Stretched St Helens Council fears added burden of business rate and council tax reforms

8:00pm Monday 7th January 2013 in News

ST HELENS Council leaders have voiced fears that a further downturn in the national economy could impact on already stretched services as it grapples with the government’s recent general grant settlement.

After analysing a pre-Christmas settlement announcement for 2013-14 and 2014-15 raises the overall annual revenue grant loss to £50million by 2014-15.

It has already resulted in the loss of an estimated 1,010 jobs – and cuts to services, with every council department’s expenditure currently under review.

In a bleak New Year statement, the local authority warned that as well as the grant settlement it has major concerns over “fundamental changes to the way councils are funded”.

The changes see the introduction of localised business rates and localised support for council tax – areas previously overseen by central government.

A council statement read: “The government originally consulted councils on retaining 100 per cent of their net business rates – but has now ruled that the figure will be just 49 per cent, with one per cent passed to the Fire Authority and 50 per cent passed to the government.

“It means the council will be exposed to any decrease in the number of businesses within the borough – leading to a direct impact on council finances and its ability to fund services to those who need them.

“Councils will also have to shoulder more of the burden with the help given to vulnerable council tax payers.

“Council tax benefit will disappear and be replaced by discounts – administered by local councils.”

Council leader Marie Rimmer said it was a matter of concern that the government had not funded this transfer of responsibility fully – and meant working age families who previously received full council tax benefit will have to pay at least £3.57 per week in council tax.

It will leave thousands of working St Helens families – some living in the poorest communities – facing a further squeeze on their household budgets.

Rimmer said: “The settlement introduces the most radical changes to the funding of local government in a generation with the introduction of the localisation of business rates and the localisation of support for council tax.

“These two government policies fundamentally affect the distribution of funds, the source of those funds and the risk profile facing this council and local government generally.

“The redistribution of business rates and council tax support grant will cost the people of St Helens millions of pounds - but the system helps people in the more affluent South East of the country.”

Councillor Rimmer said the government’s austerity measures, coupled with the possible future deterioration in the economy, made her fear for the future.

She added: “Despite the limited safeguards put in place by the government, we’re now at the mercy of market forces and will find it increasingly difficult to control our own destiny The latest settlement, published on December 19 last year, covers the financial years 2013-14 and 2014-15 - the third and fourth years of the government’s austerity plan.

This has already cost St Helens Council £36million in loss of central government revenue grants – rising to £50 million by 2014-15.

Furthermore, says the council, it has lost the Building Schools for the Future programme and the reduction in general programmed capital investment support of 26 per cent.

The council says it continues to “prioritise services to vulnerable adults and children’s social care”.

However, the future of Sutton swimming pool and the mobile community library service are among the early examples of services under scrutiny.

The council’s cabinet will consider the issue when it meets on January 9.

Comments(51)

pitbullboxing says...
8:19pm Mon 7 Jan 13

So tell us - where were Labour going to cut?

Report this post »

pitbullboxing says...
8:20pm Mon 7 Jan 13

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/politics/2010/
mar/25/alistair-darl
ing-cut-deeper-marga
ret-thatcher

Here , Darling saying they would cut deeper than Thatcher - would Rimmer be moaning if it was Darling doing this and blaming the government. Go and tell a different story Marie , and let somebody else have a turn.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:42pm Mon 7 Jan 13

od course labour would be cutting back if in power. Marie was not complaining when labour were spending irresponsible. She also increased the council tax last year putting further pressure on hard pressed families while keeping the town hall fat cats intact. The only cuts have been to front line services to punish the public and make a political statement. Also I read over the weekend that the savage cuts amount to an average of 1.7% per authority. Im a recession what private sector business would not look to achieve that? These people dont live in the real world and Marie lives in a world of 1970's us and them conflict only in st helens could such a person run a council but as long as you are in the labour ticket ability does not come into it. The town will pay the price of this for decades to come the nations money has run out and wont be back any time soon.

Report this post »

saintsfan says...
10:44pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Oh for goodness sake Rimmer, just stop whinging and get on with the job! ALL councils are going through the same thing and if St Helens is feeling it deeper than some then maybe that is because St Helens has not managed its budget well in the past and/or has wasted a ton of money (and having worked for a number of councils that happened at an immoral rate under the previous Labour government) and/or has not been directing its efforts/money towards the local economy enough but instead has been allowing its political interests to get in the way.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:49pm Mon 7 Jan 13

anyone want to see into the mind of comrade rimmer type marie rimmer into uptube and behold the woman running our council arthur scargill is alive and well and wearing a dress. I dont have a problem whatever anyones opinions are but to run a council you need ability and you should be judged on performance and accountable. Where is the accountability? labour will always be voted in but why oh why must we have the same old faces for decades. Time for a change you have had your time marie there are new challenges today and we need a new approach

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:52pm Mon 7 Jan 13

utube sorry for spelling.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:02pm Mon 7 Jan 13

and another thing........

