Login Register

Whitehall cuts county funding

By Gloucestershire Echo  |  Posted: December 20, 2012

Comments (0)

CUTS are being made to the amount councils in Gloucestershire will get from the Government.

The county's police force will also see its central funding cut by 1.6 per cent to a total of £184.5 million in the coming year.

The county council will have £425.9 million to spend – a fall of 2.8 per cent – equal to £1,571 per household.

But the Government was unable to say how much of this was central government grant.

Whitehall figures for the district councils showed Cheltenham borough will get £15 million, Cotswold district will get £11 million and Tewkesbury borough will get £8.5 million.

Leader of Gloucestershire County Council Councillor Mark Hawthorne said: "It's good news for residents that there will be a freeze placed on council tax once again.

"We will continue to work with the district and borough councils to find the best way forward for the county."

Read more from Gloucestershire Echo

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • JeanGRIGG  |  December 22 2012, 4:28PM

    The facts of this article leave a lot to be desired. Comment is hardly justified, without a very clear picture of 2.8% reduction equals what/why? Frugal behavoir is required by all of us, however that choice would be evaluated differently should the "County" use even handed democratic decision making in its evaluation of who or whom needs what financial input!

  • Bonkim2003  |  December 22 2012, 9:35AM

    We have exhausted the discussion.

    |   1
  • Shireresident  |  December 22 2012, 9:28AM

    I don't blame the coalition for trying to balance the books Mr. B. I blame them for going about it in the wrong way out of sheer dogma and persisting with the strategy when all the indicators show that it's not working. Real politics needs the government to act on events not nail the Tory colours to the mast and take us all down with the sinking ship. Monetarist policies started this rot and they sure as anything aren't going to get us out of the soup. All are to blame for not regulating the financial sector but current strategies are making the public sector and the ordinary worker pay for past mistakes. I'm afraid the Bullingdon boys are so persuaded of their own invincibility that they won't listen to alternative views or indeed the facts.

    |   1
  • Bonkim2003  |  December 21 2012, 11:38PM

    Shireresident - apart from picking on points made by others and your spiel of Friday, December 21 2012, 1:39PM about private/public sector and blaming the coalition for trying to balance the books - not much substance. " It's long been a Tory aim to do this and I have to say I think it's bad economics. The private sector will deliver poorer services and cost more as they have to keep shareholders happy. Also making swathes of the public sector redundant won't help boost growth and will probably lead to a triple dip recession." What more can I say!

    |   4
  • Shireresident  |  December 21 2012, 7:33PM

    As ever Bonkim, lots of assertions stated as facts but with no backing evidence. So the state/public sector is not as efficient in your eyes as it was in Victorian times, define your terms, what do you mean by this, where's the data. You also assert that people are less self reliant than in the past. How do you propose to quantify this and prove your assertion. Like lots of the things you come out with it's all entirely subjective. That's fine, of course you're entitled to your own view but please don't try and dress it up as anything other than that. As soon as you get pressed for evidence to back up statements you shift the argument to global warming, makes a nice red herring but we're talking about the effects of the coalition cuts on ordinary people in Gloucestershire and the vendetta it seems to have with local government.

    |   -1
  • Bonkim2003  |  December 21 2012, 7:15PM

    Shireresident - I won't try to convince anyone - you will have reason yourself - Logic is often predictable as it is systematic - not gut feel. An understanding of human behaviour helps. Will point to just a few issues: Role of government - no problem there are many aspects of modern (also historic) which the state has to decide/manage - even local authorities - Victorian civil servants and municipal engineers and private industry built much of the infrastructure we continue to use today - but somewhere on the way the State, and local government ceased to have the expertise/management skills their predecessors had. You will have to examine the causes and effects yourself. Is it because they are now venturing into aspects of our individual and social life that in the past people managed themselves? Modern efficient economy - it is rigged - private enterprise wants to maximise its advantage/profit and in a global economy they can do practically what they want. Adam Smith's invisible hands is getting greedy and colluding - we live in a world of oligoplies - not free market economics. 21st century - world populations exploding, and a world economy that will collapse unless production and consumption expands continuously - free movements of capital, skills, manpower, and resources to keep the ball rolling - regrettably modern economics was formulated at a time when new continents were being tapped and resources seemed inexhaustible - the situation you see today - consumer society - a feature of the last 2 or three decades - and the last 5 decades after the 2nd War - affluence has bred incompetence and the old anglo-saxon work ethic and prudence are flopping with the state sector (now ~55% of GDP) consuming more than what the rest of the productive economy is making. On the way in an expanding ball - not too difficult for business and the state sector creaming off what they can - that is the transient affluence you mention. The coalition government is simply attempting to wean the dependency culture encouraged by past governments in times of plenty - and you have to give them credit for that - but of course those who have become habituated on easy money - relearning the old lessons will take time and on the way much grief for those unable or unwilling to adapt and change. (Darwin had sound understanding of the natural world)

