The Street That Cut Everything

#1
Is anyone else watching this?
BBC - BBC One Programmes - The Street That Cut Everything, Episode 1

Basically, the BBC arrange for all the council services to stop (Bar schools and emergency services) and refund a street 6 weeks worths of council tax and tell them to get on with it.

It might stop people whinging about the cuts after watching that. Its not as easy as they thought it was.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#2
I watched it but it won't stop me moaning about my local council, the moment they found out they'd to make loads of cuts they celebrated buying loads of new lorries and vans. The bin men deposit my emptied bin just outside Argentina, the grit in winter would just be enough to season a steak and they aren't very good at cutting grass.
 
#3
I watched it but it won't stop me moaning about my local council, the moment they found out they'd to make loads of cuts they celebrated buying loads of new lorries and vans. The bin men deposit my emptied bin just outside Argentina, the grit in winter would just be enough to season a steak and they aren't very good at cutting grass.
I liked the way they turned on the single mother. It shows how people don't care until they can visably see the money being taken from them.
Who runs your council?
 

TheIronDuke

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
Bunch of whining tosspots who should have been made to watch Passport to Pimlico. The fridges should have been dumped on the steps of the BBC, because they biked them in. Should have setup a watch after the grafitti incident and somebody should have tripped up whilst transporting a gallon of petrol and a lighted candle past those little ******* who turned up at 1.00am with their Phat Choonz.

If they had hung the BBC crew from a lamp post they could have invaded the next street, nicked their stuff and flogged it on eBay, bought an air force with the cash then done Poland.

Lightweights.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
A nice timely reminder from the BBC and Labour what will happen if we let that evil George Osbourne and the Tories cut everything
Vote Labour or face having fridges dumped outside your house
Vote Labour or binmen will have to drive round in 5 year old wagons and work all day instead of knocking off at 12:00 ad getting paid for the rest of the day anyway
Vote Labour or the long term unemployed will have to get off their arse and clean their own graffetti
Vote Labour and bloame Thatcher she shut t'pit don't ya know
 
#6
The most obvious flaw in the program (to my jaded eye) was the complete lack of reference to "economies of scale". When you're a council, with thousands of streets to watch over, it makes economic sense to invest in large machines - which on a "per street" basis represent good value. Attempting to model the effect of cuts by selecting just ONE street obviously precludes the purchase of a "one street sized" rubbish lorry for example. There ARE some things that are better run as "social enterprises", and others that aren't.... just as there are "natural monopolies" best run as not-for-profit government agencies. The Honourable East India company got its start in life by acting like a latter-day Halliburton, offering to take on the running of Indian princedoms more efficiently. They ran into trouble during a major famine. Governments can afford to keep lots of reserves unprofitably idle. Private enterprise sees that as "wasteful inefficiency", sells it off... and then distributes the profit from the sale among its shareholders. Discovering, ten years later, that you really NEED those reserves, or people are going to DIE results in... people dying.
 
#7
Basically, the BBC arrange for all the council services to stop (Bar schools and emergency services) and refund a street 6 weeks worths of council tax and tell them to get on with it.
I didn't watch it so you'll have to enlighten me as to what the other 46 weeks of council tax went on. It sounds as though they were still being stiffed for subsidising services used by other streets, welfare groups, council staff etc. Or maybe the programme was selective in which services were denied to the street? (e.g. libraries, leisure centres, parks etc.)
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#8
I liked the way they turned on the single mother. It shows how people don't care until they can visably see the money being taken from them.
Who runs your council?
I'd like to see my tax split down to see where it goes. I'd love to see how much I pay to support the lazy and the asylum seekers. I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for them.
My council is 'run' by Labour councillors and they are useless.
 
#9
Basically, the BBC arrange for all the council services to stop (Bar schools and emergency services) and refund a street 6 weeks worths of council tax and tell them to get on with it.
So, not content with making everyone pay a television tax, now the BBC want people to make their programmes for them too...

I hope they got paid hansomely for taking the trouble to do this. After all, the BBC used to do this sort of thing in documentaries and panarama type programmes. Funded by the "license" payer.
 
