Fight the powers that be



Here are a load of Lewisham Labourites in their civvies joining Saturday's march against public sector cuts. Given the intensive debate there has been on BC about how much the cuts in Lewisham are the responsibility of those in charge at the Council, we thought this might be of interest...

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of planks...'nothing to do with me guv, honest'.

Yeah right..Alistair Darling in 2009 said the cuts would be greater and deeper than those by Thatcher.

And that was before the government had held a spending review.

A caption in the video screams forced cuts of 28%, but the Mayor instructed officers in November 2009 to draw up cuts of 25%.

Our elected Mayor was employed by the then government to advice councils on cutting spending in the dark years ahead.

Our Mayor had already declared cuts of £60m were required as part of his election campaign as did all those fellow councillors in the video.

They are proposing to prolong the pain and suffering to the public.

They are members of a party that introduced target after target, that extended the use PFI's.

Who's Decent Homes scheme blackmailed councils into transferring social housing away and sacking their direct labour force.

NHS Hospitals under Labour were handed over to private companies to maintain and public sector workers on mass transferred to the private sector.

Schools the previous government withdrew funding to set up community schools, PFI and foundation schools is because of the previous government.

In government these people fully embraced and endorsed these schemes and now they deny any responsibily.

Why weren't they wearing tinfoil hats in that video?

If Lewisham is so hard up why the heck have all the waste bins in Ladywell Fields been replaced after just 2 years?

Anonymous said...

Why did is the Mayor paying Cllr Edgan £9,000 to state the bleedin' obvious...ie scraping Lewisham Life could save money...Lou could have told the Mayor for free.

A nice little earner for a member of the same party as the Mayor.

Over the years the size of the council and what it's directly responsible has been reduced but our elected Mayor increased the size of his cabinet....bizarre.

Ooooh, wasn't it reported Lewisham Labour councillors have some form of system where they have to pay a percentage of their council income to the party...expanding the cabinet means more money for the party?

Anonymous said...

Cuts? What cuts? Deeper and faster I say!

Hugh for PM said...

Only problem with the cuts is they're not deeper.

The left's argument is basically 'now is the time to invest in jobs, not make cuts', when the truth is Labour p*ssed a vast amount of money up the wall inventing employment for the lazy and unqualified and so worsened the deficit that now needs reducing.

Walk into any public facility in the borough or any facility run privately under a contract awarded by the borough (swimming pools are a particular favourite) and ask yourself how many people who work there are doing anything useful.

These are the people whose knee-jerk reaction to the cuts is 'hang the bankers, um, or something, because, um, we hate the rich and by the way you are bankrupting all our grandchildren'.

Exactly.

max said...

"Walk into any public facility in the borough or any facility run privately under a contract awarded by the borough (swimming pools are a particular favourite) and ask yourself how many people who work there are doing anything useful."

Just to let you know, swimming pool attendants watch the pool, they may look passive but that's their job.

Anyway, good to see them out, it would have been better if they had stood like that to Gordon Brown when he decided to skip on the spending review opening the door to George Osborne to have as much fun as he pleases but better late than never.
And yes, one less cabinet member and one more binman/social worker/town centre manager of whatever please.

Anonymous said...

First anonymous sounds exactly like a Lib Dem focus leaflet I received recently.

Mb said...

Hugh, are you seriously suggesting that Gordon brown brought the worlds financial system to it's knees? He ain't guilt free but in regulated financial markets were a myth that the whole world supported. Labour, conservative, the neo-con small state yanks, even the Germans and neo con yanks. I think you overestimate little old Britain. Was public spending vs taxation partly to blame? Of course but please don't claim that the financial markets were passive bystanders, we (and you) bailed them out. I don't think bankers are all venal crooks, not all public sector workers are incompetents. Lazy caricatures from both sides o the argument do nothing except make a good headline.

Mb said...

Hugh, are you seriously suggesting that Gordon brown brought the worlds financial system to it's knees? He ain't guilt free but in regulated financial markets were a myth that the whole world supported. Labour, conservative, the neo-con small state yanks, even the Germans and neo con yanks. I think you overestimate little old Britain. Was public spending vs taxation partly to blame? Of course but please don't claim that the financial markets were passive bystanders, we (and you) bailed them out. I don't think bankers are all venal crooks, not all public sector workers are incompetents. Lazy caricatures from both sides o the argument do nothing except make a good headline.

Hugh for PM said...

It takes one pool attendant to watch the pool. What are the other three doing?

Anonymous said...

Would be good to know if Lewisham Conservative and the Libs marched as well.

max said...

Tories and Lib Dems that disagree with the government can lobby in other ways.

In fact the Lib Dem conference voted against the NHS reform.

Mb for Transport Secretary said...

Hugh, if you're PM can you please ensure that Lou is given a brief where he won't cause a riot/war? Minister for Agriculture & Fisheries perhaps?

Hugh for PM said...

Lou will be appointed head of the Met.

Defence spending will be halved subject to further review.

NHS usage will be subject to lifestyle audits. You smoke, you lose ten points, for example. Lose all your points and you can't see a GP until everyone else has.

Teacher pay will be increased but so will entry standards to the profession.

Local councils will be barred from spending more than 5% per person over the national average for local council expenditure.

Pension savings will be obligatory.

The private sector will no longer fund public pensions.

Shall I go on?

max said...

Here you go Hugh, all you ever wanted to know about pool attendants, here's Pool Kids, priceless episode of Sean Lock's series 15 Storeys High, all pool scenes were shot at Ladywell Pool (before the 2002-4 refurb).

Hugh for PM said...

Cyclists and other green commuters will get tax credits based on miles commuted under their own steam, as recorded by a GPS chip system.

Anonymous said...

The first comment isn't a LibDem message, it's common sense.

Read the joint report written by our Mayor for the previous government in February 2010...he talked of the need for councils to make cuts/savings/efficiencies with immediate effect.

That was on top of whatever a government would propose after the election.

The previous government went into the election not knowing its financial situation it couldn't say were the cuts would be or how deep, because it needed a spending review first.

Therefore those people haven't got a clue the order of cuts the previous government would have been imposed.

The current shadow chancellor was at odds with his own chancellor, the then Eduction Minister in Nov 2009 proposed cuts...

"The proposals, which will include cutting the number of headteachers, a "tough" pay deal for teachers and efficiency savings from more tightly controlled school budget balances, have met fierce opposition from other parties and from teaching unions. "

Ed Balls today ordered schools to tighten their belts, setting out measures to save £750m a year....Schools need to start making savings now to safeguard frontline services because spending increases are threatened from 2011, the schools secretary said.

I'm sure those in that video and all public sector workers would have rallied behind him especially the following, rather than buy into local authority services...

The government will develop tailored support for schools to help them cut their costs, while school improvement partners (Sips), consultants who support schools to improve academic and behavioural issues, will be made responsible for improving school finances.

So Ed Ball clearly believes the private sector can fill the gap left by reduced public sector funding.

Lou Baker said...

When you see our local representatives talk in a video
like this one you really begin to see the problem with the area.

This incompetent bunch of misfits is responsible for spending our money. They are clearly clueless. The fact is that even after the cuts government spending will (almost) be at record levels. What is going is the complete excess of the Brown Labour government - which went on a massive spending binge.

The NHS budget is at a record high. But its performance is not. More money has been poured in but it has not improved proportionately. I trust David Cameron with the NHS. This is a man who relied on it more than most for his disabled son. He has said it is his main priority and I believe him. He speaks like a patient. The doctor in that video speaks like a doctor. Of course he doesn't like change. It might mean he and his colleagues have to buck up their ideas a bit and put patients first. At present the NHS doesn't do this - it's run as much for the convenience of its staff as it is for the benefit of patients. This must change.

The fact is wherever we look our public services are substandard. And money is not the only issue. So is structure, organisation and expectation.

I expect better. These left wing loons expect a free ride. How sad.

Anonymous said...

What a pile of tripe, and what scary councillors. Glad there are some sensible comments here already. For the Labour Party to now jump on this demo as if a Lab Govt would have made barely noticeable cuts is absurd. They had planned huge cuts on many levels. I absolutely agree with the first poster, and with Lou.

Anonymous said...

Oh I thought I was reading brockley central not tory central!

Not impressed said...

Lou's comments are glib verbal pyrotechnics.

Anonymous said...

aaaaagh Steve Bullock noooooo!!!!

No more Steve Bullock propaganda please!!!

Anonymous said...

just watched film and saw Steve bl@@@@y Bullock seconds in to the film...aaaaagh!!!!

Anonymous said...

That film was Lewisham Labour Party propaganda...

