A collection of responses to today’s statement from the Centre for Policy Studies, the Adam Smith Institute, and others.
There is no denying that working practices have changed. But Town Hall bosses should not indulge in foolish experiments at the expense of Council Taxpayers.
Those paying the most as a percentage of income are not receiving better services than those paying the least. The burden is greater. The benefits are not.
When key performance data finally landed, the results were clear: relative to before the pandemic, most metrics got worse. Spending on agency staff, a key justification for the trial, went up, not down as was intended.
If a council is in trouble, then the more daylight on the matter the better – publishing accounts acts as that daylight. The first step to solving a problem is recognising it exists.
Our investigation into occupancy rates at council buildings found that offices were only around 40 per cent full.
This included visits to some of the world’s most oppressive regimes, such as Cuba, China, and Russia. The very same Council that hosted COP26 and declared a climate emergency in May 2019.
Anyone who has spent time in the Netherlands can hardly fail to see the benefits of more cycling; wider pavements and a merciful absence of cars. But the motive should not be to punish drivers and avoid the need to find savings.
A collection of responses to today’s statement from the CPS, IEA, ASI and others.
The whole process has done little to instil taxpayer confidence. Let us hope that lessons really are learned and such a dreadful waste of the public purse never happens again.
At a national level this one-size-fits-all policy is costing taxpayers around £20 billion a year in pay disparity between the public and private sectors.
Research from the TaxPayers’ Alliance shows that 23,545 union officials in the public sector cost taxpayers nearly £100 million in facility time last year.
A report has found a lack of proper audits, unlawful payments, and a refusal to answer queries from councillors.
Why does this issue have to be legislated at the national level? Wouldn’t it be better to let local residents and taxpayers decide what is best?