#10
I'd like to see my tax split down to see where it goes. I'd love to see how much I pay to support the lazy and the asylum seekers. I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for them.
My council is 'run' by Labour councillors and they are useless.
The cost that annoys me most is that of translation services. It's something that I'll never get to use but I'm expected to subsidise it. It's particularly annoying when you consider that night school classes for "ESOL" are free while other classes are beyond the financial ability of anyone who isn't on benefits.
 
#11
If the Councils cut services and the work force is subsequently reduced, then the leaders should have reduced salaries to reflect this situation and mirrored in their expenses and a cap on such things as hotel rooms at £55.00 per night rather than the £605 currently being enjoyed by some who are currently serving in local government.
 
#12
If the Councils cut services and the work force is subsequently reduced, then the leaders should have reduced salaries to reflect this situation and mirrored in their expenses and a cap on such things as hotel rooms at £55.00 per night rather than the £605 currently being enjoyed by some who are currently serving in local government.
Why do they need hotel rooms? Haven't they got houses?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#13
I didn't watch it so you'll have to enlighten me as to what the other 46 weeks of council tax went on. It sounds as though they were still being stiffed for subsidising services used by other streets, welfare groups, council staff etc. Or maybe the programme was selective in which services were denied to the street? (e.g. libraries, leisure centres, parks etc.)
I would assume that the 6 weeks they were refunded/recompensed were commensurate with the period of time over which the "experiment" is run.

They get 6 weeks of tax back for the 6 weeks without the services that the Council is supposed to supply.

Whether or not this recompense/refund came from the Council or the BBC is another question altogether?

It may be the case that the Council kept the full 52 weeks CT that the residents paid and the monies came from BBC coffers.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#14
Why do they need hotel rooms? Haven't they got houses?
Councillors will always cut services before they even dream of cutting their own perks, expense accounts or salaries.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#15
The cost that annoys me most is that of translation services. It's something that I'll never get to use but I'm expected to subsidise it. It's particularly annoying when you consider that night school classes for "ESOL" are free while other classes are beyond the financial ability of anyone who isn't on benefits.
I'd rather not pay for ESOL either. I'd like to not pay for anyone who is lazy or shouldn't be in the country at all. I can't say i'm impressed yet with our new govt. I despise the local council.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#16
Councillors will always cut services before they even dream of cutting their own perks, expense accounts or salaries.
I have a friend who worked for a trade union, when she retired she became a councillor. With her pension and council pay/allowances she earned more than she did working.
 
#17
My wife's job (with the local council) just got axed. She's a teacher, who entered the profession as a vocation - that is, she'd do the job for free, because she cares about kids. She wound up as a teaching "advisor", in a small county (I think it's the 660th biggest out of 661!) where departments are so small as a result that people wind up wearing several "hats". Her job was "Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll". As Jamie Oliver pointed out, many of today's kids have parents who failed to get the skills passed on by THEIR parents required to live a normal life. They have no IDEA about nutrition, parenting and the like... and there's no point in blaming the parents, because they don't have the skills either. It's a problem that really needs a solution, and schools seem to be the best way to deliver any solution (let's face it - who else IS there?) So Sue wound up in charge of attempting to reduce the level of teenage pregnancy, reduce obesity, increase awareness of the dangers of street drugs.... the works. And she did a f**king good job. When, a few years back, kids' complaints that they knew more about drugs than the teachers did made national headlines, Sue helped establish the "Drug Peer Educators" project.Every year, a bunch of (volunteer) kids is selected from local schools, and taken away for a weekend of intensive training in pharmacology, law, teaching methods... they get to talk "1-to-1" to recovering addicts... and then they'd dropped back into schools to teach younger kids. (Drug education that you get from "One of the big kids" - particularly if they seem to know their stuff - is WAY "cooler" than a lesson from an "ordinary" teacher) It's been running for ten years now, and is regarded by everybody involved as a huge success; works MILES better than the "Just say No" crap, which is a red rag to a bull as far as the average teenager is concerned. This kind of namby-pamby, leftist, nanny-state education is actually bloody cost effective: the cost to society of a dozen extra drug addicts a year runs into a VERY substantial sum, and WAY bigger than the cost of the scheme. Tory policy is to close down County Council Education Departments, and let every school "do its own thing"... which means that there's nowhere for large multi-school projects like this one to be run from in future. Schools are supposed to COMPETE, not collaborate with each other. Of course, schools will get the money currently spent by the council shared out between them... until their funding gets reduced, and they'll be expected to provide the same level of service with a smaller budget, and zero external co-ordination.

