Council leaders warn worst could be yet to come for Dorset (From Dorset Echo)

I wonder how much they would save by selling off those vehicles and their contents that sit on grass verges or behind bushes at the side of the road and stop paying the wages of the occupants and their management and support staff. They know who they are (:o)

Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

With so many cuts in costs for services being achieved, does this mean that the money has been wasted/frittered away in the past ?

Mr Richard Drax MP has the answer: cut foreign aid. Charity begins at home and boy, do we need it!
The Council could also get rid of a few company cars, euphemistically known as "Lease Cars", but they are still company cars and an utter waste of money. Fair enough if they are needed for work but if only for commuting then get rid of them!

Micke12 wrote:

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation. Most residents have no idea which council does what and the range of services provided by them. It's about time that residents took the trouble to find out what is done on their behalf by council staff, many of whom are part time and on very low wages, and contribute to their pension - unlike the civil service etc. Maybe the press could conribute to the debate by researching and publicising the range of services provided by an under-rated and much maligned workforce - who buy the Echo.

Dave Aitch wrote:
With so many cuts in costs for services being achieved, does this mean that the money has been wasted/frittered away in the past ?

Yes, Big Time, especially in the computer department where they just burn money.

Micke12
You may not agree with cutting back on so called 'road safety cameras' but I don't understand why trouble was taken to re-build and widen part of the eastern end of Littlemoor Road (with enhanced lighting) so that it was not bordered by any houses and make travel safer and then a 30 mph limit was stuck along it so that the revenue collectors could park on the nice new grass verge. Crossing patrols and flashing lights take care of the children from the nearby school at the appropriate times of day.

It states 'Dorset residents at least appear set to enjoy a freeze in the county council’s share of the council tax for a third year running. ' Why not put up the council tax to a level so that we don't need to make cuts. Why not except that you get what you pay for.

The problem at county hall, like at dorset county hospital, is a massive number of layers of directors, super managers, managers and supervisors. Cuts and economies have chipped away at the lower ranks, but the bloated management costs have stayed the same. When will county councillors have the courage to halve the management tiers?

When are we going to do away with all Councils and have just 1 unilateral authority. Less Councillors, less directors and managers = no cuts to front line services and affordable council tax

SRA wrote:
It states 'Dorset residents at least appear set to enjoy a freeze in the county council’s share of the council tax for a third year running. ' Why not put up the council tax to a level so that we don't need to make cuts. Why not except that you get what you pay for.

What planet are you on?!

iampuzzled wrote:
Micke12
You may not agree with cutting back on so called 'road safety cameras' but I don't understand why trouble was taken to re-build and widen part of the eastern end of Littlemoor Road (with enhanced lighting) so that it was not bordered by any houses and make travel safer and then a 30 mph limit was stuck along it so that the revenue collectors could park on the nice new grass verge. Crossing patrols and flashing lights take care of the children from the nearby school at the appropriate times of day.

Iampuzzeled, that was my case entirely. Too many 'road safety cameras' are in fact simply 'revenue making cameras. A safety camera, in whatever situation, should be there for it's primary purpose only - 'SAFETY'. If a camera is there for safety, then call it a 'safety camera', otherwise if it is a revenue making camera, call it a 'revenue making camera.

It is inherently wrong to call a safety camera a safety camera if it is used in order to collect speeding penalties. Last time I looked at the advertising standards legislation, it was deemed unethical and in fact totally illegal to advertise something as being what it is not. If the council are calling these cameras 'safety cameras, yet are using them more as a revenue generating system for people driving too fast, then that is false advertising as to what the cameras are stated as being for, but being used for another nefarious purpose. False advertising that is totally illegal.

If a camera s designed to ensure road safety, by reducing the speed of some drivers, then they should be open and above board, not covertly hidden in the bushes or tucked into a side road.

Perhaps it might be better use of these cameras and more beneficial to the drivers and the passengers, if the images taken of vehicles over the speed limit were referred to the drivers or registered owners insurance company with the knowledge that such speeding would result in greater insurance premiums being paid by those drivers caught exceeding the speed limit. The pockets of the drivers will soon feel empty if they have to pay higher premiums and/or lose their no claims discount as well, with them having to have, say, five years completely clean driving before they are even considered for a new no claims discount.

