The torys hate anone who is not ritch. Look at the lates headlines Thousands sacked at HMV aand Jessops!!! Tories promised that new jobs in the private sector would make up for what they slashed from the public sector insteed a series of devastating blows over the past two weeks have exposed this as a hollow lie.

Now the Torys will brand thoe unemployed workers as “skivers”. Many of those sacked this week already know how hard it is to find a job.

Unions must lead a fight that can save our jobs. If workers occupy Jessops or HMV stores wee shuld go out and support them. Blockbusters will be next and even more workers on the dole in bracknell, and benifits cut so that councillors can ride roughshod over us with there hunteing horses. I bet none one the councillres really live in bracknell anyway. probably have main homes in france and hypocritacll wand to get rin of the EU wat gis us most of oour trade.

wee now the tory weasle words. Thea Tory fat cats want all the wad in there pocket.

   Maddie my dear girl, those aren't so much headlines as fluff and noise. Not like the solid facts in the Guardian Data Page? Pip Piip.

   Major trading partners and strategic allies are urging us to change tack. Where does it say that in the headlines? Maddie my dear girl those things there aren't headlines; just fluff. Please look at the real data in the Guardian Tables? And also tell me about the banks?

   Here he is - Old Oaks! How are you sweetpea?

Remind me - which Tory are you? Cllr. Stanton? Cllr. Ross?

I'll get there eventually......

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said I wasn't a poster girl for Labour?

I'm an Independent. Which means I have a brain of my own.

But an analysis of the details show that actions taken by the previous government saw modest improvements. Three years under the Tories and we're worse off than before. All our major trading partners and strategic allies are urging us to change tack.

To pin everything on Labour is to shirk responsibility for your actions. Labour did what they could - within a global context - to prevent UK from going bankrupt.

As for Gideon and Dave - how come we see these headlines today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/22/government-borrowing-uk-credit-rating

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9817896/Soldiers-serving-in-Afghanistan-likely-to-be-sacked-within-year.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9817887/Britains-factory-orders-fall-unexpectedly.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21145018

It's you lot running the country (into the ground) now, not Labour.

Ditch the Teflon, cupcake.

Show us you know the meaning of responsibility.

   Neal, I wonder how it is worked out?

If you take the average council worker wage of 29,000 that works out at about £16/Hr. We divide up 8,500 into hours –That would then expect your average councillor do 10 hours a week?

On the other hand Councillors give a steer to the Chief Executive who gets something like 150,000. That works out at about £82/hr. That would mean 2 hours a week.

But then who knows what councillors earn from the companies that they are at? The average Bracknell salary is 36,000.

Just how would you work out the worth? How many people would handle and be held responsible for multi million pond budgets for free?

Perhaps Neal can give us a scheme that works within the laid down laws?

http://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-council-salary http://www.getreading.co.uk/jobs/news/s/2109829_bracknell_workers_have_second_highest_wages_in_country http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1021/contents/made

Maddie - Take a look at the data on this website, and then tell me about who made us skint? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data

When Labour gained office in 1997 with a deficit of 15,555 million, they kept to Toy plans and got to a surplus of 16,697 millon in 2000.

2002 was the start of the slide, seeing a drop to a deficit of 42,589 million in 2005 a slump to 69.002 million in 2008

We then saw a HUGE slide to a deficit of 156,214 million by 2009.

Now explain the bank bit to me: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/nov/12/bank-bailouts-uk-credit-crunch

   And as for your wider point about the country being skint. It's 2013. Our third year of a coalition government which imposed the levels of austerity - driven by an ideology of deficit reduction at ANY cost.

Quick history lesson for you:

2007 - Northern Rock collapse heralding the start of the financial crisis in UK, as a result of sub prime mortgage and Wall Street scandals in US.

Globally all economies began to experience contraction and heading for recession in 2009.

The policies of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, combined with those of other global players saw a turnaround and a mitigation of financial collapse.

Since 2010, under George Osborne, we've seen the UK return to recession and almost constant downgrading of growth forecasts by the OBR, Bank of England and Treasury. Last week saw first confirmed fears amongst financial sector of a triple dip recession.

I'm no fan of Labour - and certainly not a poster girl for them - but three years of this mob have seen them missing targets and entrenching stagnation in the economy. Oh, but they cut the top rate of tax for the wealthiest......

If Labour left the country skint - then the Tories have have pawned us off to Wonga!

Anyway, cupcake, let's not fall out x

   Sandy my dearest - you seem to be wilfully overlooking the points I am making.

The Look In is not like other food establishments - any other food business in the town is a private enterprise: Burger King, McDonalds, Market Cafe, Greggs, Costa.....

It was established in 1995 and subsidised by BFC to provide a venue for seniors to meet, have a hot meal, etc. Various groups such as the Alzheimers Society and Help The Aged held drop in sessions there.

I'm not saying BFC weren't right to consider every aspect of where their funding went - but it's typical of politicians to protect their own wallets whilst seemingly ignoring the needs of the very people they are meant to represent.

It now runs - as I said - because the good people of this town took on the burden of keeping this vital facility open. Do keep up. People such as myself donating food, volunteering time.

"Being a councillor should not be a job for only the rich or those retired. "

Umm - I made that point first. Again, you're not paying attention. Sit up at the back there.

   Is Sandyandy perchance a plant? A Tory lackey? A Councillor?

