From the people who decided that what the poor need is a sense of community – and an army of superannuated middle class regeneration wonks to deliver it – comes an even stupider idea.
What the poor now apparently need is the arts or “arts and cultural opportunities available at a local level” to be precise. And more to the point, we need a lot of council officers on good money to deliver this to “strategic priority neighbourhood areas of the city”.
So why not become a Neighbourhood Arts Officer starting on a sum slightly above the alleged average wage and rising exponentially until retirement? You know it makes sense.
Also, as reports begin to drift in from the press of gaps in life expectancy of up to 20 years between rich and poor, it’s nice to know the city council are taking notice:
There will be a particular priority to develop projects and pilots addressing health issues
Excellent stuff. But can anyone sane out there explain exactly how the fuck a few soppy neighbourhood arts projects are gonna seriously and effectively address massive life-reducing inequalities?
Meanwhile over in the education department, no doubt to help deal with the recent drop in results for primary kids, they’re after a Strategic Communications Officer.
This poor sod has to get by on a wage of just £33,315 pa to start with. That’s considerably more money than they pay most of the teachers this communications expert will doubtless be blaming for anything and everything on a regular basis.
So ludicrous and out of hand has this middle class gravy train of pointless non-jobs down at the Council House got that even The Cancer is now asking questions.
This follows the announcement by the head of Social Services Annie Hudson – scraping by on about £100k a year – that a consultation is to take place on whether Bristol’s elderly should be charged for their ‘Life Line’ emergency alarm systems.
This, we learn, could save the council £180k – £200k a year. Less than the cost of five Strategic Communications Officers. Here’s what The Cancer says:
why pick on the elderly? Is it because they are seen as a soft target?
Or is the city council bereft of ideas for how to save money?
There are, of course, many other ways to save money. What about looking at the ranks of council employees? Why cut services? Why not reduce bureaucrats?
Virtually every business in this country has had to learn to become fitter and leaner in recent years.
But local authorities continue to carry vast workforces and become ever more weighed down by them and ever more bound up in red tape.
Surely it is time for a radical overhaul of how our councils operate, the money they spend and the number of pen-pushers they employ?
Well said. But who is it we vote for if we want to be rid of all these pointless, overpaid, middle class, unsackable bureaucrats?