But all in all, these cameras are there for the safety of the road users, most of whom follow the reasonable driving requirements of their licence, it is only the small, but significant, minority, that spoil it for everyone else. If these idiots are forced to lose their no claims, and face higher premiums at their next renewal, then maybe it will become a situation where the decent motorist does not have to pay through the nose to cover the insurance companies when they are forced to pay out by an incompetent driver.

wurzelbasher wrote:

SRA wrote: It states 'Dorset residents at least appear set to enjoy a freeze in the county council’s share of the council tax for a third year running. ' Why not put up the council tax to a level so that we don't need to make cuts. Why not except that you get what you pay for.

What planet are you on?!

So year on year you can pay the same ammount of tax, and still get the same services. I don't think so. Tax needs to go up to match the required spend.

Dylanfan wrote:

Micke12 wrote:

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation. Most residents have no idea which council does what and the range of services provided by them. It's about time that residents took the trouble to find out what is done on their behalf by council staff, many of whom are part time and on very low wages, and contribute to their pension - unlike the civil service etc. Maybe the press could conribute to the debate by researching and publicising the range of services provided by an under-rated and much maligned workforce - who buy the Echo.

It's a good point you make about understanding the services provided. As far as I can tell I'm paying £1400 per year to have my rubbish bags collected and the pot hole ridden roads in my village given the splash & dash treatment which lasts to the first freeze in winter and its back to square one with damaged suspension and wheel rims. Hardly value for money is it? If need to find cost savings then I suggest they start culling the numbers of vastly overpaid executives who earn more the PM.

16 million to take out roundabouts and put in expensive to run trafficlights, countless millions wasted on new ivory towers. That is why there is no money left for the services that the council have a responsibility to provide. It is about time that those who make these criminally irresponsible decisions are made to pay. Why should we tax payers allways have to bare the brunt of these costly mistakes? A trustee of an organisation whould be responsable for that organisations finances, so a Councilor should be made responsable for the decisions that they make with public money. EMPTY THERE BANK ACCOUNTS they made the mistakes

tackleberry wrote:
16 million to take out roundabouts and put in expensive to run trafficlights, countless millions wasted on new ivory towers. That is why there is no money left for the services that the council have a responsibility to provide. It is about time that those who make these criminally irresponsible decisions are made to pay. Why should we tax payers allways have to bare the brunt of these costly mistakes? A trustee of an organisation whould be responsable for that organisations finances, so a Councilor should be made responsable for the decisions that they make with public money. EMPTY THERE BANK ACCOUNTS they made the mistakes

" have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.
"
An excellent suggestion. Would you mind just clarifying a few points:
1. Where does the government get this extra money to provide the extra funding? Unless i'm mistaken, that either has to come from higher taxes, or increased borrowing.
2. If the latter, do you consider it prudent to run up government debt still further, knowing that as we are already paying £44bn a year (£1500 per taxpayer) in interest, we are again increasing the burden on tax payers?
3. Under Labour, civil service employment increased by over 800,000. This figure doesn't include low paid workers who were TUPEd out to private sector employees. Why was this growth necessary and why should it not be cut back to sensible levels?
4.Given that we are all in this together, surely an easy answer to this problem is for the unions and civil service to accept that, for the most part, they get a good deal. Maybe, if they reduced their leave entitlement to the 22 days common in the private sector? Maybe if they accepted that their pensions are no longer affordable?
As i've said before, the civil service is not affordable or necessary in its current form. Cut it, then cut it some more. When we are back to 1997 levels, and when salaries and terms and conditions for Dorset based public sector staff are back in line with private sector staff, then come and talk to me about paying more tax.

tackleberry wrote:
16 million to take out roundabouts and put in expensive to run trafficlights, countless millions wasted on new ivory towers. That is why there is no money left for the services that the council have a responsibility to provide. It is about time that those who make these criminally irresponsible decisions are made to pay. Why should we tax payers allways have to bare the brunt of these costly mistakes? A trustee of an organisation whould be responsable for that organisations finances, so a Councilor should be made responsable for the decisions that they make with public money. EMPTY THERE BANK ACCOUNTS they made the mistakes

Hear hear.