Do a google on st helenscouncil accounts last published 2011 go to page 42 and you will see marie land is sitting on £192m of reserves yes you read that right £192m, of which (from memory) £132m are usuable. Overall the nations councils are sitting on over £6 b of reserves. Now if this is not a rainy day then tell me what would be one. Stop spouting in the star marie AND GET DOING YOU JOB. You have been hansomely paid for enough years

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:04pm Mon 7 Jan 13

sorry for spelling its not my normal computer

Report this post »

sthelenslass says...
11:13pm Mon 7 Jan 13

There is no doubt that there will be more cuts to come however gets in next time and after the spending boom years it was always going to hurt. After looking at figures in various papers and on the local government unit website towns and cities in the north (both west and east) have suffered more from the cuts because they no longer factor in the deprivation factors. What concerns me is that the present government are very very short sighted. They implement new policies without factoring in the consequences. In fact the number of things they have got right in two years is far outweighed by the **** ups and u-turns. And it costs us money. So hopefully the new business rates and council tax benefits proposed don't end up costing more than they save. And make what looks to be a miserable slow/no growth in the town even worse.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:27pm Mon 7 Jan 13

sthelensglass you will always get push me pull me with a coalition thats why i dont like them. But the fact is the money has rum out and in the last 15 years local athourities wasted money hand over fist. Even if the money had not ran out we should still be looking to right the ineffciencies. But money so tight why cant the council use its reserves if they are saving what more rainy day can there be than this? And how about (for once) tackling the town hall fat cats ? and the councillors expenses racket? Are we not all in this together? or must we keep getting future council tax increases to pay for maries waste?

Report this post »

sthelenslass says...
11:57pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Personally I would have one Cllr per ward which would tackle a lot of the expenses issue. Efficiencies can always be made and as you say those raking in 60k plus would be a nice start. But it's not just a case of budgets for local authorities being cut, the waste continues within government and because if half baked government policies. The rail franchise fiasco cost millions. Gove's free schools costed far far more than was originally let on and the Merlin scheme was a farce. The public sector pension scheme was overhauled and duly made more manageable to the tax payer but MP's pensions were not. You only have to serve a year (could be less actually) as an MP to qualify for a frankly enormous pension. Government is good at pointing the finger but not at cleaning its own house. And the fiendishly cunning plans that even Baldrick would scorn get us deeper in the mire.

Report this post »

smith&weston says...
12:29am Tue 8 Jan 13

M/s Rimmer dreams of the good ole days when you could stand outside a factory for days on end, turning away lorries and workers in order to teach those nasty employers a lesson. She has trapped this town in the late 1970's mindset and left it there for ever.

Report this post »

anthonywilson says...
1:49pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The changes to business rates will have a negative effect on local government finances with some areas being winners whilst other areas being losers. We all know Councils are having a very difficult time but it would be NO DIFFERENT under whichever of the main three political parties were in office. All are wedded to the same neoliberal economic policies. They would all be making cuts to someone, somewhere.
Cllr Rimmer needs to be reminded that perhaps if the last government had put more safeguards in place and better more effective controls of the banking and financial sectors instead of courting them so much we wouldn't be at the mercy of market forces to the same level and the damage caused by the disasterous world wide financial crash to the same extent would not have occured. None of our political pygmys stand up and really be counted. In Iceland (who the mass media normally likes to keep silent about, I wonder why?) the economic situation is improving because different corrective action was taken. http://azizonomics.c
om/2012/12/08/the-ic
elandic-success-stor
y/

Report this post »

jumper says...
3:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

We always seem to get good results in the council round ups, so why are we inthe s,.t now

Report this post »

pitbullboxing says...
4:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=FwCUNTP4Z
go
Watch this - Rimmer going on about healthy eating and promoting healthy lifestyles - whilst allowing every take away under the sun to open up in her borough!!

