What We Told Them

You might have heard that there's a bit of an issue with cuts to NCC's budget coming up. Depending on who you believe, NCC's central government funding has been cut by either 8.9% (government version) or 16.5% (NCC version). The latter is probably nearer the reality because government figures refer to changes in 'spending power' which includes funding from the NHS and other sources.

As the Guardian wrote last week, the story is even less clear when we look at specific services like Supporting People. NCC says it's the government that has cuts Nottingham's budget, the government says the real figure is something like 10%. However, as SP central funding is no longer ring fenced NCC is not obliged to pass on the alleged cut wholesale which it seems to be trying to imply. It is NCC that has decided that SP projects will see the full 45% cut while protecting funding for Community Protection Officers and Childrens Centres.

This decision not to make any cuts to the CPO budget has been sold to us on the basis that we told NCC that we didn't want them to be cut in the answer to their surveys. I was a little sceptical about this because NCC doesn't have a particularly happy history of carrying out consultations fairly. Well, now we can see what they mean because the results of the budget consultations have been published.

So the headline findings of the first survey are summed up in this short extract -


"For each service a mean average has been calculated out of 5. The top 5 services rated most important by respondents are:

1. Tackling crime and anti social behaviour (4.3 out of 5)

2. Refuse collection (4.2 out of 5)

3. Services for elderly and vulnerable people (4.2 out of 5)

4. Child protection (4.1 out of 5)

5. Public transport (4.0 out of 5)"

So yes,  'tackling crime and antisocial behaviour' did get the highest average rating of 4.3/5 which I suppose does support retaining all funding for CPOs theoretically. But 'services for disabled and vulnerable' scored 4.2, a mere 0.1 percentage points less yet Supporting People gets a 45% cut. How does NCC square that?

The fact is that you could probably make a pretty convincing case for protecting just about any council service you care to pick so surely no one service should be immune to seeing cuts passed on. It seems pretty clear to me that the cuts have their own ideological element and NCC has always liked it's men in uniform.

Those Proposed Terms and Conditions in Full

Have been sent a copy of the recent NCC Bulletin telling staff about proposed changes to their terms and conditions.

The main change to what I wrote before is that the bit about reducing hours for over 55s is to be voluntary and, in fact, appears to be available for all. Certainly less incendiary than the original rumour that crept out.

The bits about reducing time on the redeployment register, cuts to redundancy pay and the removal of sick pay for the first three days of sickness are all present and correct. Extra stuff includes the introduction of staff car parking charges, a two-year pay freeze and the "removal of Senior Leadership Management Group Competency based pay", whatever that means, presumably some kind of performance related pay for senior managers. Can't see that one being missed, the chances of NCC senior managers ever getting any performance related pay seems remote to me. Guffaw.

I'd hazard a guess that the sick pay thing is one of those sacrificial negotiating items, designed to use up unions' resolve and allow them to claim victory when it's not pursued. I imagine there'll be a bit of stick over those car parking charges mind, NCC staff are very possessive of their car user rights and as far as I know, despite the fact that there genuinely are posts which require car use, NCC doesn't pay essential car user allowance like they did back in the old days.

So there will be battles I'm sure, Can't help thinking that the savings achieved will be more than offset by the time spent in negotiations, lost productivity from stress and staff leaving etc.

Rumours of Shocking Cuts to Staff Terms and Conditions at NCC

I mentioned before that the Appointments and Conditions of Service Committee met last week with all discussion items hidden under a veil of secrecy. After all you don't want to be embarrassed by the ridiculous spend on consultants when you're discussing redundancies and cuts to terms and conditions for permanent staff, benevolently titled "Managing the Impact on Colleagues of the Financial Challenges Facing the Council".

I've heard some rumours about what the latest cuts to staff terms will be as agreed at the meeting. I should stress that I can't verify the accuracy of this but the person I heard it from does know what s/he's talking about.

Apparently then, the following changes are afoot -

Big reductions to redundancy payments
No longer being paid for first three days off sick
Reducing time on redeployment from 3 to 6 months
and most bizzarrely, forcing over 55s to reduce their hours

The first three changes come straight from Daily Mail land and, as such, will probably face limited criticism in the media. Apart from complaining that the 'gold plated' pensions are still in place of course. But the last one is barmy and is certain to face legal challenge under age discrimination rules if it really does go ahead.

I really do wonder if NCC's 'equalities and diversity' advisers even have the beginnings of a clue. After all there was their appalling abuse of Equality Impact Assessments as a weapon against CERN and only last week there was the introduction of age discrimination into the sports and leisure concessions scheme.

It will be interesting if there is any suggestion of cuts to senior management pay and perks, after all we've been reassured that 'we're all in this together' by the PM and who are NCC to go against that? This has added resonance because it looks like the cost cutting measure to get rid of the Director of Adult Services has been effectively reversed, meaning the loss of those savings.

Still, I'm sure we can guess how that will go eh?

Win a Warmer Planet

We all know that NCC is going to have to make lots of cuts so it's nice that they have given us all the opportunity to tell them where to make them. Expect lots of capslock "SACK ALL SOCIAL WORKERS REMEMBER ANGEL BABY P" and complaints about asylum seekers 'getting everything' type malarkey.