I think Maddie is asking some valid questions. Looking at allowances paid in 2011/2012 the Councillors claimed a total of £597,695.77, shall we say a round £600,000, which can be viewed on the downloads here: http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/councillorsallowances

I think that what needs to happen is for the electorate to decide this at the next election (2015 both General and Local) and see if anything changes. Personally I have my doubts as I see there never being any change it is all really shades of grey (the old-fashioned term) or as Maddie also referred to, a tad Orwellian. Who is Napoleon? Who is Snowball? Is Sandyandy Squealer?

   So what was with the increase of the look-in funding to 60,000? Was that not a subsidy? How is it other food establishments make a profit?

How come it now runs without the subsidy?

And Maddie, how much should councillors be paid?

Something different than what the independent panel sets?

The panel states that "Moreover, the Panel has been mindful of its guiding principle that it has sought to reduce financial barriers to being an elected Member while ensuring that the remuneration received by Members represents value for money" - So why would anybody suggest cutting that? Surely it might affect some councillors quite badly? http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/independentremunerationpanel

As far as I can see the austerity is shared, in that the allowance do not appear to have been increased for several years. I also gather that the mileage decrease you referenced applies to councillors as well, with some members having their car expenses cut completely, as they cannot now claim mileage within the Borough.

As for hypocrisy. Did you do see that the Labour group (of 3) were pulling political a cheap shot? They were all retired and could afford to do it for free. Being a councillor should not be a job for only the rich or those retired.

And just a reminder of who left the country skint: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2976845/Labour-Treasury-chief-left-a-letter-admitting-Britain-is-skint.html

   Is it that hard to understand, dearheart? You clearly knew nothing of which I spoke, and therefore I kindly provided you with links to back up my assertions. Did you not read them, but chose to comment anyway?

By the way, are you a reader of Orwell? Animal Farm per chance?

Firstly, I never once suggested that benefits or subsidies should be increased. And despite Cllr. Birch's erroneous claim, nor have Labour, either nationally or locally.

Secondly, councillors are not workers or employed - they represent us through the democratic process. As in, they are elected. They are not paid. They receive allowances.

Rightly so, otherwise elected office becomes the preserve of the well off and retired.

Do you not see the irony, nay hypocrisy, of a political group blaming their opposition for spending when the self same group refuse to countenance a reduction in their allowances in order to share the same austerity as everyone else in the borough?

Cllr. Birch voted against a proposal to reduce his allowance in order to save the Look In cafe in Broadway, forcing this valuable ammenity for the over 50's to face closure. (It didn't because the good people of Bracknell got organised and saved it, in spite of BFC's best efforts).

He chose to keep his wallet padded out, while reducing allowances of the opposition, in the knowledge that further cuts were being made to vital services like closing most of the youth centres, closing and streamlining the childrens centres, cuts to services for the disabled and elderly.

We're all in this together?

So to summarise, Cllr. Birch shows the stoic residents of Bracknell what he and his party are really about - the Tories in this town bank on us having short memories, hoping we've been beaten into submission by the degradation of our town.

"All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others"

   So Maddie you would have some workers (Because as I see it councillors work for us) take a pay cut while subsidies and benefits are increased?

   Sandyandy says: Minimum Wage applies to all companies. Some small companies could not pay that much, and probably would risk paying cash in hand, thus denying any top-up benefits to workers.

With respect your reply is lame and doesn't address the situation at all. Minimum wages don't apply to all companies. Some pay a decent living wage. Companies like Tesco, are rolling in it. Why should they be allowed to pay such low wages or none at all, that the government is subsidising them?

   Sandyandy - I don't have an attitude of expecting to be a loser. I never said I did - but I'm more of a team player in the championship we call life, not a lone competitor.

As for BFC, Tories, and thinking of their pockets before helping the citizens of this great borough:

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2110088_bid_to_reduce_councillors_allowances_thrown_out

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2089784_council_leader_defends_allowances

http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2065541_cut_councillors_allowances_to_save_the_look_in

And my favourite -http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/news/s/2094339_staff_happy_to_take_expenses_cut_say_bosses_

   Maddie. What I asked was "What do you want to be?" Why do you have an attitude that expects you to be a loser? I want to be a winner. It may not always happen, but that's what I want.

Neal - Are you claiming the discount for being on your own? Should those without children get a discount?

Maddie "Voting down a proposal to reduce his allowances" - what's that about?

Dids, the Minimum Wage applies to all companies. Some small companies could not pay that much, and probably would risk paying cash in hand, thus denying any top-up benefits to workers.

CMK - Labour had several years to get the tax system right - The system is now so complex the that HMRC would rather settle for a smaller sum out of court that run up huge tax bills unravelling - Under Labour the tax legislation handbook more than doubled in length to over 11,000 pages long - including lots of loopholes - What we need is simple tax - http://www.reform.co.uk/content/5031/research/economy/reality_check_fixing_the_uks_tax_system

   "...we are going to make sure whatever system we bring in will reward people for being in work."

Now I'm no apologist for the work shy, feckless, and outright lazy - yes, you, the weasel faced ingrates in Great Hollands Square with your dogs that look like a pair of bo***ks on four legs - but I am intrigued by this notion of 'rewarding' those in work. Surely paid employment is it's own reward?

I don't know about you but I'm a lady of modest means, a family gal, with my fragrant 'partner' and our three bonnie kids. I don't envy anyone taking a state benefit and I can't understand why anyone would imagine it's a life that is preferable to one where you earn a wage for an honest days labour (although honest is stretching it when it comes to politicians).

But then Capt. Mainwaring - sorry, Cllr Birch - showed his true blue colours when voting down a proposal to reduce his allowances in order to save a valuable amenity. He was rewarding himself for working.

Good for you Dale.