Please can the other parties against the cuts now have a film of their own.

Greens next please.

Anonymous said...

Labour talking shite- they would have made enormous cuts too. Why aren't people seeing through this? ANY govt we got was going to have to face this mess.

mb said...

yes, both parties would have made swinging cuts. Labour perhaps slower and not as ideoligally driven but cuts none the less. Both parties were vauge about exactly what they would cut before the election results were in and how they would do it. Labour lost and are still vauge, the torys are in so have to come clean. I see no conspiracy. Lets be clear, Labour are not saying 'no cuts' but I doubt they can fight another election without being a bit more up front. As for the Lib Dems, well they feigned shock at the state of the finances once they stumbled into power, even though economic comentators ot both ends of the spectrum have stated that the information was there for any economist to find (or admit to knowing)

Time for the two eds to start fleshing out their policies.

Anonymous said...

Hugh for PM? Hugh for IL DUCE.

Lou Baker said...

@mb

The Tories are not ideologically wedded to the idea of cuts.

They are ideologically wedded to the idea of low taxes - and rightly too.

By the time you add up income tax, national insurance, VAT, council tax, fuel duty, airport tax, road tax, BBC tax and all the taxes and charges we pay then most of us are handing over more than half our income to the government.

If you're on £25k - average salary-ish - you pay £12.5k a year in tax. Imagine what you could do with an extra £1000 a month - if you didn't just have to hand it over to the government. You could afford private health care, possibly some private schooling, you could buy books rather than worrying about libraries. But you can't. You have to hand it over so the government can buy bombs to destroy Libya and then pay to rebuild it. You hand it over so workshy layabouts can live rent free in Kensington and Chelsea. You hand it over so The Queen can have a private train while you have to sniff the armpit of an unwashed hippy on the subsidised 8.41 from Nunhead to Blackfriars (which is late).

Imagine if you earn £100k - a lot of money, right? Well, no. Maybe enough to get a mortgage on a small house in Brockley. Maybe. And, of course, you don't actually get £100k because £50k of it goes to pay for the new traffic lights on the A2 which make your journey slower. Or to fund the local GP - who'll only see you at their convenience and not at yours. Because everyone in £100k jobs can take infinite mornings off work on the off chance they'll get an appointment.

So get over the idea that the Tories are wedded to cuts. They're not. They're wedded to the idea of you keeping more of your own money. Because you know how to spend it better than bureaucrats do.

Lady GaGa said...

The sound has gone on my computer so I couldn't hear what was being said however it was an interesting experiment as by appearance and facial expressions alone they were a pretty alarming bunch. Maybe I'll use that as a test in future - do any politicans inspire confidence when you can't hear what is coming from their mouths and you just go by appearance alone ?

And the cuts are long overdue, a labour council , funded by a labour government was a licence to spend money and not wisely on essential services but quite often dreaming up non essential jobs, projects, schemes. And I was a Labour voter !

Vesta Curry said...

Wow! ... It must be really intense being Lou. Talk about painting it black - hats off, dude - heavy.

Paddyom said...

Lou, you are my hero! You hit the nail on the head exactly. Why do people think us tax payees should not expect value for money for our hard earned buck? I'm all for the scaling back of the public sector, we private sector workers have had it for the past 3 years. Welcome to the recession public sector moaners.

Ed CPZ said...

It's hardly surprising that the net beneficiaries of the tax/spending system generally want to protect their position and those who are net losers demand better value for money, spending justification and accountability.

It seems that students in particular need to be better educated on jurisprudence and the origins of rights and obligations.

Wake up, smell the coffee said...

Isn't there an element of that in everyones behaviour? I'm sure the various trade bodies, the bankers association to name but one, are not just (?) motivated by looking after Joe blogs bank account. Being charitable perhaps both want to serve their customers while making the effort worthwhile?

To answer my own rhetorical question, most people want to do the best job they can but few work for purely altruistic reasons.

Coffee bloke said...

...better value for money, spending justification and accountability....

Another point, public organisations spending and tendering is much more transparent than compatible private companies (quiet rightly) I can't send in a freedom of information request into British aerospace to find out how they tender work or how they reimburse "expenses".

As always, things are not just public bad/ private good. It's a little more nuanced.

Latest Tweets

Brockley Central Label Cloud

Click one of the labels below to see all posts on that subject. The bigger the label, the more posts there are!