Report this post »

Sankey says...
4:56pm Tue 8 Jan 13

The St Helens fat cat list from the 2012 accounts just published does this seem necessary for a small council such as st helens and if these people were not employed by the council wouls they command a salary ofd this order elsewhere? If not then they are paid above market rates every employer in the land (except local government) evaluates salaries to the market. Incidently these numbers exclude pension costs for which you can add another 12%. These are freely availiable on the web just google st helens council 2012 accounts

Chief Executive – Carole Hudson £150k
Director of Urban Regeneration and Housing £115
Director of Environmental Protection £112
Director of Children and Young People’s Services £98
Director of Adult Social Care and Health £110
Assistant Chief Executive (Finance) £103
Assistant Chief Executive (Legal and Administrative Services) £91
Assistant Chief Executive (Asset
Management and Construction Procurement) £97
Head of Corporate and Community Safety £ 81
Head of Policy and Performance £ 81
Head of Human Resources £81
Head of Public Affairs £81

Report this post »

Sankey says...
5:02pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Just picking on two of these director of children £100k yes an important role but £100k???????? far better to employ 3 people at that rate say £35k which seems reasonable. We are not talking about employing a barrister here no where else on the planet would a social worker earn £100k plus. The other would be head of public affairs £80k what on earth is that role? Its a council for heavens sake not the united natons. Is it me or is something badly out of kilter here. I have just come from st helens and the povety is apparent in the town and the people this is not henley on thames. Some perspective is needed here rimmer manages all of this comrade rimmer the SOCIALIST. My goodness me I am speachless.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
5:09pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Here's St Helens accounts now move to page 42

http://www.sthelens.
gov.uk/media/313889/
unaudited_statement_
of_accounts_2011-12.
pdf

Report this post »

Sankey says...
5:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Unless I am missing something this is staggering people. There is £192m of rainy days reserves (It rained in st helens today) of which £122m yes £122m is usable. Look further up the balance sheet and you will see what appears to be £92m, £92m **** million of short term assets and £33m of cash. Does that sound like a business on its uppers to you. How dare Marie Rimmer up the council tax and moan about shortage of funds with salaries and a balance sheet as strong as that. SOCIALIST dont make me laugh THAT is capitalist greed ands these people are doing very well out of us. Whats going on Marie?

Report this post »

Sankey says...
5:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Stretched council. Ha ha ha ha i wish I was as stretched as that. Just looked at warrington council ,they (bigger authority) have £322m of reserves BUT only £47m are liquid and usable. A huge difference why is St Helens sitting on a disproportionate pile of assets? May be a good reason I dont know maybe they are about to invest but otherwise that could be put to use plugging the gap in services until the economy improves. As for the salaries of course warrington is the same government minister level for local administrators. St Helens would argue we pay the rate of the job on local government. But the truth is executives in all of local government are grossly and insultingly overpaid and the councils are awash with cash. Which makes the moaning and cutting back of services to the vulnerable simply and utterly disgusting. This is not socialism but then labout ceased to be socialist many years ago. But the disparity in reserves and the apparent highly liquid state of st helens council is interesting. I speak with some knowledge of this and you cannot simply take a balance sheet (which is a snapshot) and draw conclusions but on the face of it we are not being told the truth by Marie. Like I say maybe I am getting this wrong but within seconds you can see the figures for yourself and neighbouring authorities and see what you make of it because I am stumped as to what comrade Rimmer is talking about.

Report this post »

Bill Bradbury says...
6:30pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Well judging from all of the comments above the cuts and economic situation has nothing to do with this right wing. Posh-Boy Government but it's all down to Marie Rimmer and the labour Cllrs.

As I have written many times before you have got to hand it to Cameron he knows where to shift the blame.
On the subject of balances Councils are LEGALLY have to keep a certain proportion of its income as reserves. I am not sure to what some of the fantastic figures quoted by the Anti-Marie brigade are reserves or not.

As to the cost of Chief officers and the like all Councils pay on the same rate which is yet another redherring that the gullible public has been sold by Cameron which I call the race to the bottom the public service workers such as teachers, health service workers,have become public enemy Number 1 with their index-linked pensions, (sorry "GOLD PLATED PENSIONS") and a salary structure worked at over the decades which those that "have not" wish to destroy may be out of envy.

I say let's have a Tory Local Council and let's see where that will get us or will money Magically appear.

When I have time I will comment further on the bile written above. Funny nobody has blamed Brown!!? They will!