There are far too many "I was beaten half to death, and then walked ten miles to school through the snow in my bare feet, and it never did ME any harm!" Daily Mail reading morons out there, who jointly fail to notice that.... it's a different world out there. For a stable society, kids need education that goes BEYOND the "Three R's"... and they're not going to get it from their parents, because THEY don't have the skills of the knowledge to deliver it. If schools - and Education Departments - don't come up with the goods, nobody will. Axing this kind of service is a one-way street: you CAN'T "undrown" a cat. When you break up the infrastructure, you can't summon it back into existing overnight, (when you realise that maybe it really DID do something important, and the problems caused by the lack of it is costing some other department a small fortune.)
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#18
It sounds like she's done a fantastic job unfortunately Labour spent money we didn't have. It's sad but useful projects will have to end and jobs are not safe in the public sector with a Tory govt.
 
#19
I guess then I'm a moron...having been beaten (when I needed it) at school, it really didn't do me any harm. I don't read the Daily Mail though.

Fact is teachers spend so much time, during the school day, not teaching - hence the decline in educational standards in a lot of state schools. Drug and alcohol/teen pregnancy/gay is OK/domestic violence programmes are all well and good though should not take the place of the curriculum - they should be after school programmes run by counselors NOT teachers, perhaps VOLUNTEER counselors.
A prison I used to run relied heavily on volunteers to run Drug and Alcohol Programs, the volunteers were vetted and subjected to a criminal background check most were in recovery, most were effective. Perhaps some of your left wing friends might care to volunteer their services rather than rely on juvenile peer mentors who should really be learning to read, write, and add up - rather than running in house programmes during school time.
BTW, kudos to your wife, she obviously cares, and that's admirable.
 
#20
It sounds like she's done a fantastic job unfortunately Labour spent money we didn't have. It's sad but useful projects will have to end and jobs are not safe in the public sector with a Tory govt.
Perhaps you missed my point.... It's called "Joined-up-goverment". When you save a few quid in one department, and that leads to catastrophic failures a short way down the road, the overall effect is that you don't SAVE money, but instead spend more - often considerably more. But the department which made the modest saving gets a pat on the head for doing such a good job. Teaching kids that if they don't eat proper food then they'll get fat and people will poke fun at them costs remarkably little money. Treating overweight kids for type-two diabetes caused by obesity is VERY much more expensive. In Bristol, on the Dockside, in an old warehouse, there's a brilliant project called "Lifeskills". Reminds me rather of the old Science Museum basement. The space is divided up between life-sized exhibits, where kids can learn in safety about life's dangers. How to cross the road, what to do if there's a fire, why railway lines are dangerous... putting ALL the primary school kids in the area through the centre (of which - surprise, surprise - my wife's a director) costs around a fiver per child per year. It saves several lives per year, because kids develop basic skills that they otherwise wouldn't have. Cost of a kid getting brain damaged in a road accident? Funny you should ask, as a mate's son got knocked off his push-bike, and the cost of keeping him around just came up (two weeks back) in the subsequent court case. They estimated around a million and a half quid. That's one HELL of a lot of fivers: rather more than the centre's budget for a decade in fact. Problem with "Tory cuts" is that they too often just aren't "Joined up government". A few thousand saved here and there (too often in the wrong areas) leading to a few MILLION in avoidable additional costs as a consequence. I'd still be pissed-off by this insanity even if my wife had KEPT her job. About 18 months back, one of our local (Tory) MPs proudly announced that the local government didn't HAVE a drugs education policy. Which in plain English means "They DO have one, and it's rather good, but I'm too idle to even ask a researcher to find out." Never mind the facts... feel the ideology!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top