not spend the budget in the year it had to be returned to the treasury so alot is deliberately wasted scraptheWAG
  • Score: 3

6:51pm Sun 16 Feb 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Mwy Eira wrote:
If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch!
Ooh - good point., I hadn't considered London weighting.
[quote][p][bold]Mwy Eira[/bold] wrote: If you take into consideration the London weighting and cost of living, you could argue that Godfrey earns more than Cameron. If they stopped all the free buffet lunches that the NCC are providing to the NCC and WG employees and councillors for 'workshops' then they wouldn't have to put the council tax up. Haven't they heard of taking your own packed lunch![/p][/quote]Ooh - good point., I hadn't considered London weighting. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree