Council to ask Wirral public how it should cut £100m from services (From Wirral Globe)

Get rid of half the Councillors first, Get rid of more senior stupid managers and stop paying consultants to do the job that you idiots cannot seem to do.

"We’ve had poor budget management in the past" - which was absolutely nothing to do with you, was it, Phil?

Your Labour group, with you a senior member of it, has been setting the budget for the last 20 years - bar one.

No doubt more ludicrous trips to Shanghai for your mates are essential spending, while emptying the bins and keeping the libraries open will not be.

Sad to see these councillors not being challenged.

Well last night's Cabinet resolution by Cllr Phil Davies "sacked" the political assistants to the Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative Council Groups (who were to be honest doing the work of councillors, without the accountability councillors have to the public).

We have very few councillors (about one per ~3,000 people) as it is. Any less than the sixty-six and what are you going to do if large numbers of them go on holiday or in hospital long-term?

Democracy does need to change on the Wirral, but my personal view is we need a tier of community councils (say covering a population of ~2,500) separate to Wirral Council to deal with extremely local issues (allotments etc) with precepting powers to raise money similar to the police, fire and Wirral Council. One can but dream though. :)

WirralAl wrote:
Get rid of half the Councillors first, Get rid of more senior stupid managers and stop paying consultants to do the job that you idiots cannot seem to do.

Only half? why do wards need 3 representatives? Consultants-definite
ly, get rid of them,the last refuge of thieves and vagabonds. A consultant borrows your watch and tells you the time and charges you for the privilege!

johnbrace: If you truly believe that Wirral councillors have any direct accountability to local residents, you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. (Sorry if that sounds harsh, by the way).

It's people like you, with your Freedom of Information requests and informative blogs, and regular posters to this site who have tried to hold a mirror up to local councillors, regrettably to little if any effect.

And don't tell me that they are accountable to the electorate at election time. Our 'elected members' pick and choose which issues they present to the voters - they dodge the embarrassing ones and use 'dog-whistle' tactics wherever possible.

A challenging press would help, but it seems to me that party-generated press releases are too easily accepted at face value with little or no checking. It's often the tail wagging the dog where local political spin-doctors and the media are concerned.

As we are all in it together, and the council is looking for massive cuts, why not start closer to home and cut councillor's allowances by a modest 25% for the next three years?

They are going to ask the public!!!! The mind boggles. Get rid of the overpaid do nothings. Get rid of the diversity advice committees, get rid of the racial awareness committees, get rid of the city planners who obviously do nothing, get rid of the hundred or so H&S advisory staff, get rid of the personal assistants to many people who never need one, get rid of the waste of money on road projects that are scrapped two years later, turn the heating off in the Job centres in case Abdul gets cold. Stop paying well over the odds for so called privatised council services that were run cheaper beforehand. AND get rid of jobs for the boys.

AND CHANGE YOUR VOTE

Once again I will trot out a perfectly good working plan for some real democracy in Wirral.

Divide Wirral into 6 Districts each with about 50,000 resident covering all the socio and economic spectrum of our communities.

Each District elect Three Councilors (maximum) or peoples Representatives, whatever title is appropiate.

The whole of the Wirral Population elects a Leader or "Mayor", again whatever title, Plus a "Deputy Mayor"
To the Leader.

This gives us a total cabinet of 20 Representetives chosen by the electorate, irrespective of Party Politics.

The Leader and Deputy to have full executive powers, with Cabinet, are charged with the remit to reduce the total cost of Wirral Borough Council, including All Pay and Conditions, Pensions etc, whilst providing the necessary services and amenities required for the Wirral Population.

These 20 top level population representatives fully supported by the rate and tax payers of Wirral with no Party Political Representation in any shape or form.

Reducing the present useless 66 Councilor parasites to an fully elected cabinet of 20 capable individuals will save over one million pounds each and every year.

If anybody wants any sort of Political Party Representative in any role they must be fully suported by the political party and its members, not the rate and tax payers in the community, No Exceptions.

This means the elected cabinet works fully for and exclusively on behalf of the electorate and for the people of Wirral.

The whole cabinet elected for a five year period with a robust individual recall system under the control of the electorate, in the event of any duty failure, scandal, death, or eventuality that may arise.

That will be fully accountable democratic local government that the population of Wirral desire and deserve.

@Ben Beaconsfield

Thanks for your feedback. You are right that a vote (usually every four years) in which councillors only need to get ~40% to win on shockingly low turnouts is not the kind of "accountability" I meant.

Effectively once they are elected, the public's voice is exercised through the other councillors acting as checks and balances on each other.

"Our 'elected members' pick and choose which issues they present to the voters - they dodge the embarrassing ones and use 'dog-whistle' tactics wherever possible. "

True, but at election time, there are strict spending limits to prevent a candidate merely buying an election. The fact of the matter though is that they only apply in the month or so before polling day so the other eleven months of the year, their party (assuming access to funds) can engage in the "dog whistle" type politics you refer to.

As to the "informative blog", thanks for the compliment, your point about the challenging press does intrigue me. For a whole variety of reasons (the media as an industry has shrunk recently) I and others can't be as challenging as we'd like to be (yes I know that sounds cowardly but I'll explain why). We're all trained to observe and report and to a certain extent leave biases and personal judgement out of it otherwise it veers into an opinion piece. If the public truly knew exactly what went on it would (I'll give the public inquiry into libraries and the Social Services overcharging as two examples) damage their trust in democracy and the political process. Although I don't have any direct commercial relationship with Wirral Council, the print newspapers do carry adverts from them (ranging from public notices) and the way the industry is at the moment couldn't afford to lose out, if it was switched to a rival. It's a fine line regarding judgement (usually exercised by editors) as to how harsh you are on an organisation you're reporting on.

Finally on your point on councillor's allowances, there's a report from the "Independent Panel" on that very point, which you can read here http://www.whatdothe
yknow.com/request/12
6936/response/307655
/attach/html/2/Indep
endent%20panel.doc.h
tml . Yes, councillors effectively set their own allowances as part of the Budget, however they tend to follow the recommendation of the "independent panel" with slight variations. Hope that helps!

I think maybe Hugo2009 makes a good point, why do we who do not support any Political Party have to pay for any Councilor who does not represent the views of the local population.

6 Districts could be made to cover all the various Social, Religious, Ethnic Economical, and Minority people in our Communities without any particular Party Political Bias.

This would certainly be a fairer system than we have now.

Public consultation - what for? WBC will go through the motions and then do what they intended anyway.

Whatever happened to making strategic decisions based on available resources and being open and honest with the people of Wirral?.

That's what Councillors were voted to do - not to co-ordinate an undemocratic,loaded "consultation" which enables them to say "we're only doing what you told us to do" when it comes to unpopular decisions.

A complete cop-out and abdication of responsibility unless of course they consult us on everything - Wirral Waters,whistleblower
s,Freedom of the Borough,pay-offs,app
ointments,disciplina
ries,
promotions,stationar
y orders (no post-it notes!),room bookings,child protection,parking fees,expenses,car allowances,colour of home help uniforms,planning applications,housing allocations,tenders and contract monitoring etc;

As the government has decided to throw planning laws out of the window, why do we need a Planning Department?

And if we do need that kind of service, why can't it be outsourced?

(This is not a knee-jerk reaction, by the way. I was asking the paragraph 2 question as long ago as 1983).

I think the phrase Rome wasn't built in a day applies here. Obviously there is an element of trust required but the signs are promising. A new chief executive is a good move but most importantly one who has worked elsewhere not just appointed from within. A commitment from politicians to be open about the financial pressures is pleasing to see. Of course, people will have suggestions on political structures so this may be a debate going forward but at least we are having a debate whereas in the past people felt they were being consulted after the horse had bolted. Im interested in the comment about councillor numbers - an I'll informed knee jerk reaction is the cut lots of them but this merely creates a democratic deficit. The key is to engage with communities to get fresh blood coming through into local government politics as a way of tackling vested interests. Maybe then we'll all have more confidence in the system - takes time though.

Some typos in that entry sorry - can't get used to my new phone!

WirralAl wrote:
Get rid of half the Councillors first, Get rid of more senior stupid managers and stop paying consultants to do the job that you idiots cannot seem to do.

This is the type of I'll informed comment I referred to - less councillors means less access to democracy for the public and less scrutiny of decision making. drastic cuts to senior officers results in a council with no strategy driving it forward merely concentrating on the day to day - this is disastrous for long term financial planning and prevents any serious attempt at transformation which subsequently impacts on the operational capabilities. I don't work in local government but have first hand knowledge of when organisations fail and it is through two reasons - political instability and interference in the day to day running of an organisation or excessive trimming to its strategic capability resulting in lack of forward planning.

saraharrowsmith wrote:
I think the phrase Rome wasn't built in a day applies here. Obviously there is an element of trust required but the signs are promising. A new chief executive is a good move but most importantly one who has worked elsewhere not just appointed from within. A commitment from politicians to be open about the financial pressures is pleasing to see. Of course, people will have suggestions on political structures so this may be a debate going forward but at least we are having a debate whereas in the past people felt they were being consulted after the horse had bolted. Im interested in the comment about councillor numbers - an I'll informed knee jerk reaction is the cut lots of them but this merely creates a democratic deficit. The key is to engage with communities to get fresh blood coming through into local government politics as a way of tackling vested interests. Maybe then we'll all have more confidence in the system - takes time though.

There's a lot of reasonable common sense in this posting, and I'm sure we all look forward to further contributions from saraharrowsmith.

However (that word is my hallmark, s.a.), political organisations tend not to like fresh blood, at least not when the newcomers become a threat to the existing hierarchy. It's all right if they are prepared to be used as cannon-fodder, delivering leaflets, manning call centres and so on, but when they become a challenge to those who pull the strings of power, it often ends in tears.

Perhaps sack the 11 staff who are currently suspended for not doing what they where piad for, switch off non essenti
al lighting on all council owned buildings,
reduce the number of councillors,
cut back on the number of staff just walking round with a file under ther arm as seen in a lot of council offices,
cancel all training courses away from the wirral,
close all council office canteens,
charge council workers to use the council car parks,if they dont need a car for work duties,
turn the heating down or off, lots of windows open on cold days

Switch street lights of on bypases and dual carrigeways after 10.00pm

Sell off redundant buil dingos.

Tell you what Phil...In the interests of transparency... and before we even start to advise you how to do your job (for free)... then we're going to need a full and comprehensive of ALL spending. From right up in the millions on gods knows what and right down to what you're currently paying for bog roll.
...
Then...and ONLY then....should you even *think* about having the hardfaced cheek to patronise voters into letting you know what little they'd like to be allowed back out of the millions they've handed over of their hard-earned cash.
...
7 million saved by freezing "non-essential" spending . Unbelievable. We shouldn't be paying a single penny for anything beyond "essential" and certainly not so much over that you lot can p*ss it up the wall.
...
Oh and you can send that list to The Globe. I'm sure they'd be only too happy to print it...

Oh, come on now ... it's not rocket science. Put the councillors back on basic expenses and make them do the job for the love of the Borough and its people ... it is NOT a career. Also make them accountable for every single penny they spend too.

Ben Beaconsfield wrote:

saraharrowsmith wrote:
I think the phrase Rome wasn't built in a day applies here. Obviously there is an element of trust required but the signs are promising. A new chief executive is a good move but most importantly one who has worked elsewhere not just appointed from within. A commitment from politicians to be open about the financial pressures is pleasing to see. Of course, people will have suggestions on political structures so this may be a debate going forward but at least we are having a debate whereas in the past people felt they were being consulted after the horse had bolted. Im interested in the comment about councillor numbers - an I'll informed knee jerk reaction is the cut lots of them but this merely creates a democratic deficit. The key is to engage with communities to get fresh blood coming through into local government politics as a way of tackling vested interests. Maybe then we'll all have more confidence in the system - takes time though.

There's a lot of reasonable common sense in this posting, and I'm sure we all look forward to further contributions from saraharrowsmith.

However (that word is my hallmark, s.a.), political organisations tend not to like fresh blood, at least not when the newcomers become a threat to the existing hierarchy. It's all right if they are prepared to be used as cannon-fodder, delivering leaflets, manning call centres and so on, but when they become a challenge to those who pull the strings of power, it often ends in tears.

Oh Ben, I do like your comments! You are quite right when you talk about newcomers being only fit for delivering leaflets, cannon-fodder etc. BUT one day, someone will walk onto the stage and take over. We have to believe that. What we have now CANNOT be all we'll ever have!!!

MX wrote:
Whatever happened to making strategic decisions based on available resources and being open and honest with the people of Wirral?.

That's what Councillors were voted to do - not to co-ordinate an undemocratic,loaded "consultation" which enables them to say "we're only doing what you told us to do" when it comes to unpopular decisions.

A complete cop-out and abdication of responsibility unless of course they consult us on everything - Wirral Waters,whistleblower

s,Freedom of the Borough,pay-offs,app

ointments,disciplina

ries,
promotions,stationar

y orders (no post-it notes!),room bookings,child protection,parking fees,expenses,car allowances,colour of home help uniforms,planning applications,housing allocations,tenders and contract monitoring etc;

I totally agree MX. What a cop out! If the Your Wirral consultation was anything to go by then it's gonna be another whitewash. What will they do if the public ask them to make cuts they don't like? Also, you can't keep cutting staff or there will be none left. You can't cut £100m and not miss it, can you.

saraharrowsmith wrote:

WirralAl wrote:
Get rid of half the Councillors first, Get rid of more senior stupid managers and stop paying consultants to do the job that you idiots cannot seem to do.

This is the type of I'll informed comment I referred to - less councillors means less access to democracy for the public and less scrutiny of decision making. drastic cuts to senior officers results in a council with no strategy driving it forward merely concentrating on the day to day - this is disastrous for long term financial planning and prevents any serious attempt at transformation which subsequently impacts on the operational capabilities. I don't work in local government but have first hand knowledge of when organisations fail and it is through two reasons - political instability and interference in the day to day running of an organisation or excessive trimming to its strategic capability resulting in lack of forward planning.

Umm, me thinks we have a new valued contributor! I agree with your point of view but also know that the Council continues to use consultants to do the job of staff who have left on early severance/ retirement and don't feel this is the best use of Council resources.

So the consultation papers/online form has been released, but on another front apparently there arew to be 3 new Strategic Director posts rubber stamped in an up and coming cabinet meeting who will report to Mr Burgess directly. Talk about jobs for the boys

If my memory serves me right, when the Tories did a public consultation some time ago, didn't the Labour faction in the Council call it a white-wash?

Selective amnesia is a very useful get-out card when the aim to confuse the public is the objective of the exercise.

Presumably decisions on what can feasibly be cut requires a full understanding of all the council's operations and legal obligations.

Quite how the public will have that knowledge I don't know.

However, it would certainly get things off to a good start if councillors were cut to one per ward, and allowances were halved - though I guess even those changes would require a change in the law.

David Scott wrote:
Presumably decisions on what can feasibly be cut requires a full understanding of all the council's operations and legal obligations.

Quite how the public will have that knowledge I don't know.

However, it would certainly get things off to a good start if councillors were cut to one per ward, and allowances were halved - though I guess even those changes would require a change in the law.

Well said, David Scott. It's about time for a bit of self-sacrifice on the part of our 'elected members'.

LocaLGovwatcher wrote:
If my memory serves me right, when the Tories did a public consultation some time ago, didn't the Labour faction in the Council call it a white-wash?

Selective amnesia is a very useful get-out card when the aim to confuse the public is the objective of the exercise.

Yes indeed. That was a shambles and this one will be too. The last consultation had 5,000 responses out of a population of 315,000 and Labour slaughtered it. Now they are doing the same! It's just a cop out. Lose a load of senior and middle managers and keep the doers who earn "normal" salaries and make a difference for the people of Wirral.

Council officer says: "Lose a load of senior and middle managers and keep the doers who earn "normal" salaries and make a difference for the people of Wirral."

Let's put this in perspective. How many do we want to lose? 100 senior and middle managers? - that's a lot by any standards. At an average of, say, £50,000 a year plus add-ons of 50%, that's cutting £7.5 million - but reductions of nearer £100 million are apparently required.

We need to recognise that £100 million is a very significant figure indeed and deserves less of a knee-jerk reaction (as much a reference to my 'cut councillor's allowances by 25%' as to any call to cut Council managerial posts) and more of a complete re-assessment of what local government can or cannot deliver in the future in Wirral.

This needs some calm, blue-sky thinking and needs to take be matched to other things coming out of the Westminster hot-house, including the proposed loosening of planning restrictions, reduction in red tape for local businesses and other organisations and an overhaul of the way in which housing benefit will be provided.

Tory leader Cllr Jeff Green promises to support the Wirral's ruling Labour administration in making the necessary changes, and presumably the Lib Dems feel the same way. Surely now more than ever before is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their council rather than their party.

I wonder if Peter Timmins is related to Keiron Timmins? KT is the Chief Financial Officer of Merseyside Fire Service; a man who, along with other civvies received cursory training in firefighting to enable him to strike break and ride on fire engines during the industrial action of 2006, allegedly earning handsome payments of overtime in return. Admirable commitment to public service values indeed.
Where are the councillors with guts, who instead of bowing down in the face of government cuts are chaining themselves to the railings in Whitehall and demanding a Coalition rethink? When did becoming a councillor turn into a career choice, instead of an opportunity to serve one's constituents to the best of one's ability?

Ben Beaconsfield wrote:
Council officer says: "Lose a load of senior and middle managers and keep the doers who earn "normal" salaries and make a difference for the people of Wirral."

Let's put this in perspective. How many do we want to lose? 100 senior and middle managers? - that's a lot by any standards. At an average of, say, £50,000 a year plus add-ons of 50%, that's cutting £7.5 million - but reductions of nearer £100 million are apparently required.

We need to recognise that £100 million is a very significant figure indeed and deserves less of a knee-jerk reaction (as much a reference to my 'cut councillor's allowances by 25%' as to any call to cut Council managerial posts) and more of a complete re-assessment of what local government can or cannot deliver in the future in Wirral.

This needs some calm, blue-sky thinking and needs to take be matched to other things coming out of the Westminster hot-house, including the proposed loosening of planning restrictions, reduction in red tape for local businesses and other organisations and an overhaul of the way in which housing benefit will be provided.

Tory leader Cllr Jeff Green promises to support the Wirral's ruling Labour administration in making the necessary changes, and presumably the Lib Dems feel the same way. Surely now more than ever before is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their council rather than their party.

Ben, £7.5m per year is a good start out of £33m. Then we can start thinking more creatively. Start with some quick wins where you can get them then move forward to the more difficult challenges. Simples :-)

The only thing that will be needed and has always been needed to solve any problem is Complete Honesty and totally transparent Transactions.

Something we have not recieved from Wirral Council Management, especially at the most senior levels.

The Labour adminstration control of WBC has been woefully inadequate for most of the last 20 Years, and any attempt at coalition between all the Political Parties has been at best disgraceful.

WBC and all its inadequate 66 Councillors will stumble from crisis to crisis, with the occasional foray into even deeper scandal and further crisis, until we the electorate remove all traces of Party Politics from Local Government.

There is a very good reason that no ballot paper ever has a tick box that says (NONE of THE ABOVE) otherwise I believe 99% of the population would without hestation tick that box.

That's not necessarily so, Hugo2009. There are two parties (UKIP and Green) plus independent candidates who are not so far tainted by town hall politics and who voters might think worthy of support against the 'big three'.

UKIP contested every seat last May and came second in one and third in a good number of others. The Green candidate in Birkenhead Ward came within a few hundred votes of winning the seat from Labour.

Ben Beaconsfield:

Thanks for your responce, I still believe that any candidate standing for Council Office must convince the electorate that they if elected will work in a way that all their actions in every case will be first and formost to the benefit of the population they represent and not any Party Political Dogma.

They must promise and sign an agreement that regardless of any rules and regulations they will stand down completely from any position if the people in the ward they represent by a significant number sign a petition to that efect.

That way the electorate will have the final decision at all times, that it is their wishes that will be carried out at a local level regardless of Party Politics.

Eventually we will get to a stage where all party politics are removed from local government, and our local Authority is run in a truly professional manner by peole of integrity with clean, open, honest, and fair transparency. As it should be.

This is not pie in the sky. it is true democratic governance and can be attained.

What we have now is corruption that leads to complacency and apathy.