JamesYoung wrote:

tackleberry wrote:
16 million to take out roundabouts and put in expensive to run trafficlights, countless millions wasted on new ivory towers. That is why there is no money left for the services that the council have a responsibility to provide. It is about time that those who make these criminally irresponsible decisions are made to pay. Why should we tax payers allways have to bare the brunt of these costly mistakes? A trustee of an organisation whould be responsable for that organisations finances, so a Councilor should be made responsable for the decisions that they make with public money. EMPTY THERE BANK ACCOUNTS they made the mistakes

Hear hear.

Agreed, what you mean taking accountability for their decisions well that would be a first! I won't hold my breath.

cj07589 wrote:

Dylanfan wrote:

Micke12 wrote:

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation. Most residents have no idea which council does what and the range of services provided by them. It's about time that residents took the trouble to find out what is done on their behalf by council staff, many of whom are part time and on very low wages, and contribute to their pension - unlike the civil service etc. Maybe the press could conribute to the debate by researching and publicising the range of services provided by an under-rated and much maligned workforce - who buy the Echo.

It's a good point you make about understanding the services provided. As far as I can tell I'm paying £1400 per year to have my rubbish bags collected and the pot hole ridden roads in my village given the splash & dash treatment which lasts to the first freeze in winter and its back to square one with damaged suspension and wheel rims. Hardly value for money is it? If need to find cost savings then I suggest they start culling the numbers of vastly overpaid executives who earn more the PM.

OK So, where do elderly care services, adult services, children's services, pavements, roads, road signs, traffic lights, speed cameras, roundabouts, bridges, street lighting, libraries, school improvement services, improved village playgrounds, road and gully cleaning, coastal defences, harbour masters, countryside and ranger services, school patrols, teacher training, parking control, etc. come from? Start thinking about it and I'm sure you could add another 50 or more to this list. £1400 is a bargin when you stop and think that just £50 a week spent on shopping adds up to £2600 a year.

Dylanfan wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Dylanfan wrote:

Micke12 wrote:

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation. Most residents have no idea which council does what and the range of services provided by them. It's about time that residents took the trouble to find out what is done on their behalf by council staff, many of whom are part time and on very low wages, and contribute to their pension - unlike the civil service etc. Maybe the press could conribute to the debate by researching and publicising the range of services provided by an under-rated and much maligned workforce - who buy the Echo.

It's a good point you make about understanding the services provided. As far as I can tell I'm paying £1400 per year to have my rubbish bags collected and the pot hole ridden roads in my village given the splash & dash treatment which lasts to the first freeze in winter and its back to square one with damaged suspension and wheel rims. Hardly value for money is it? If need to find cost savings then I suggest they start culling the numbers of vastly overpaid executives who earn more the PM.

OK So, where do elderly care services, adult services, children's services, pavements, roads, road signs, traffic lights, speed cameras, roundabouts, bridges, street lighting, libraries, school improvement services, improved village playgrounds, road and gully cleaning, coastal defences, harbour masters, countryside and ranger services, school patrols, teacher training, parking control, etc. come from? Start thinking about it and I'm sure you could add another 50 or more to this list. £1400 is a bargin when you stop and think that just £50 a week spent on shopping adds up to £2600 a year.

Lets agree to disagree, given the extraordinary level of taxes applied in this country all these services should fall under funding from central government.

cj07589 wrote:

Dylanfan wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Dylanfan wrote:

Micke12 wrote:

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation. Most residents have no idea which council does what and the range of services provided by them. It's about time that residents took the trouble to find out what is done on their behalf by council staff, many of whom are part time and on very low wages, and contribute to their pension - unlike the civil service etc. Maybe the press could conribute to the debate by researching and publicising the range of services provided by an under-rated and much maligned workforce - who buy the Echo.

It's a good point you make about understanding the services provided. As far as I can tell I'm paying £1400 per year to have my rubbish bags collected and the pot hole ridden roads in my village given the splash & dash treatment which lasts to the first freeze in winter and its back to square one with damaged suspension and wheel rims. Hardly value for money is it? If need to find cost savings then I suggest they start culling the numbers of vastly overpaid executives who earn more the PM.