Report this post »

Sankey says...
7:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

bill i suspect your comments above are more about protecting your friends in the st helens hierachy than principles or the vulnerable in st helens. As for it being bile well we have had many arguments on here haven't we? But this is one case where the facts are indisputable simply post that link and look at page 42. You dont need to be an accountant the reserves are equity and in effect that owned by the stakeholders which in theory is us. I accept that the balance sheet in raw form is not the total answer I made that very clear. But something like 80% of st helens reserves are usable and the reverse is true of warrington so that destroys the legal ratio argument. St helens is also sitting on £92m of liquid assets and £33n of CASH. Thats not bile mate thats fact you can verify for yourselve within one minute if you dont believe me. You claim you are a socialist and therefore are on the side of the elderly, young people, ill people and the council taxpayer? Am I right or wrong? On the face of the numbers Bill something does not stack up and you can muddy the waters about cameron and brown all you like but this is here and now in our local town and the accounts do not reflect the messages coming out of our council leader. On the face of the accounts the council has a very strong balance sheet indeed and very liquid. That being so (I accept there may be extraneous reasons) then why is rimmer cutting front line services and ramping up council tax for families in st helens who are struggling (those that pay council tax of course). In the face of these facts your answer is not acceptable we need answers to the questions above. Perhaps the head of finance could give the people of st helens an answer he / she pockets £100k or even the supreme leader comrade Rimmer although the latter would be too much to ask her specialist subject is class war 1972 and fighting the oppressors which is why there is no employment in this town the oppressors have been beaten and have fled to Warrington / Birchwood over the past 20 years.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
7:39pm Tue 8 Jan 13

st helens does not pay its executives any more than other local authorities but that misses the point. In the labour years the view was we need good people at the top to manage the councils. What should have happened is an influx of new blood from insustry etc to reform local government and bring new ideas. What actually happened was the existing incumbents declared themselves good people and tripled their pay. Town clerks became chief executives overnight. Its an entirely internal market to local government and i wager none of these people would get a third of that pay in the external market. If you look at the accounts there is a large tier below the executive at £50k plus add to that the councillors and the hidden expenses which can amount to a **** good living in addition to their day job, what we have is a small clutch of people doing very well and the rest of the town outside the magic circle either on the dole of paying council tax which has effectively doub led. Then we get the likes of rimmer talking the hard luck story while none of this waste is addressed and the only cutbacks are to front line services and the only people who lose their jobs are the low paid operational staff on the council or their suppliers. These are the last people who should be cut back NOT THE FIRST.

Report this post »

saintsfan says...
9:28pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Marie Rimmer's bleating is all political posturing. She knows full well that the council is perfectly capable of meeting the challenges set by the government policy to re-set budgets to their 2007 limit. Being capable and being willing, however, are two different things and I wonder how far Rimmer and the crew will go to make a political point?

As for Bill Bradbury's comments: to begin with, Bill, you might have noticed that we do not have a Tory government in power (if we had, then the deficit would have been dealt with far sooner). We have a coalition government. Therefore there are compromises all the way down the line and both parties are equally responsible for the decisions made at national level. It was a declared intention of both the Tories and the coalition to localise power, which IMO is a Good Thing, because it places responsibility where it should be: in the hands of the local people who know the local landscape. It also stops local councils from taking the easy way out and blaming central government. They have to be held accountable by local people and that is exactly what is now happening. That is a very, very good thing because, believe me, there has been terrible waste at local government level for years. If only local taxpayers knew just how much waste there has been they would be shocked.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:07pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Saintsfan completely agree judging by the accounts the council can meet the financial challenges tenfold. There is a suspicion the cuts are all to the front line to make the political point against the government but that marie is holding over £120m in reserve. I also agree localism is the way forward the councils have got away with cheating the taxpayer and users of those services for decades. The cutbacks they are being asked today is less than 2% never will these people behave responsibly and so the system must change and those within it starting with Rimmer and those responsible for st helens economic position. After 20 years of Rimmer what do we have? no businesses to speak of and the council sitting on £120m of cash and liquid assets a transfer of wealth from the once businesses to the council and its merry band of cronies. Any chance Bill of you explaning the gap between the accounts and maries public statements?

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:19pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Reading the primary article again its clear central government has recognised councils have been wasting money at the expense of the local economy. St Helens accounts and the £6 billion overall councils are sitting on seem to demonstrate this. I suspect the game is now up and we should see a dimishing role for councils (whoever is power) and localised control and probably an increased role for community groups and the local chamber. Can't come too soon for the people of st helens who are sick of public services being used as political football, sick of 1100 front line jobs going and the fat cats remaining intact, sick of the council sitting on £120m cash extracted via excessive business rates while the only new jobs in st helens are a new macdonalds. And sick of being made out to be fools by the council leader.