  • Shireresident  |  December 21 2012, 5:56PM

    You follow a predictable pattern Mr. B. You have a go at local government as presumably as a libertarian you think we should all fend for ourselves. That's a bit difficult in the 21st century due to the specialisation of labour. I can't see many of us being able to survive like Mr. Grills in the wild. For a start who'd teach our kids, drill our teeth or make our spectacles when we get old and things get blurred. We are a social animal and we need organisation to survive as a species. The big debate currently is whether this should be left to the "free play of market forces" or whether some things are best provided by the state on a non profit basis. It's clear that you've had a bad experience with local government in the past. That's a shame but no organisation is perfect you need to look at the bigger picture. Your other default position is to throw in a few technical terms and half facts to sound credible. I'm afraid your bitterness shines through. It's time you let go of your issues and acknowledge that a modern efficient economy needs both the public and private sector to survive.

    |   3
  • Lecorche  |  December 21 2012, 4:42PM

    You,once again,presume too much,B! I wouldn't be a Tory if it even meant my life. I have a deep loathing for the Conservative Party. Waste is not a political choice. Neither is brevity. You know what brevity is I Hope. Otherwise,you've found the boundary in our regard for each other.

    |   -1
  • Bonkim2003  |  December 21 2012, 1:44PM

    "effective local administration" is what we are discsussing - that it is neither effective or efficient in delivering to meet duty/expectations but costing the earth. Comparison with private sector and profit motives are misleading - the public sector hides behind its imagined shield of 'public service' but does everything to shield itself from any criticism - via multiple barriers - and as long as the democratic processes are shown to be gone with - all is honky dory - and if things flop - they will learn next time round - ad nauseum. Nothing wrong with libertarians - more we sort our own problems instead of relying on central or local government better it is. Integrated waste management - in simple terms - looking at the potential for recycycling, reuse, and disposal of different materials in the waste stream - according to effort, cost, and environmental effectiveness (use of energy/fossil fuels in collection, and processing) of bothe the collection, and treatment systems. Integrated waste management requires collection and treatment suystems to be optimised integrally - unlike the present situation where the districts have set up complex multi-bin collection systems to meet the previous government's target culture without any thought of the costs or resultant emissions - value of the outputs is pretty low - for example the recent EU regulations forbid reuse of recycled bottles and other containers for the particular product - as such the value of scrap glass for emelting (not saving much energy compared with virgin manufacture) is pretty low compared with landfill charges. Integrated waste management - if a lot of food and catering/food processing wastes - anaerobic digestion and biogas generation - but collection not efficient/cost effective in rural districts. Comingled collections and sorting out valuable materials at an MRF best and firing the rest in an EFW - displaces fossil fuels for the byproduct energy - landfill of inert ash or making use of the ash for building blocks, road beds, etc - already established processes. Do you have any objection to EFW? as stated - Recycling is an all too misunderstood term - a bit like calling 'God God' and assuming that makes them good Christians or Muslims or other co-religionists.

    |   -3
  • Shireresident  |  December 21 2012, 1:39PM

    All this is just the beginning of the process whereby all levels of local government are reduced to comissioning authorities that just hive out services to the private sector who make a profit out of the taxpayer. It's long been a Tory aim to do this and I have to say I think it's bad economics. The private sector will deliver poorer services and cost more as they have to keep shareholders happy. Also making swathes of the public sector redundant won't help boost growth and will probably lead to a triple dip recession. The myth that "Private sector good, public sector bad" is one that the coalition is very keen to foster ask yourself why, after all it costs a lot to send little Nigel and Tarquin to Eaton so might as well make the "plebs" pay for it.

    |   1