OK So, where do elderly care services, adult services, children's services, pavements, roads, road signs, traffic lights, speed cameras, roundabouts, bridges, street lighting, libraries, school improvement services, improved village playgrounds, road and gully cleaning, coastal defences, harbour masters, countryside and ranger services, school patrols, teacher training, parking control, etc. come from? Start thinking about it and I'm sure you could add another 50 or more to this list. £1400 is a bargin when you stop and think that just £50 a week spent on shopping adds up to £2600 a year.

Lets agree to disagree, given the extraordinary level of taxes applied in this country all these services should fall under funding from central government.

Well said Dylanfan. It is amazing how the anti public sector lobby back right off when you point out the value for money that local services deliver. If they had their way it would all be sold off to the private sector and then watch the council tax bill rise! In my line of work I see the massive waste of public money by the private sector in relation to outsourced, what was, public sector work. Anyway I expect another of the public sector is crap posters will be along shortly.

woodsedge wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Dylanfan wrote:

cj07589 wrote:

Dylanfan wrote:

Micke12 wrote:

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Seems to me that the facts are wrong here, annotator1. Those shiny brand new offices you mention are for West Dorset District Council, not Dorset County Council.

My concern is the statement about cutting back on road safety funding. Only today we have had another accident on Dorsets' roads between Poxwell and Osmington. To cut back now on road safety, seems to me to be a stupid idea, which may or may not cost lives and end up costing the council even more in repair bills from road collisions damaging street furniture. It would be interesting to know how much the county council spends each year on street furniture repairs against how much they would save through road safety cutbacks.

I certainly do not agree with iampuzzled's suggestion that they cut back on the road safety cameras, but I do suggest that they use these facilities more for accident prevention than revenue raising. The idea of the cameras is to make people reduce speeds, not put money into council revenues by hiding the things and penalising motorists. If these 'safety' cameras were out in the open, it would be more likely to make people slow down accordingly instead of waiting till the driver had gone through and then hitting them with a fine. If the cameras are in the open, and a driver chooses to ignore it, then more fool him/her, they deserve the fine. But to make money using covert methods does nothing whatsoever to increase road safety.

I have a better idea for the council. Why don't they go to Westminster and tell the government that the current cut ratio is unsustainable with the intention of providing a good service to the public as councils are required to do. Tell the government where to stick it's requirement for such drastic cutbacks and demand more government funding. It is a fact that Dorset, despite being one of the busiest counties on the south and southwest coasts, gets the least funding per head capita of all the south and southwest county councils.

Government policy down this neck of the woods is hurting not only the councils, but the people who rely on those councils services, and it will eventually lead to either very high hikes in council tax bills, or very crap services from the councils.

This is an excellent assessment of the situation. Most residents have no idea which council does what and the range of services provided by them. It's about time that residents took the trouble to find out what is done on their behalf by council staff, many of whom are part time and on very low wages, and contribute to their pension - unlike the civil service etc. Maybe the press could conribute to the debate by researching and publicising the range of services provided by an under-rated and much maligned workforce - who buy the Echo.

It's a good point you make about understanding the services provided. As far as I can tell I'm paying £1400 per year to have my rubbish bags collected and the pot hole ridden roads in my village given the splash & dash treatment which lasts to the first freeze in winter and its back to square one with damaged suspension and wheel rims. Hardly value for money is it? If need to find cost savings then I suggest they start culling the numbers of vastly overpaid executives who earn more the PM.

OK So, where do elderly care services, adult services, children's services, pavements, roads, road signs, traffic lights, speed cameras, roundabouts, bridges, street lighting, libraries, school improvement services, improved village playgrounds, road and gully cleaning, coastal defences, harbour masters, countryside and ranger services, school patrols, teacher training, parking control, etc. come from? Start thinking about it and I'm sure you could add another 50 or more to this list. £1400 is a bargin when you stop and think that just £50 a week spent on shopping adds up to £2600 a year.

Lets agree to disagree, given the extraordinary level of taxes applied in this country all these services should fall under funding from central government.

Well said Dylanfan. It is amazing how the anti public sector lobby back right off when you point out the value for money that local services deliver. If they had their way it would all be sold off to the private sector and then watch the council tax bill rise! In my line of work I see the massive waste of public money by the private sector in relation to outsourced, what was, public sector work. Anyway I expect another of the public sector is crap posters will be along shortly.

Woodsedge, what we are asking for is efficiency. A private sector company would not need the number of employees that currently exist within local government. Do we really need 3 councils serving the needs of West Dorset? As for private companies wasting public money - who is signing the contracts?
Clearly there are services that the council should provide. However, it doesn't have to pay its staff more (in this area) than private sector businesses. It doesn't need more of them. They don't need longer holidays. Or better pensions. But as we saw last year when the council was forced to back down from it's 5% pay reduction for 5% holiday increase, the reality is that public sector staff are interested in maintaining better pay and T&Cs than the private sector and to the detriment of the very vulnerable people they claim to serve. The answer to this is "give us more money".

This website desperately needs a way to shorten quotes. They are getting ridiculous...

louiscox
There is no need to copy the whole of quotes, just highlight and cut n paste the bits that you want to comment on.
Techy bits - put your cursor at the start, hold down the left mouse key and drag the cursor to the end of text you want to copy, release mouse key, hold down CTRL key and press C, put cursor in comment box and left click. Hold down CTRL key and press V. Voila.
Look up 'keyboard shortcuts' via Google or as I have done, spend nearly half a century using computers (:o) and it all becomes (relatively) simple.

. The answer to this is "give us more money".
Sounds just like my privatised utility providers Mr Young.They apply the same tactic annually, on a regular basis.
come h*** or high water.

heartfelt wrote:
. The answer to this is "give us more money".
Sounds just like my privatised utility providers Mr Young.They apply the same tactic annually, on a regular basis.
come h*** or high water.

'Give us more money' I will have to tell my wife who works for DCC, incidentally at the sharp end of social care, with a degree and a Masters who has not had a ay rise for 4 years and as had her pension benefits slashed and contributions increases by a third. As for the private sector, I deal with several private company's in the defence sector who are very good at manipulating the public purse. One currently is using the tactic of having 2 managers, 2 supervisors to police 1 shift worker. This is multiplied across many, many mangers and across 24/7 shift system. Without going into further detail I see this and many other examples on a daily basis. So those that think that simply outsourcing public contracts to the private sector are frankly deluded. Still, the share holders are getting a good return!

Come on the Echo. Please start with some basic journalism and tell us what most council workers actually earn and what their pension really is. After all everyone working for the Echo benefits from council services, so why not support the people who do the dirty work that you don't.Tell the real story. You might even sell more papers.

heartfelt wrote:
. The answer to this is "give us more money".
Sounds just like my privatised utility providers Mr Young.They apply the same tactic annually, on a regular basis.
come h*** or high water.

Yup, because they operate in a near monopoly market, they can drain what they want from their customers without worrying about quality of service delivery.
Sound familiar?

woodsedge wrote:

heartfelt wrote:
. The answer to this is "give us more money".
Sounds just like my privatised utility providers Mr Young.They apply the same tactic annually, on a regular basis.
come h*** or high water.

'Give us more money' I will have to tell my wife who works for DCC, incidentally at the sharp end of social care, with a degree and a Masters who has not had a ay rise for 4 years and as had her pension benefits slashed and contributions increases by a third. As for the private sector, I deal with several private company's in the defence sector who are very good at manipulating the public purse. One currently is using the tactic of having 2 managers, 2 supervisors to police 1 shift worker. This is multiplied across many, many mangers and across 24/7 shift system. Without going into further detail I see this and many other examples on a daily basis. So those that think that simply outsourcing public contracts to the private sector are frankly deluded. Still, the share holders are getting a good return!

I have a master's degree too. In 2004, i earned more than i do now in cash terms (let alone real terms). My pension scheme is nowhere near as good as your wife's, despite me paying more into it. Brown's pension raid hit me hard, and before that, the failure of Equitable Life. I can't afford to pay any more than i am paying because i also have to fund the cost of my travel to London 3 days a week - the recession, you see, has caused the total disappearance of the work that i do across the whole of the south west and i have to spend 3 days a week living in a run down Travelodge because it is too far and too expensive to commute daily.
Nobody disputes that the private sector steals money from the public sector. Again, who signs the contracts?

