Council partnership could face senior management shake-up (From Dorset Echo)

I wonder how much will NOT be saved by the severance payoffs for the 'reductions' and will those taking on greater responsibilities expect higher salaries thus nullifying the suggested savings?

Lots of mega payouts at our expense no doubt. Rotten to the core rings a bell!

I hear that some manager are fighting to pick up a pay off and early retirement .

The savings cant be dissmissed but in effect the residents of the two councils are getting the same level of service from the same employees.
So the question is what benefits do we get from there being two councils and what I guess is nearly 100 councillors?
If we want to talk about savings it really is time for the two councils to talk to us about merger detailing options and projected savings and the let us the voters of the two districts make the decision.
It wont happen because they dont trust us.

More to the point is that if you can reduce this number of management they weren't needed in the first place?Look out for the hefty pay-offs!

cj07589 wrote:
Lots of mega payouts at our expense no doubt. Rotten to the core rings a bell!

If you were being made unemployed would you turn away a pay-off?

satisfecho wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
Lots of mega payouts at our expense no doubt. Rotten to the core rings a bell!

If you were being made unemployed would you turn away a pay-off?

Very true that they have just given themselves a big pay increase so that their redundancy package will be even higher

And remember that as ratepayers we are paying for Them to swan off at 50 on an index linked pension

leo210856 wrote:
The savings cant be dissmissed but in effect the residents of the two councils are getting the same level of service from the same employees.
So the question is what benefits do we get from there being two councils and what I guess is nearly 100 councillors?
If we want to talk about savings it really is time for the two councils to talk to us about merger detailing options and projected savings and the let us the voters of the two districts make the decision.
It wont happen because they dont trust us.

Not because they don't trust us, but because they know that 50% of them will lose their positions anyway as when 2 become 1, there is always a lot of chaff from the old 2, so the new 2 get rid of that chaff.

Any of those executives made redundant or dismissed will no doubt get a good job elsewhere either in the private or public sector, so there should be no massive payouts in redundancy payments or over-hiked pensions from the council tax payer..

The best way for the councils to save money is to dispense with both of them and allow Dorset County Council to run the whole show. That way, we get rid of 2 parasite councils that costs the council tax payer money for basically doing nothing. As the seat of county government, and the second main tourist area in the county, Dorchester and Weymouth should consider becoming a unitary authority like Poole and Bournemouth. With a .8% increase in council tax bands this year, so much for the government saying that they will force councils to not put up the rate. .8% is not much, you may think, but with all working age people having to pay some towards this, it is quite substantial on peoples already stretched budgets. The government have done a far better job of ruining this country with their austerity cuts over such a short period than the previous government did over all their time in office. Want to argue that, well try this for size. The government austerity programme has made more people redundant or jobless, thereby increasing the amount of people claiming benefits, thereby increasing the benefits bill, something they have sworn to reduce. As the jobs are lost, there is no jobs for people to apply for, and as detailed in recent report, there are now 5 people applying for every one job in Weymouth. With the loss of jobs and the increase in the benefits bill, comes the fact that job losses cause a reduction in the revenue the government receives from income tax, plus a reduction in the amount of revenue from VAT, thereby reducing the money the treasury has available to fund things like the benefits system. The result is as follows. People get narky as they lose their jobs, the revenue to government from taxes reduces proportionately and therefore the government has to cut, cut and cut more, thereby results more job losses and the circle goes on, until such times as the people get really teed off and we have rioting and lawlessness. Also, this austerity system results in an increase in crime in all areas, whilst at the same time, reducing the ability of the police forces to police it due to cutbacks to their finances which results in less police - the result - more crime and less captures and convictions. The result is that then the people take the law into their own hands and we end up with anarchy in the UK. WELCOLM TO CONSERVATISM - STUFF THE POOR, BUT MAKE THE RICH RICHER BY HAVING THEM PAY LESS TAX WHILST WE PAY MORE - THIS MAKES US ONE WORD - PLEBS.

And I know I misspelt WELCOME - Sorry

Conservatism is about paying your way in life and helping those that can't help themselves.
Labour is all about creating jobs that do nothing and spending money they haven't got.
When will people understand the country is basically bust.

Micke12 wrote:

leo210856 wrote:
The savings cant be dissmissed but in effect the residents of the two councils are getting the same level of service from the same employees.
So the question is what benefits do we get from there being two councils and what I guess is nearly 100 councillors?
If we want to talk about savings it really is time for the two councils to talk to us about merger detailing options and projected savings and the let us the voters of the two districts make the decision.
It wont happen because they dont trust us.

Not because they don't trust us, but because they know that 50% of them will lose their positions anyway as when 2 become 1, there is always a lot of chaff from the old 2, so the new 2 get rid of that chaff.

Any of those executives made redundant or dismissed will no doubt get a good job elsewhere either in the private or public sector, so there should be no massive payouts in redundancy payments or over-hiked pensions from the council tax payer..

The best way for the councils to save money is to dispense with both of them and allow Dorset County Council to run the whole show. That way, we get rid of 2 parasite councils that costs the council tax payer money for basically doing nothing. As the seat of county government, and the second main tourist area in the county, Dorchester and Weymouth should consider becoming a unitary authority like Poole and Bournemouth. With a .8% increase in council tax bands this year, so much for the government saying that they will force councils to not put up the rate. .8% is not much, you may think, but with all working age people having to pay some towards this, it is quite substantial on peoples already stretched budgets. The government have done a far better job of ruining this country with their austerity cuts over such a short period than the previous government did over all their time in office. Want to argue that, well try this for size. The government austerity programme has made more people redundant or jobless, thereby increasing the amount of people claiming benefits, thereby increasing the benefits bill, something they have sworn to reduce. As the jobs are lost, there is no jobs for people to apply for, and as detailed in recent report, there are now 5 people applying for every one job in Weymouth. With the loss of jobs and the increase in the benefits bill, comes the fact that job losses cause a reduction in the revenue the government receives from income tax, plus a reduction in the amount of revenue from VAT, thereby reducing the money the treasury has available to fund things like the benefits system. The result is as follows. People get narky as they lose their jobs, the revenue to government from taxes reduces proportionately and therefore the government has to cut, cut and cut more, thereby results more job losses and the circle goes on, until such times as the people get really teed off and we have rioting and lawlessness. Also, this austerity system results in an increase in crime in all areas, whilst at the same time, reducing the ability of the police forces to police it due to cutbacks to their finances which results in less police - the result - more crime and less captures and convictions. The result is that then the people take the law into their own hands and we end up with anarchy in the UK. WELCOLM TO CONSERVATISM - STUFF THE POOR, BUT MAKE THE RICH RICHER BY HAVING THEM PAY LESS TAX WHILST WE PAY MORE - THIS MAKES US ONE WORD - PLEBS.

The point you miss, of course, is that with a few exceptions the rich pay more income tax anyway.
And Conservatism is no more about making the rich richer than socialism is about putting the intelligentia in Siberian gulags.

mr commonsense wrote:
Conservatism is about paying your way in life and helping those that can't help themselves.
Labour is all about creating jobs that do nothing and spending money they haven't got.
When will people understand the country is basically bust.

I don't think they ever will.
I talk to friends that work in the public sector and they believe everything their unions tell them.
"There are alternatives"
"What are they then"
"Well, we should stop austerity and start investing"
"Where will the money come from for that"
"The government"

cj07589 wrote:
Lots of mega payouts at our expense no doubt. Rotten to the core rings a bell!

Bare in mind we have NO increase in WDDC council tax again this year

Dorset Guy1 wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
Lots of mega payouts at our expense no doubt. Rotten to the core rings a bell!

Bare in mind we have NO increase in WDDC council tax again this year

Imo There shouldn't be a poll tax in the first place that's what income tax should be for.

cj07589 wrote:

Dorset Guy1 wrote:

cj07589 wrote:
Lots of mega payouts at our expense no doubt. Rotten to the core rings a bell!

Bare in mind we have NO increase in WDDC council tax again this year

Imo There shouldn't be a poll tax in the first place that's what income tax should be for.

If you sign up to the Govt Gateway you get a unique ID and password that means you can submit self assessment, check your tax details, change your driving licence, passport, etc, etc.
If the system is secure enough to do all of this it would not take too much more to allow it to be used to register votes and/or complaints. One MP as now, but no county, borough or town councillors charging expenses. This idea of local democracy is a sham, as can be seen from Robert Gould's desecration of Dorchester to avoid new housing developments in Sherborne.

JamesYoung wrote:

Micke12 wrote:

leo210856 wrote:
The savings cant be dissmissed but in effect the residents of the two councils are getting the same level of service from the same employees.
So the question is what benefits do we get from there being two councils and what I guess is nearly 100 councillors?
If we want to talk about savings it really is time for the two councils to talk to us about merger detailing options and projected savings and the let us the voters of the two districts make the decision.
It wont happen because they dont trust us.

Not because they don't trust us, but because they know that 50% of them will lose their positions anyway as when 2 become 1, there is always a lot of chaff from the old 2, so the new 2 get rid of that chaff.

Any of those executives made redundant or dismissed will no doubt get a good job elsewhere either in the private or public sector, so there should be no massive payouts in redundancy payments or over-hiked pensions from the council tax payer..

The best way for the councils to save money is to dispense with both of them and allow Dorset County Council to run the whole show. That way, we get rid of 2 parasite councils that costs the council tax payer money for basically doing nothing. As the seat of county government, and the second main tourist area in the county, Dorchester and Weymouth should consider becoming a unitary authority like Poole and Bournemouth. With a .8% increase in council tax bands this year, so much for the government saying that they will force councils to not put up the rate. .8% is not much, you may think, but with all working age people having to pay some towards this, it is quite substantial on peoples already stretched budgets. The government have done a far better job of ruining this country with their austerity cuts over such a short period than the previous government did over all their time in office. Want to argue that, well try this for size. The government austerity programme has made more people redundant or jobless, thereby increasing the amount of people claiming benefits, thereby increasing the benefits bill, something they have sworn to reduce. As the jobs are lost, there is no jobs for people to apply for, and as detailed in recent report, there are now 5 people applying for every one job in Weymouth. With the loss of jobs and the increase in the benefits bill, comes the fact that job losses cause a reduction in the revenue the government receives from income tax, plus a reduction in the amount of revenue from VAT, thereby reducing the money the treasury has available to fund things like the benefits system. The result is as follows. People get narky as they lose their jobs, the revenue to government from taxes reduces proportionately and therefore the government has to cut, cut and cut more, thereby results more job losses and the circle goes on, until such times as the people get really teed off and we have rioting and lawlessness. Also, this austerity system results in an increase in crime in all areas, whilst at the same time, reducing the ability of the police forces to police it due to cutbacks to their finances which results in less police - the result - more crime and less captures and convictions. The result is that then the people take the law into their own hands and we end up with anarchy in the UK. WELCOLM TO CONSERVATISM - STUFF THE POOR, BUT MAKE THE RICH RICHER BY HAVING THEM PAY LESS TAX WHILST WE PAY MORE - THIS MAKES US ONE WORD - PLEBS.

The point you miss, of course, is that with a few exceptions the rich pay more income tax anyway.
And Conservatism is no more about making the rich richer than socialism is about putting the intelligentia in Siberian gulags.

The point you seem to miss, James, my good friend, is that the rich have the ability to pay an accountant to move their taxable money to other places, or sometimes just a different account which is exempt from Income tax. Whether they actually pay more is yet to be determined as it is nigh on impossible to prove what these rich people pay in taxes on the whole of their income, not just that little bit they declare for the sake of looking good. When you get Conservative politicians who are also advising the rich where to salt away their money so that the revenue only gets part of it is making a mockery out of the tax system and the people who administer it.

I suspect that if you correlate the amount of Income tax that the rich people pay to the exchequer against the total taken from the less well off 60% or so, you will find that the amount that the rich pay is a lot less than the total of the less well off pay to the taxman. If I was a sceptic, I would suspect that you are a conservative voter, and that is why you defend them so much.

It is fact that the more you make cuts to jobs and services, you reduce the tax take off for the government , both in PAYE and VAT the less money there is to spend on the things that are essential to the great majority of the electorate, such as police, fire and ambulance services, along with council services. The more you cut, along all of these departments, the less effective they will become as they will be unable to update their IT systems and essential vehicles, along with the fact that quite a few will be made redundant or have their duty hours decreased, thereby decreasing their wages. This applies to all sections of the economy, form service to manufacturing, and from public and private sector. These redundancies result in less money coming n to the treasury and more money going out in benefits, both social and housing, which can include payment of the majority of the rent, and in some cases the money to cover the mortgage interest payable on a mortgage.

So there you have it, more people out of work, more money spent on benefits whilst the exchequer receives less income from taxes, and as I said before, this also applies to taxes such as VAT. If people are not buying things in the shops as they have no spare income, then the shops lose trade and then have to close as well, making more people unemployed and all this brings about less income from taxes than would be there if this had not happened.

Never before has the UK lost it's AAA rating with Moodys Credit Rating Agency, never before have we been led into a double, maybe triple dip recession by a new government taking power from the incumbent government.

No, we don't want the Socialists back in power making non-jobs and spending what we don't have, but we do want a government that has the balls to spend money where needed to re-inflate the economy. Cameron and Clegg have shown they don't have those balls, they cannot even get a grip over the big bonuses banks are giving their directors. labour would just spend and spend as before creating non-jobs and wasting every penny we have and dropping us into even greater debt and recession.

But I ask you James, do you think this coalition government has taken too much from the country in too shorter time scale. 60% cutbacks within 3 years. Would they not have been better to say to the people that we need two terms in office, with moderate austerity of say 8% reduction per year in government spending. that would reduce, although perhaps not totally eradicate the necessity for making people unemployed, giving both the private and public sectors a chance to revive the local economy slowly without chopping off half the workforce.

What would you do, James if you were the government.

And yes, Conservatives have a lot less to lose than we do, as they are already mostly millionaires in their own right and yes, they do employ accountants to reduce their tax burden through whilst maybe not criminal methods, methods that are not very moral.

Micke12, methinks you protest too much!It's not a secret that the poorest people in the country pay a disproportionate amount of tax! The whole tax system needs to be overhauled but it isn,t going to happen! The original article was about a shake-up in senior management in WPBC and WDDC where for too long we've had too many people doing not enough work! The time has come when these people are being found out for how incompetent they are! You state that the people being made redundant will move to other jobs in the public or private sector.Really?Who would employ them?Too many Local Authority managers are over-staffed,over-pa
id and under-worked and that is the crux of this shake-up!

You said:
I suspect that if you correlate the amount of Income tax that the rich people pay to the exchequer against the total taken from the less well off 60% or so, you will find that the amount that the rich pay is a lot less than the total of the less well off pay to the taxman.

JY> “Suspect” is not really a great basis for a discussion. The facts are that the top 1% of earners pay 25% of all the income tax taken by the Treasury.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Income_in_t
he_United_Kingdom

You said
If I was a sceptic, I would suspect that you are a conservative voter, and that is why you defend them so much.

JY> You’d be right, but if you took the trouble to read my arguments, you’d realize two things. Firstly, I vote Conservative only because the LibDems are a disaster and because Labour have bankrupted the country. I think party politics are a disaster. Secondly, I believe in redistribution of wealth, but I also believe in the importance of individual enterprise. Baying for more money from the rich risks driving them offshore and then where would we be?

You said:
It is fact that the more you make cuts to jobs and services, you reduce the tax take off for the government , both in PAYE and VAT the less money there is to spend on the things that are essential to the great majority of the electorate, such as police, fire and ambulance services, along with council services.

JY> Incorrect. The govt takes £50 off me in tax. It pays £50 to the public sector worker. The public sector worker pays £10 in tax. Does the government now have £60 in tax? No, it does not. In economic terms, you could sack all of those public sector workers and pay them benefits instead. Obviously the country would collapse if you did, but the point is, demanding efficiency from the public sector, making cuts to unnecessary areas of expenditure and sacking people does not in itself reduce the tax take. Sure, it moves that money from paying for employment to paying for unemployment. However, longer term, it creates a smaller public sector and a platform for growth.

You said:
This applies to all sections of the economy, form service to manufacturing, and from public and private sector. These redundancies result in less money coming n to the treasury and more money going out in benefits, both social and housing, which can include payment of the majority of the rent, and in some cases the money to cover the mortgage interest payable on a mortgage.

JY> Incorrect. Only the private sector creates tax revenues. Therefore, sacking public sector workers makes no difference to the taxes coming in. It just changes the way they are spent.

So there you have it, more people out of work, more money spent on benefits whilst the exchequer receives less income from taxes, and as I said before, this also applies to taxes such as VAT. If people are not buying things in the shops as they have no spare income, then the shops lose trade and then have to close as well, making more people unemployed and all this brings about less income from taxes than would be there if this had not happened.

JY> Incorrect. For reasons already outlined.

Never before has the UK lost it's AAA rating with Moodys Credit Rating Agency, never before have we been led into a double, maybe triple dip recession by a new government taking power from the incumbent government.

JY> Incorrect. The same thing happened in 1978 – under a Labour government. Two years prior to that, incidentally, we needed a bail out from the IMF.

No, we don't want the Socialists back in power making non-jobs and spending what we don't have, but we do want a government that has the balls to spend money where needed to re-inflate the economy. Cameron and Clegg have shown they don't have those balls, they cannot even get a grip over the big bonuses banks are giving their directors. labour would just spend and spend as before creating non-jobs and wasting every penny we have and dropping us into even greater debt and recession.

JY> “Spend money”. Given that money can only come from three places, where do you propose we get it from?
Option 1: Tax people more!
Our interest alone is £44bn a year. If we double the tax paid by the top 10% of earners (that is everybody on more than £49000 a year, which means that for most people, the tax they’d pay would be 80%+), we’d just about cover the interest. But then we are adding another £70bn a year to the debt pile so it will make little impact on that, let alone the £1,700bn that we will owe by 2015.
Option 2: Borrow it!
We already owe more than all nations other than Ireland and Japan. Both are in dire straits (50% property crash in Ireland, 20 year recession in Japan). You can see what the markets think of this strategy by looking at Greece.
Option 3: Print it.
When you print money you dilute the value of the currency and, in particular, the assets of the people that have loaned to you. What do you think will happen when we do too much of this? That aside, printing money leads to inflation.
So…where is all this investment coming from?
The only answer is this: we need everybody who is claiming benefits to work to the value of those benefits. Building roads, helping care for our elderly, filling the gaps that have opened up. But nobody wants that, do they?


But I ask you James, do you think this coalition government has taken too much from the country in too shorter time scale. 60% cutbacks within 3 years. Would they not have been better to say to the people that we need two terms in office, with moderate austerity of say 8% reduction per year in government spending. that would reduce, although perhaps not totally eradicate the necessity for making people unemployed, giving both the private and public sectors a chance to revive the local economy slowly without chopping off half the workforce.
JY> I think we need a government that is in power for a generation, but that’s not the way that this so called democracy works, is it? But the argument you put forward is flawed because it doesn’t take account of the amount of debt that the country is getting into. Labour crow about Tory cuts, but by 2015, the Tories will have added £700bn to the national debt in spite of all these cuts (and no, its not because public sector workers are unemployed, for reasons I explained earlier – ie, all tax wealth flows from the private sector).


What would you do, James if you were the government.
JY> I’ve told you this on a previous post. I would not have bailed out the banks. I would have not have printed money. I would have allowed house prices to fall. This would have allowed the economic cycle to complete, rather than trying to perpetuate an asset bubble that is pushing up inflation, putting sterling at risk and creating exactly the conditions that led to the Greek collapse. And I would have sacked precisely 600,000 people from the public sector. We added 800,000 between 1997 and now, and population growth was half that. That measure alone would save £15bn a year.

You said: And yes, Conservatives have a lot less to lose than we do, as they are already mostly millionaires in their own right and yes, they do employ accountants to reduce their tax burden through whilst maybe not criminal methods, methods that are not very moral.

JY: Alan Sugar is a millionaire. He is also a staunch Labour supporter. Ed and David Milliband inherited a few million from their father (incidentally avoiding a 6 figure inheritance tax bill in the process). Harriet Harman is a millionaire. Ed Balls is widely believed to be a millionaire. Tony Blair is a millionaire. Gordon Brown is very probably a millionaire. Point being: the whole lot of them are on the take.
As for methods that are “not very moral”, are they any less moral than the local plumber? My point is simply this: whether you choose to accept it or not, the rich pay more in than they will take out.

Von Karajan wrote:
Micke12, methinks you protest too much!It's not a secret that the poorest people in the country pay a disproportionate amount of tax! The whole tax system needs to be overhauled but it isn,t going to happen! The original article was about a shake-up in senior management in WPBC and WDDC where for too long we've had too many people doing not enough work! The time has come when these people are being found out for how incompetent they are! You state that the people being made redundant will move to other jobs in the public or private sector.Really?Who would employ them?Too many Local Authority managers are over-staffed,over-pa

id and under-worked and that is the crux of this shake-up!

I have to say that my view changed on this. A while ago there was a documentary where several redundant public sector managers were interviewed for private sector jobs. I didn't expect them to last five minutes, but they accepted the change and got on with it. I'm sure there are some people who are too institutionalised, but i have to say my view changed completely after watching this.

Agree,James. There are some hard-working and conscientious managers but they never get to the top of the tree!I've worked for many Local authorities in the South of England and it seems the higher the management the more PC and inept they become!The Peter Principle perhaps? And another thing, have you tried to get hold of one of these 'top' managers at 3pm on a Friday? Don't bother!

Von Karajan wrote:
Agree,James. There are some hard-working and conscientious managers but they never get to the top of the tree!I've worked for many Local authorities in the South of England and it seems the higher the management the more PC and inept they become!The Peter Principle perhaps? And another thing, have you tried to get hold of one of these 'top' managers at 3pm on a Friday? Don't bother!

Yes, flexi time basically means no service after 3pm on a Friday and 4.30pm the rest of the week. In an era when you can call BT, the electricity people or your insurance company at 8pm, they are not keeping pace.

I've got to get an easy life job at the council, clearly life is much greener on the public sector side. Generous index linked underwritten pensions, limited week working hours, yearly inflation linked payrises, limited pressure, no responsibility or accountability where do I sign up please?????

And you can't be sacked! It's a joke and I talk from experience!

Micke12 wrote:

leo210856 wrote:
The savings cant be dissmissed but in effect the residents of the two councils are getting the same level of service from the same employees.
So the question is what benefits do we get from there being two councils and what I guess is nearly 100 councillors?
If we want to talk about savings it really is time for the two councils to talk to us about merger detailing options and projected savings and the let us the voters of the two districts make the decision.
It wont happen because they dont trust us.

Not because they don't trust us, but because they know that 50% of them will lose their positions anyway as when 2 become 1, there is always a lot of chaff from the old 2, so the new 2 get rid of that chaff.

Any of those executives made redundant or dismissed will no doubt get a good job elsewhere either in the private or public sector, so there should be no massive payouts in redundancy payments or over-hiked pensions from the council tax payer..

The best way for the councils to save money is to dispense with both of them and allow Dorset County Council to run the whole show. That way, we get rid of 2 parasite councils that costs the council tax payer money for basically doing nothing. As the seat of county government, and the second main tourist area in the county, Dorchester and Weymouth should consider becoming a unitary authority like Poole and Bournemouth. With a .8% increase in council tax bands this year, so much for the government saying that they will force councils to not put up the rate. .8% is not much, you may think, but with all working age people having to pay some towards this, it is quite substantial on peoples already stretched budgets. The government have done a far better job of ruining this country with their austerity cuts over such a short period than the previous government did over all their time in office. Want to argue that, well try this for size. The government austerity programme has made more people redundant or jobless, thereby increasing the amount of people claiming benefits, thereby increasing the benefits bill, something they have sworn to reduce. As the jobs are lost, there is no jobs for people to apply for, and as detailed in recent report, there are now 5 people applying for every one job in Weymouth. With the loss of jobs and the increase in the benefits bill, comes the fact that job losses cause a reduction in the revenue the government receives from income tax, plus a reduction in the amount of revenue from VAT, thereby reducing the money the treasury has available to fund things like the benefits system. The result is as follows. People get narky as they lose their jobs, the revenue to government from taxes reduces proportionately and therefore the government has to cut, cut and cut more, thereby results more job losses and the circle goes on, until such times as the people get really teed off and we have rioting and lawlessness. Also, this austerity system results in an increase in crime in all areas, whilst at the same time, reducing the ability of the police forces to police it due to cutbacks to their finances which results in less police - the result - more crime and less captures and convictions. The result is that then the people take the law into their own hands and we end up with anarchy in the UK. WELCOLM TO CONSERVATISM - STUFF THE POOR, BUT MAKE THE RICH RICHER BY HAVING THEM PAY LESS TAX WHILST WE PAY MORE - THIS MAKES US ONE WORD - PLEBS.

Micke12 you said ... "The government austerity programme has made more people redundant or jobless, thereby increasing the amount of people claiming benefits, thereby increasing the benefits bill, something they have sworn to reduce" and also "Also, this austerity system results in an increase in crime in all areas, whilst at the same time, reducing the ability of the police forces to police it due to cutbacks to their finances which results in less police - the result - more crime and less captures and convictions."

I don't know where you get your figures from or if you just spout the clap trap that comes out of Ed Balls mouth but if you actually check there are MORE people in work now than ever before, I admit the jobs are not paying as much and also the crime rate is DOWN in every category. So whilst I appreciate your ideological standpoint please don't lie, leave that to the politicians.

Get rid of them all! Waste of money and lack of common sense

A few corrections to the many falsehoods above from a Council spokesperson would help.

At least one poster above states staff will get early retirement at 50. I think it is (a) 55 and (b) only if the that option for paying off is either cheaper than alternatives or a case for redundancy not possible.

Much of what is wrong in the public sector arises from current or past political policies not actions by staff dealing with what they're given. Biggest example locally of that is why WPBC and WDC came to exist as separate entities in the first place - only politicians would have kept estate splitting boundaries in 1974 such as those in west Weymouth and a two-tier structure. From a business case viewpoint any manager would have abolished the Weymouth enclave years ago, but it wouldn't get public support and even where mergers did occur such as merging Portland and Weymouth traditional enmities have not exactly lead to a harmonious relationship over the last 39 years.

Nb in case of confusion with the words above that was a request for an official statement not one by me.