Conservatives have said it is time to save money by reducing the number of councillors.
Tories in Sunderland say the cuts could save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.
> Don’t they always say that ? What really happens is resources are reduced (library closures in Sunderland, for example) but taxpayers still pay the same. Pay the same but get less. How is this a saving ?
They say that while the council itself has become smaller over the last few years, the number of councillors has remained at 75.
> Yeah, but surely councillors aren’t the same as people working for the council. If you reduce the number of councillors, constituents representation will be worse.
The workforce at the council has been reduced from about 8,000 to just over 4,000 since budget reductions started.
> Which = more people on the dole. It’s the Tory way, folks…
Councillor Robert Oliver and Doxford Candidate Dominic McDonough believe that it is time to trim the number of councillors.
Throughout the country many councils have already cut the number of councillors, diverting funds to frontline services.
Conservative candidate for Doxford Ward, McDonough, said: “As we see the council getting smaller and efficiency savings being made, it is common sense to assume that the number of councillors should also be reduced.
> But he still wants to be one, you’ll notice…
“Several councils in England have already cut the number of councillors they elect in line with cuts to staff levels. The money saved by cutting the number of councillors should be diverted to frontline services.”
> Eh ? Surely the number of councillors is determined by the population they serve – not staff levels at the council ! Hope this guy doesn’t get elected !
Councillor Robert Oliver said: “It is right that the budget for councillors is reduced in the same way as other council budgets are reduced.
“Other services at the council have faced budget cuts, but have improved in quality, and the same should happen with the councillors.”
> Tory policy in a nutshell – less is more.
Well, less for you anyway. Not less for them.
Source – Sunderland Echo 12 March 2014