As for your wife, i expect we are actually in agreement. It would be difficult to compare her terms and conditions with similar roles in the private sector, because they don't exist. Hence, the service she provides is needed and probably best provided from the public sector. However (and i suspect we agree on this) there are multiple layers of administrators, managers, contracts managers at county hall whose terms and conditions can be compared with similar roles in the private sector in this area. It is those roles that need to be pared down to free up money to pay for the important stuff.

Dylanfan wrote:
Come on the Echo. Please start with some basic journalism and tell us what most council workers actually earn and what their pension really is. After all everyone working for the Echo benefits from council services, so why not support the people who do the dirty work that you don't.Tell the real story. You might even sell more papers.

Look here. It's a left wing source:

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/news/datablog/
2012/mar/27/public-p
rivate-sector-pay

Important to remember that this is country wide. In the private sector, the variance between similar jobs across regions varies a great deal. In the public sector, a nurse living just outside the M25 gets paid the same as one living in rural Wales or cheaper areas of rural Dorset.

A few thoughts on the discussion so far.
Creating a unitary authority in Dorset will not save lots of money, if you consider the evidence of where this has happened elsewhere. Wiltshire is a good local example. It turned out that the then County Councils estimates of projected savings were so wildly adrift they had more in common with a work of fiction than a rational evaluation of future costs or savings. In reality the idea of unitary authorities is a concept favoured by Central Government Civil Servants as it cuts down on their workload. The benefits have having local democratic accountability should not be ignored.
The provision of a good pension to their employees should be something that every employer should aspire to . I have seen private sector employers stop providing good defined benefits pension schemes and then provide only very high risk defined contribution schemes, not because thet have to, but simply because other employers were doing it and the consultants that advised them made lots of money.
The fact is the state will have to pick up the pieces caused by a low wage low pension economy.
As for the private sector always being cheaper / more efficient , this is far from being the case. A well run local Government service can run rings around the private sector, but it does need the right people in post to to make it happen.
So how do you make the necessary savings. Here are few ideas:
One council should provide all back office functions for all the others.
Responsibility for adult social care should be transferred to the NHS and Central Government should create a new Nation Health and Social Care Service.
As soon as more than half of all schools have become independant a joint education service should be established with adjoining Local Authorities.
Central Government should ensure that Local Government has control over all locally raised taxes.
The financial problems that Local Government faces now is entirely due to Central Government centralising decision making and not permitting proper local democratic decision making to function effectively.

JamesYoung wrote:

woodsedge wrote:

heartfelt wrote: . The answer to this is "give us more money". Sounds just like my privatised utility providers Mr Young.They apply the same tactic annually, on a regular basis. come h*** or high water.

'Give us more money' I will have to tell my wife who works for DCC, incidentally at the sharp end of social care, with a degree and a Masters who has not had a ay rise for 4 years and as had her pension benefits slashed and contributions increases by a third. As for the private sector, I deal with several private company's in the defence sector who are very good at manipulating the public purse. One currently is using the tactic of having 2 managers, 2 supervisors to police 1 shift worker. This is multiplied across many, many mangers and across 24/7 shift system. Without going into further detail I see this and many other examples on a daily basis. So those that think that simply outsourcing public contracts to the private sector are frankly deluded. Still, the share holders are getting a good return!

I have a master's degree too. In 2004, i earned more than i do now in cash terms (let alone real terms). My pension scheme is nowhere near as good as your wife's, despite me paying more into it. Brown's pension raid hit me hard, and before that, the failure of Equitable Life. I can't afford to pay any more than i am paying because i also have to fund the cost of my travel to London 3 days a week - the recession, you see, has caused the total disappearance of the work that i do across the whole of the south west and i have to spend 3 days a week living in a run down Travelodge because it is too far and too expensive to commute daily. Nobody disputes that the private sector steals money from the public sector. Again, who signs the contracts? As for your wife, i expect we are actually in agreement. It would be difficult to compare her terms and conditions with similar roles in the private sector, because they don't exist. Hence, the service she provides is needed and probably best provided from the public sector. However (and i suspect we agree on this) there are multiple layers of administrators, managers, contracts managers at county hall whose terms and conditions can be compared with similar roles in the private sector in this area. It is those roles that need to be pared down to free up money to pay for the important stuff.

I used to be a civil servant and my pension contribution was exactly zero. While senior civil servants and MPs use the current super pensions and loss of office deals as other public servants there is no need for Mrs woodsedge to worry - she will still do better than almost all private sector people.

MPs actually have better Job Security than James Young but they have arranged for themselves huge payouts when they leave parliament. They have eye-wateringly good pensions too. Joe the plumber (or Freda the freelance journalist if you prefer) would have to make about £100,000 per annum to provide the £64,000 pa salary plus benefits that ordinary MPs get.

Social workers are poorly paid, but in relative terms their pensions are very good. Private sector firms and individuals must in addition to the investments contributions, pay the cost plus profit of the insurace companies that run pension schemes. This cost is largley hidden within the public sector. A progressive job (retire at 3 times starting pay in real terms) in the private sector would have to have an associated pensions contribution of about 40% of nominal pay to lead to a 50% final salary index-linked pension after 40 years. This was certainly not helped by Gordon Brown's raid on private pension fund dividends, nor is it helped by current government policies of very low bank rate and quantitative easing.

This was not the case even 30 years ago when I left the civil service.

Like James, my income declined in numerical terms every year for the last 18 years. I did post graduate rocket science at Imperial College and obtained a PhD. However, I am sure that had it not been for state comprehensive school, I would have gotten nowhere.

If you are trying to make sense of today's politics you will just get a headache. Clear principles, ethics and morals have been replaced by political self interest and worse.

It seems like every week some public sector discipline (police, firefighters, NHS etc.) stage a protest pleading that theirs is a special case and they should be immune from any forthcoming cuts..
The fact is their pensions and working conditions far exceed those of most of the 23,000,000 private sector workers who can no longer be expected to fund the retirement of the 6,000,000 strong public sector in the style they feel they are entitled to.
Everybody must take the "hit", and this
process began in the private sector a
decade ago.

echosucksballs wrote:
I used to work in the public sector, as head bog cleaner and part time prostitute at the Bournemouth Communist Party headquarters i will enjoy milking the state for money and I'm looking forward to my fat pension, the rest of you scumbags can pay for it. get a job get a job get a job

How about getting a life and some intelligence halfwit

echosucksballs wrote:
I used to work in the public sector, as head bog cleaner and part time prostitute at the Bournemouth Communist Party headquarters i will enjoy milking the state for money and I'm looking forward to my fat pension, the rest of you scumbags can pay for it. get a job get a job get a job

How about getting a life and some intelligence halfwit

So Draxula, has the answer how about cutting the 5.2m food subsidy for MP's first.

You can see the salaries of the Chief Exec and Directors for DCC here: http://www.dorsetfor
you.com/ccmt

annotator1 wrote:
Seems to me that priorities are wrong here. Why have new-build offices at a colossal cost, especially at this time.

Actually WDDC that built the offices to save money as the only Council which is in good financial health because - presumably - in part they have taken the brave decisions to invest to cut costs.

Moreover the W&P and WDDC staff have been merged. Imagine finances at W&P if that had not been done.

tackleberry wrote:
16 million to take out roundabouts and put in expensive to run trafficlights, countless millions wasted on new ivory towers. That is why there is no money left for the services that the council have a responsibility to provide. It is about time that those who make these criminally irresponsible decisions are made to pay. Why should we tax payers allways have to bare the brunt of these costly mistakes? A trustee of an organisation whould be responsable for that organisations finances, so a Councilor should be made responsable for the decisions that they make with public money. EMPTY THERE BANK ACCOUNTS they made the mistakes

Why should facts spoil a good argument?

Central Government funded the new road system for the Olympics.

The new Council Offices save money as less staff are now needed and other expensive offices are being vacated not only by WDDC but soon by DCC.

Then, of course, we get ill informed comments on the pay offs. The pay offs of course are what the person concerned is entitled to receive by their contracts which reflect nationally agreed terms. Of course, complainers forget that the Councils would pay more money out eventually is such staff reductions were not made.

But why get in the way of a good moan by considering facts.