Report this post »

Bill Bradbury says...
10:33pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Saintsfan, I am sure the Lie/dems would appreciate the power you have given to them but the reality is we do have a Tory Government with all its worst excesses. To them Clegg and his ilk are just a distraction and you are right if we ever faced the full power of a Tory Govt. God help us all.
I cannot get around your logic that when the government cuts budgets the "easy way out" is to find all this money that is sloshing about uspent. I will be asking these questions myself to discover this pot of unspent Gold that will save services.

I am not going over ad ininitum where the blame lies for the deficit but prefer to believe evry economic survey free of the Tory Press spin. Borrowing under this Government has increased and unless you believe in fairies, most economic forecasts are not good for a variety of reasons, China, the Euro. the American economy, oil prices,the greedy banks and bankers, millionaires tax evasion,-- the excuses are endless except the Tories on this web-site will always put it down to Labour and Brown and that arch deamon Marie Rimmer.

Now lets us examine cost saving by halving (generous??) all Chief Officers salaries, and cutting Cllrs down to one per ward, that is if you could get any takers for it would be impossible to pass or read legislation attend meetings deal with constituency matters and all the other jobs I know they do.

Looking at Sankey's figures Officer Salaries come to just over £1m, throw in roughtly the £4,800 cllrs salaries, (more if you are a portfolio holder) might save £100,000 or so, in the scheme of things £1.1 m or say £1.5 m saving goes nowhere in proping up public services and is "back pocket change".

As to me defending my "cronies" those who know me in the party and out is that I have no cronies and prefer to think for myself. Therefore as I have constantly mentoned to my own Cllrs. it's about time we heard from them but unfortunatley they are "gagged" under rules that do not serve us well. As in all parties,- Tories as well,- there are power bases you take on at your peril, as my good friend Mike Perry would agree. You rarely get cllrs writing on this subject and giving us the facts rather than the invective from those who know very little. Why one would ask? It gets very lonely in this Star comment wondering from where my Labour colleagues awake.

Speaking now as Chairman of Billinge Chapel End Parish Council, Pickles has reneigned on a promise to protect Parish Councils from the loss of precept this year of approx. 250 hous-hold which is roughly approaching £6000. So we can either put up our precept,cut what we are holping to spend on the Community which is a community Orchard and Plots for growing food etc. spend what little we have in reserves, which once gone cannot be re-built. "Savings" if any in the Parish scheme of things ammounts to very little. Parish Cllrs do not get paid and never claim for attending meetings.The only expenses claimed is petrol in attending a NALC meeting in Preston Town Hall and training.

Therefore please stop reading the Tory Comics and read some independent think tanks about how we can get out of the mess which I remind you all had your noses in the spending trough of the 2000 plus years. Never heard one Tory complain at the time until the banking crash came. How we loved our cards and house prices rocketing.

There is a lot of hypocracy about and people with highly selective memories.

PS my daughter was told by her Doctor that hernia, piles and varicose vein ops. now have to be paid for. A "free" health service? Pull the other one. The Health Sevice is being privatised along with schools by Academies. Gove is already telling hedas to sack their current Governors and appoint those with businesss acumen very similar to the independent school set up. He also suggest that Chairs of Governors get paid. Now Frankly et al what would be your going rate?

Report this post »

chasmcn says...
10:40pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Sankey wrote:
st helens does not pay its executives any more than other local authorities but that misses the point. In the labour years the view was we need good people at the top to manage the councils. What should have happened is an influx of new blood from insustry etc to reform local government and bring new ideas. What actually happened was the existing incumbents declared themselves good people and tripled their pay. Town clerks became chief executives overnight. Its an entirely internal market to local government and i wager none of these people would get a third of that pay in the external market. If you look at the accounts there is a large tier below the executive at £50k plus add to that the councillors and the hidden expenses which can amount to a **** good living in addition to their day job, what we have is a small clutch of people doing very well and the rest of the town outside the magic circle either on the dole of paying council tax which has effectively doub led. Then we get the likes of rimmer talking the hard luck story while none of this waste is addressed and the only cutbacks are to front line services and the only people who lose their jobs are the low paid operational staff on the council or their suppliers. These are the last people who should be cut back NOT THE FIRST.
So you are saying Sankey that we hand over the running of the council to the likes of Serco ,G4s or Capita .

