Forum Message

Topic: Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS
Posted by: Helen Coleman
Date/Time: 04/12/09 10:46:00

Well yes on the face of it, it doesn't make much sense, but it does if you look a bit further. This is money available this year that they can't carry over (because they didn't have to pay central govt 4.6m in the end). The job cuts will come next year when they have to balance the books in year. So the fact they've got extra money this year, doesn't mean they've got enough money next year.


Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 09:48:00 Richard Grange
   Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 10:14:00 Chris Hurley
      Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 10:26:00 Richard Grange
         Re:Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 10:28:00 Dee Cook
            Re:Re:Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 10:34:00 Richard Grange
      Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 10:33:00 Richard Grange
      Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 23:04:00 Mavis Walker
   Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 10:46:00 Helen Coleman
      Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 13:13:00 Libby Kemp
         Re:Re:Re:COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 13:47:00 Helen Coleman
            COUNCIL BUNG AND THE LOST 64 JOBS04/12/09 14:37:00 George Knox

Forum Home