I've written before about how NCC is very proficient at getting the answers it wants and, if that doesn't work, ignoring them anyway. We can probably expect more of the same.

However the thing that initially got my goat is that they've offered a prize for completing the online survey consisting of two flights out of East Midlands Airport (they are silent as to whether you get tickets to come back).

Don't get me wrong, I like prizes as much as the next bod but offering free plane trips isn't very green is it? Whatever happened to 'Travel Smarter, Live Better'?

Just a Balls Up?

Strange thing appeared on Twitter early this morning, I don't know whether it was just a balls up on the part of the Evening Post or whether they had to later cover it up, either way the link no longer works.


My guess is that a gremlin simply posted an old story because the cuts mentioned look very similar to those detailed in the last budget.

Made me look twice anyway.

No sooner had I written this than this turns up on t'BBC...

...and now this on Eve Post. Original article nowhere to be seen though.

Seems settled then, major cuts at NCC and inflation busting Council Tax rise.

Directors Share the Pain

In a blow to the usual assumptions that it is only workers on the lower rungs of the ladder who find themselves expendable when times are hard, the 'Post' is reporting that NCC is planning on cutting the number of Corporate Directors from five to four and the number of Directors from 28 to 21.

The Adult Services Department is to be merged with Communities and Culture with Corporate Director Sallyanne Johnson due to take voluntary redundancy. Johnson is the person who thought it was a good idea to place the Welfare Rights service under the control of Lisa Black and her Housing Benefit cronies which in my book makes her a complete shit-for-brains. Not only did that cause me an awful lot of grief personally but it really is the dumbest idea in the history of the public sector. Welfare Rights services spend a considerable amount of time challenging Housing Benefit decisions so need to be kept at arms' length to avoid conflict of interest. This blindingly obvious fact escaped Johnson. A numpty like that won't be missed.

No word as yet as to which Directors are for the chop but please, please Santa make one of them Geoff Hibbert because he's a cunt.

Voluntary Redundancies

Some more interesting stuff coming out of the Freedom of Information requests.

As you'll no doubt be aware NCC are committed to axing over 350 jobs and not recruiting to over 300 vacant posts in order to save money.

They have now responded to a FoI request for details of the number of applications for voluntary redundancy and how many of these have been accepted or refused.

It turns out that there has been a virtual stampede of workers wanting to get shut of the place with 407 requests for voluntary redundancy made up to 30 April. However, only 187 have been accepted with the remaining 220 being refused.

Why so many refused? Are they just being belligerent? Maximise the misery of the budget cuts so that the people who want to leave are made to stay while offloading those who still want to keep their jobs?

Surely they can do better than this.

Dinner Time

One of those comedy gold stories in the Evening Post today.

Apparently, councillors and guests were used to getting a 3 course slap up meal (sometimes including 'coq au vin' or 'pavlova', the gluttons) at council meetings but at the meeting this week they were downgraded to 'soup and sandwiches'. The full enormity of the horrors they had to endure can be summed up by the revelation that 'there was no butter for the bread'.

Seems that the big dinners were costing £1000 a time for 55 councillors plus guests but the soup and sarnies deal sets us back half that. I always thought good socialists survived on beer and sandwiches myself.

Class warrior Graham Chapman apparently said

"If I had known it was a grand a meeting I would have cut it earlier."

Well done him. Up the revolution brothers (and sisters, sorry Stan).

I'd go a step further, get meals on wheels in, let them enjoy the same culinary standards that Nottingham's housebound old people do.

Or how about going vegetarian to reduce CO2 emissions? I'm sure Veggies would be happy to sort something out.

Budget Day - The Aftermath

Well the budget was passed without amendment to the surprise of absolutely nobody. Graham Chapman said it was the hardest budget he had ever worked on because following cuts he had nobody to add the numbers up for him so he had to do it himself. Hoho. Just my little joke Cllr C.

The Post is reporting that plans for the Victoria Leisure Centre were discussed at greater length than the proposed job cuts. Strange cos I don't remember seeing that on the agenda and will presumably come as a surprise to campaigners against its demolition who weren't expecting anything until the Area 6 Commttee meeting when a design will be chosen for approval by the Council's Executive Board later that month. Not got the minutes yet so I've no idea to what extent it was discussed.

The demo against the cuts seemed reasonably well attended, helped no doubt by the appearance of Sam Morton who gave an emotional plea for reconsideration of the plans. She struck me as absolutely sincere and about as far from the typical rent-a-quote celebrity as its possible to get. One of the other speakers raised a chuckle by suggesting that if there was any money left NCC should spend it on Horlicks because they'd need all the help they could get to sleep at night.

In a rare feature here are a few pics from the demo;



Demonstrators



Catchy slogan




Sam Morton



The demo from afar

One of the key criticisms by the unions is that rather than actually increasing the spending on chilfren's services all they are actually doing is increasing the budget to the level they actually spent last year, when they significantly overspent. I have already commented on the fact that 200 odd redundancies was being spun by the council to being an investment in services for the vulnerable but this seems to me to be a spin too far.