The CEO of Serco received £1,916,843 in pay with share rights etc this went up to £5.mill ,Serco are receiving £16.5 billion of public money in running local services around the country which it makes a fantastic profit for its shareholders at the tax payers expense

The CEO of G4s In 2009 he made £3.8 million in salary, bonus, share options and extras.shhh i wont mention the Olympics

The CEO of Capita his salary for 2008 was a whooping £10million paid from contracts given to them by the tax payer but he came a cropper when he faced his disgruntled employees wanting extra pay waving the company's annual report at them it was pointed out to him that his £14,000 a week in the report was more then they earned in a year .


We all know how good privatisation was suppose to be for us eg gas ,electricity,water, railways and its cost , if you think its going to be cheaper and a better service i dont think so, we have had 35 years of this neo liberal garbage stuffed down our throats by all parties .Its a race to the bottom and joe public is getting there fast

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:52pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Chasmcn you have wasted your post that is NOT what I am saying. Most of the council is outsourced already Helena housing for one. I suspect (but dont know) the future will be community group's and the chamber promoting business and less centralised control by the council with its top heavy executive team. I dont know the exact solution but I know the existing situation is not working.

Report this post »

chasmcn says...
10:57pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Sankey wrote:
Reading the primary article again its clear central government has recognised councils have been wasting money at the expense of the local economy. St Helens accounts and the £6 billion overall councils are sitting on seem to demonstrate this. I suspect the game is now up and we should see a dimishing role for councils (whoever is power) and localised control and probably an increased role for community groups and the local chamber. Can't come too soon for the people of st helens who are sick of public services being used as political football, sick of 1100 front line jobs going and the fat cats remaining intact, sick of the council sitting on £120m cash extracted via excessive business rates while the only new jobs in st helens are a new macdonalds. And sick of being made out to be fools by the council leader.
rubbish its all going private like the NHS and education the big private companys dont put money into the tory party for nothing

another observation your saying that these community groups and local chamber will control our local authority you don't identify them who are they ? give us a example will we be allowed a vote

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Bill looking forward to your answer but when it came it was very much work in progress. All the stuff about the NHS, the bankers, tax evasion, the tories is not relevant to this discussion. Did you look at the accounts I provided ? I repeat again we cannot go on the base balance sheet there may be reasons but on the figures its as clear as day £120m of liquid assets. I accept we cannot go back to Derek hatton but in proportion to the rest of the balance sheet £120m does seem excessive. I agree cutting the executive pay would not solve the funding position and I never said that, THe point is they are GROSSLY overpaid and when you are making cost effciencies you start at the top its a basic rule of fairness except it does not apply in local government it seems. I would like to bet 99% of those 1100 jobs going are low paid operational and care staff the very people the public need at the moment and why we pay our council tax. Both you and your Chasmcn need to address the points here not muddying the waters. Why is the council executive untouchable why are they so excessively paid for what they do and why is apparently the council sitting on an extraordinary reserve balance most of which is liquid what is it being held back for. If this is not the time to utilise it then there will never be a time. One final question how have they been allowed to amass this sum who an earth did the costing on the council tax and given this position why was it increased last year?

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Chasmcn yes you will be given a vote and get involved yourself if you wish rather than marie rimmer deciding every matter affecting st helens. Its already starting to happen community groups and parish councils. As yes privisation will increase just as I said it would a year ago when we were arguing about public sector pensions which stand out now like a sore thumb. Re those overpaid executives dont forget they get huge pensions as well. This wont go on for many more years.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
11:39pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Just looked at the accounts in more detail £44m of the £120m is earmarked for what seems to be good causes schools etc.

That still leaves an exceptional sum in reserve.

The only explanation I can think of is the rest is earmarked for future losses in grants from the government and other declines in income. E.g the government has realised they have been screwing the public and are now grabbing it back.

If so this makes a mockery of what Marie Rimmer has been telling us and the council has been in effect overcharging.

Perhaps the council or one of its officers could provide an explanation ? i am sure there is an explanation like i say we cannot just look at a raw balance sheet. But what is it?

Report this post »

chasmcn says...
8:11am Wed 9 Jan 13

Sankey what you are proposing using balances you probably will find the council will do as 2014 comes in i know one big bill coming down the road for st helens council is paying the back pay of women employees in a court case which is at appeal at the moment they will lose that case and balances will be needed to pay that money to those deserving people .

Privatision of council services will not reduce my council tax it will go up to pay the shareholders as privatision is all about profit not value for money service

As we seen last night in the vote in the commons at present iam working paying my tax and NI contributions if i come out of work i will receive less benefit as it will be below the rate of inflation but my contributions are not going down those in work are paying out to receive less when they need it your campaign of neo liberal ideas just take money away from me in poor pay and poor service as we have seen from privatised industry's already.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
9:55am Wed 9 Jan 13

Chas - not sure what the governments change in welfare payments has to do with the council. Re privatisation of council services its been privitised for decades most of the councils operations are provided by the private sector and have been for a very long time. The council just manages these providers which makes you wonder why they need such an expensive and extensive management team. I have said many times much of the cost of this could be shared with other neighbouring authorities not only saving money but providing synergies.

Yes I suppose they might have liabilities falling such as the pay issue and i expect they need substancial investments to pay for the councils pension liabilities.

But the money they are sitting on does seem extraordinary particularly in relation to warrington which has a far lower usable reserves figure.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
10:01am Wed 9 Jan 13

Chas - what I think you are getting confused with is localism increasingly the government is trying to put decision making on where the money is spent to local people via groups or parish councils. Commercial trying to build a bigger role for the chamber and local enterprise groups. Nothing to do with privatisation that was done 20 years ago in councils although i think there are still some services provided by the council directly. Thats my limited undestanding of it.

Report this post »

jumper says...
11:15am Wed 9 Jan 13

The communities secretary Eric Pickles accuses councils of squirrelling away cash while simultaneously making thousands of job cuts and plans to slash services as he reveals that town halls are currently sitting on £10bn in reserves. This is a article that I read about a mth ago.so it seems somebody needs to have a word somewhere or to somebody quick.is it true or is he telling porkies

Report this post »

Bill Bradbury says...
11:57am Wed 9 Jan 13

As one who actually sits on a committee that looks at the spending I am at a loss to find from where all these large ammounts that have been squirrelled away by Marie Rimmer are. As usuaul someone is confusing the issue that cuts mean less spending from eleswhere.

Eric Pickles was referring to the balances that Councils have to legally hold. But that's the Tory press for you such as The Times today coming out with a "pearler" on pensioner's fuel allowance saying if it is cut Pensioners on a joint income of £25,000 would be £200/year worse off but if paid as part of an allowance to the state pension AND TAXES they would be only £29/year worse off.

So that's OK then a "lose lose" scenario for a group which this Government is casting its envious eyes upon as the only group with assets that can be robbed via care homes and having to sell their homes. It looks as though pensioners are to be asked to balance the books.

So the point of this thread maybe about the effects of any cuts but are also to be taken into account of those who rely on those services.

Chasman has got it right. Not one intiative by the Tory-boys and their running dogs will see one iota of difference to those who are currently struggling on low incomes or being out of work who I don't include the work-shy. Pickles promises Parish councils would not be part of any cuts due to the Localism Bill and the now defunct "Big Society" My Parish will lose £6000 loss of income due to his policies. Another broken promise but "we are all in this together?"

Rail users being ripped off with no foreseeable benefits except to continue standing and money rolling into the pockets of the Rail Franchises.

I wrote before the election in this column and the Star that the Tories had unfinished business to stuff the P.O.A, the F.B.U. and the Teacher Unions. They have all been well and truly stuffed and privatised with cuts.
The Local Education authority backs all Tory legislation as before long it will cease to exist if all schools are "Academised".owned by whoever on pay scales that their reduced budgets can afford. It is already happening in neighbouring Councils.

Finally I cannot get my head around those who write to this thread cheering cuts and blaming those who have to carry them out. When all public service workers are on minimum wage perhaps these Tories will feel a sence of gratitude and relief to Cameron and friends. PM question time today will end up as usual with the PM qwuestioning the Opposition over what they will do. We are not in office they are. As the saying goes "You have seen nothing yet" over the results of cuts.

Report this post »

jumper says...
12:05pm Wed 9 Jan 13

I personally am not cheering far from it. The end of my thread was to determine if it is true or is a member of the govt misleading us. If he is it is a quite serious offence. If people need to check it out just google Eric Picklesand fill your boots on what he says!

Report this post »

Sankey says...
12:22pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Jumper well if you look at St Helens councils accounts they are sitting on a pile of cash and liquid assets of nearly £200m so eric pickles figure of £10 billion does not look out of the way. Bill you have wrote a lot of words but nothing to do with the issues here. Yes I agree councils do have to set a legal solvent budget and hold reserves but ST Helens does seem totally excessive with over 4 times the usable reserves of warrington which is a far bigger authority. The government is making less handouts to authorities and expecting them to generate more via business rates. Of course this favours the more properous areas. But its not as simple as that the north west is less properous than the south east but not everywhere in the north west is the same we are in one of the richer parts compared to say lancashire north and east. Warrington and Wigan probably wont have the same problems as st helens which marie has allowed to rot economically. Another issue is finance why should the government dole out handouts to an authority that is awash with assets and funds? just to top them up even further. Marie Rimmer has done nothing for the area economically and is relying on never ending government handouts so they can carry on and do nothing. Those days are over Marie and I am afraid wont be back thats why we need a new leader who can manage these times. Answer to the questions above I still await and Bill please try to stop just goimg in about the Tories and other general gripes there are specific issues here that affect the town and all its people in it stick to those issues.

Report this post »

Sankey says...
12:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Bill if you are at a loss look at st helens council's balance sheet 2012 its as clear as day.

Report this post »

Bill Bradbury says...
1:04pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Sankey I take no offence of what you say and infer about the figures for the questions you raise will have my undivided attention when I get to see the budget which will be within the next few weeks.
I am aware in the past "unspent" monies have been put into other budget heads and used, apart from balances, to protect say the Town Hall burning down or even a school, (if it is an Academy I hope they have taken out the appropriate insurance and not hope the LA will bail them out).
These "assets" you refer is a question if they can be sold or if they are worth anything at all. If the can once they have been thrown into the pot then in future years there will be no safety net and services wil close.

As I have pronised in the past as soon as I know anything so will you unless my Cllrs. decide to "clam up"
As I have written Marie or other Cllrs should be the one's answering your questions and if not why not?

Report this post »

smith&weston says...
1:19pm Wed 9 Jan 13

'The other would be head of public affairs £80k what on earth is that role?'... that will be the person in charge of the small crew who pump out ' look at the great things we do " or ' we are fighting for you despite the nasty Tories " stories to the local media on a daily basis. It's part of the old fashioned Labour spin philosophy .

Report this post »

jumper says...
1:49pm Wed 9 Jan 13

A bit of the main thread but we should have a log of what our reps do ,some idea may come out so has we can add up where some of the pennies are going .

Report this post »

Bill Bradbury says...
2:04pm Wed 9 Jan 13

jumper wrote:
A bit of the main thread but we should have a log of what our reps do ,some idea may come out so has we can add up where some of the pennies are going .
Not a bad idea. You would be surprised how much they do or perhaps how little?

Report this post »

jumper says...
2:18pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Bill unfortunately when I try a request that may help our part of our ward it is always in the negative that is with the Can'tcillors. Yet the council staff and the PCSO's are so helpfull

Report this post »

Sankey says...
7:30pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Thanks bill it would be interesting to know what the answer is. I do understand a council cannot sail close to the wind but those reserves CFO seem excessive and one wonders why St. Helens needed to put the council tax up and could have carried a couple of years given the recession

Report this post »

saintsfan says...
7:48pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Sankey wrote:
Thanks bill it would be interesting to know what the answer is. I do understand a council cannot sail close to the wind but those reserves CFO seem excessive and one wonders why St. Helens needed to put the council tax up and could have carried a couple of years given the recession
People seem to have forgotten that St Helens Council raised the Council Tax by 2% last year, which of course is extra revenue, and they have also forgotten that the current council administration promised to bring back free parking, yet of course the parking charges remain. Both revenue streams are handy cash cows and yet even with them St Helens Council are apparently unable to make the books balance. I seem to remember the swimming pool at Sutton being under threat of closure previously and I suspect Rimmer is exploiting the situation there purely for political purposes, as is her way. Alas, the people of St Helens will never learn: they keep bringing the old guard back no matter how many times their incompetence is made clear, not least by themselves and their continual harping.

Report this post »

jumper says...
7:49pm Wed 9 Jan 13

If the elected done what they say they are going to do,why do we have to have any other type of group. Because all the issue that are going on is known about. So we should not need to second it.

Report this post »

saintsfan says...
1:26pm Sun 13 Jan 13

Just a random something from nowhere, I noticed this morning that the Chinese restaurant opposite Cafe Nero has closed.

Report this post »

anthonywilson says...
7:46pm Sun 13 Jan 13

saintsfan wrote:
Just a random something from nowhere, I noticed this morning that the Chinese restaurant opposite Cafe Nero has closed.
East Orient haven't gone bust either as they have another restaurant in Warrington which is still open. (There's a Notice on the door)

Cathay Dynasty in Hall Street also closed in the Autumn.

Not really a surprise considering how many Chinese eateries have opened in the area. They simply cannot all survive.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree