Hacker News Reader

Comment by leapius | Hacker News Reader

'Cash-strapped' Hah you must be kidding! I also think 6 million cameras for a total population of 60 million is a little bit high dontchathink?!

View on HN

UK local authorities are famously poorly funded and have been squeezed by the government further over the last 5 years. The one that sticks out for me is Newcastle Upon Tyne - here's some pretty astonishing figures from a long-ish article[1]

"In fact, the city’s predicament already seemed impossible. The council cut £37m from its spending in 2013-14, and another £38m is set to follow this year. Then, according to current projections, there will be further annual cuts of £40m, £30m, and £20m"

I think "cash-strapped" is putting it lightly.

[1] = http://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/nov/24/-sp-is-saving-ne...

Local government is really broken in the UK, I think the root of the problem is people vote in local elections on national issues, there is little true local democracy in council elections.

My problem with local government in the UK is the absolutely dire quality of the candidates.

Most MPs seem to be generally knowledgeable about the world, well educated, qualified and have something to say about what they believe, even if you don't agree with it.

But most local government candidates seem to be retired nobodies with no experience of anything substantial and nothing enlightened to say about anything.

They always come across as the worst kind of petty lower-middle management on a power trip. Very uninspiring.

It's kind of a cycle. Being a local councillor is a part time position with almost no pay, so you basically have to be retired with an interest in meddling. Local news is terrible at holding them to account and also has no money. Voters care mostly about issues that affect them directly (bins, and whichever planning policy is closest).

If the position of council chief exec (which is often very well paid) were elected, things would be different.

Oh, and the funding situation for councils is a mess.

In the interest of balance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/...

I had no idea, that's very eye-opening. When pension funds go underwater like this, what are the options? Do the council (or indeed any organisation) have any ability to renegotiate them if they are as "gold-plated" or outrageous as the Telegraph suggests?

Not usually. Final salary schemes were considered normal, not "gold plated", and of course worked ok while average wages were rising, council revenues were rising, the stock market was rising, and interest rates were high (which makes the value of future liabilities lower). Now they are becoming a vast income transfer from poorer young people to well off old people. In the US bankruptcy has been tried, but not sure that is an option in the UK.

> vast income transfer from poorer young people to well off old

Hooray someone who gets it. How on earth did you escape the UK hive-mind?

Do you like how they put all the UK pension costs under the main "welfare" heading then demand benefit cuts (excluding pensions) because the welfare bill is too high?

Do you know anyone else in the UK who knows or cares about any of this?

Heh.

I think essentially every young person in the UK realises this and cares deeply.

I have a bunch of middle class friends. Many of their parents started out, got a decent job, bought a house. House is now worth 500K+.

For us to ever obtain that (without inheritance; i.e. in the same way they did) we would have to earn over £100K, or have dual income of 70K, ish. That's 5% if not 1% territory; it's essentially limited to business owners/senior mgmt and bankers.

So everyone rents. Who are they renting from? Well, not young people.

Of course, all of this capital will flow down the generations eventually, but only to a select lucky few. It's as if we had a golden age; a few decades of mobility for people to work hard within; and now family wealth is basically crystallised.

> Final salary schemes were considered normal, not "gold plated",

These days defined-benefit schemes are "normal" in the US only for government employees. In the private sector, they were largely phased out in favor of defined-contribution pensions, decades ago, with only a few labor-union-negotiated holdouts. This is probably a good thing for workers whose employer may go out of business or go bankrupt some day (cough GM cough) in a way that governments theoretically shouldn't.

Meanwhile in actually-bankrupt US cities, look at Stockton, California... especially renowned for government employees working insane overtime in their final year to make final-salary calculations as impressive as possible.

A good man, beat me to it. Boomer pension haircut time.

No chance, they are the biggest group that the politicians can pander to.

A huge amount of cash from councils goes straight into funding their disgusting defined benefit pension schemes.

28% of council tax bills according to this:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2048574/Town...

Perhaps it's time for a boomer pension haircut before making further cuts on services that effect our kids.

Of course. Pensions are by far the largest part of the UK welfare bill. But pensioners are a very important voter demographic...

People are paid pensions because they're owed pensions. They've been paying into the system their entire lives, and are entitled to that money. To describe it as 'welfare' is entirely misleading.

You could argue the same about other benefit claimants, but this is besides the point. Most of the welfare budget is spent on pensions.

Correct. And there is zero info on this in our media. Same as local council pension spending which another poster had no clue about until informed.

No, I couldn't claim that a 19 year old claiming JSA had been "paying into the system their entire lives". Do you not see the difference between someone in that situation and someone who's been paying NI for the past 50 years and is now claiming their pension?

The fact that pensions happen to be grouped in the same category as benefits is irrelevant. If they were in a separate category it would hardly change the figures.

Those are mostly privately owned, the figure isn't quite as bad as it sounds.

Shhh... facts don't fit with the dystopian narrative.

The six million number comes from this study: http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/bsia-attempts-to-clarify-que...

Note that six million is the high end of the estimate, with the low being a (still rather high) four million.

This study included things like hospitals, prisons and sewage works. When talking about council-operated CCTV it does not make sense to use the six million figure.

The study estimates 1 in 70 of these cameras are controlled by the local government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com