Protestors against council cuts to march through Dorchester (From Dorset Echo)
When news happens get involved. Send your pictures, views and video to us by text and email
Protestors against council cuts to march through Dorchester
11:10am Monday 4th February 2013 in News
March organiser Tim Nicholls
UNION representatives are set to march through Poundbury and Dorchester in protest against Dorset County Council cuts on Saturday.
The Dorchester, Weymouth, Portland and District Trades Union Council are calling on local residents to say ‘no’ to more cuts in services ahead of a full council meeting on February 14 when the county council will decide its budget for the 2013/14 financial year.
The authority will decide whether to cut a further £11million from its budget and could face further cuts of over £13million in the next two financial years.
The march will begin at 10am at The Great Field at Poundbury and will finish with a demonstration at the bottom of South Street.
March organiser and secretary of the Trades Council Tim Nicholls said: “This level of cuts is not sustainable anywhere and least of all in a county such as Dorset.
"We have an elderly population who rely on public services to help them live.”
Carl Wainwright, chairman of the council, said: “Cuts of £5.8million to services for the elderly and £1.9million to children’s services are simply not acceptable.
"The elderly and young did not create this economic crisis and should not be asked to pay for it.”
Comments(19)
JamesYoung
says...
12:02pm Mon 4 Feb 13
satisfecho wrote:The first truth is that we either accept tax rises, or cuts, as you say. There is little option available to a government that will have added £700bn to the national debt by 2015.
At the weekend there was a letter complaining about council tax rises, and now others are going to march because they don't want cuts!
Wish people would make up their mind!
The second truth is that most of those marching are not protesting cuts in services, they are protesting against cuts in jobs.
Dorset County Council offered them the option, two years ago, of accepting a 3-5% pay cut in return for a 3-5% cut in hours. These same organisations protested against this.
What we are now seeing is the inevitable consequence.
And let's me clear, the public sector is still 600,000 people larger than it was in 1997, when Labour came to power. It grew by 11.5% at a time when the population grew by under 5%.
With that in mind, while i would not wish unemployment on anyone, one must question whether a reduction in public sector employment must inevitably lead to cuts in services?
Trackerman
says...
12:13pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Portland Bill
says...
2:00pm Mon 4 Feb 13
JamesYoung
says...
3:56pm Mon 4 Feb 13
Portland Bill wrote:Ummm, no, that's not quite how it works is it. You can't just look at the local town.
Less council staff ,less money in the local economy,less tax paid . We should try and keep as many jobs in the area as possible,either in the private sector, or public sector easier said than done, i know.
We are paying £44,000,000,000 a year in interest on government debt. That's £1500 per taxpayer. That money, plus all the other money that is needed to fund the bloated public sector, comes, ultimately, from the private sector.
If we want growth in the private sector, we need to reduce the tax burden. The way we do that is by making the public sector more competitive.
If you have another solution i'd be interested to hear it. The Unions are always telling us to focus on growth not austerity, but how do we do that without borrowing even more money that we can't pay back?
JamesYoung
says...
3:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13
JamesYoung
says...
3:58pm Mon 4 Feb 13
albula40
says...
4:48pm Mon 4 Feb 13
1 PFI for 25 years is surely not a way to cut costs. Take street lighting. PFI to SSE contractors. How much are they going to cost to replace a light bulb????
Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this. PFI's have bankrupted our hospitals and then schools, and I believed this Government when they said they will stop these insidious outsourcing contracts.
JamesYoung
says...
5:18pm Mon 4 Feb 13
albula40 wrote:Indeed. The nice thing about PFI is that its off balance sheet, so it doesn't really show up as a liability on the government balance sheet. That, of course, is why Labour loved them - a chance to wave shiny new hospitals, schools, railways, roads and streetlighting off to voters, while crowing about fiscal prudence and the so called golden rule.
Plus all the rip off PFI's going on.
1 PFI for 25 years is surely not a way to cut costs. Take street lighting. PFI to SSE contractors. How much are they going to cost to replace a light bulb????
Our children and grandchildren will be paying for this. PFI's have bankrupted our hospitals and then schools, and I believed this Government when they said they will stop these insidious outsourcing contracts.
Still, at least come the next election we'll know what to expect - spend everything, then spend some more, then blame the rich, then blame the Tories.
CoogarUK.com
says...
5:23pm Mon 4 Feb 13
JamesYoung wrote:Spot on, if I may say so!
My solution, incidentally, is to stop funding for lending and all the other sham government names for printing money. The economic cycle needs to complete and house prices need to fall.
Giblet
says...
7:03pm Thu 7 Feb 13
JamesYoung
says...
11:51pm Fri 8 Feb 13
Giblet wrote:Isn't it funny how these rabble rousers look unemployable. The fellow from county hall that always gets interviewed looks like an aged hippy too.
Is that Peter Stringfellow in the picture?
Howlin Wolf
says...
3:06pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Power to the people.
Old Bill
says...
5:12pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Old Bill
says...
5:13pm Sat 9 Feb 13
JamesYoung
says...
7:02pm Sat 9 Feb 13
Old Bill wrote:Funny, because i would have thought an ex copper would have regarded somebody with an ear ring as more likely to be a criminal than somebody without one. And sunglasses on a dim day?
I think Mr Nicholls looks cool and not in the slightest bit unemployable.
Hiding something.
woodsedge
says...
8:52am Sun 10 Feb 13
JamesYoung wrote:Now now Mr Young, stereo typing again, look at Boris!
Old Bill wrote:Funny, because i would have thought an ex copper would have regarded somebody with an ear ring as more likely to be a criminal than somebody without one. And sunglasses on a dim day?
I think Mr Nicholls looks cool and not in the slightest bit unemployable.
Hiding something.
JamesYoung
says...
9:25am Sun 10 Feb 13
woodsedge wrote:Humour old bean :-).
JamesYoung wrote:Now now Mr Young, stereo typing again, look at Boris!
Old Bill wrote:Funny, because i would have thought an ex copper would have regarded somebody with an ear ring as more likely to be a criminal than somebody without one. And sunglasses on a dim day?
I think Mr Nicholls looks cool and not in the slightest bit unemployable.
Hiding something.
Old Bill
says...
12:27pm Sun 10 Feb 13
satisfecho says...
11:15am Mon 4 Feb 13
Wish people would make up their mind!