Skip to main content

Birmingham City Council - why can't they keep the streets clean?

I have received a number of complaints recently about the failure of street cleaning across Yardley (and a considerable number specifically from Acocks Green).

My constituents have asked why Solihull MDC can keep the streets clean, but not Birmingham. The Labour Party would like to say "money". Well I have the estimated budgets for the next financial year (which starts on 1st April 2014).

For the next financial year Birmingham will be spending (including government grant) around £2,587.09 per dwelling and Solihull will be spending only £1,831.52 per dwelling.

Hence Birmingham hasn't got enough money when it gets £700 per dwelling more than Solihull. Solihull has enough money.

Birmingham does, however, have enough money to spend tens of millions of pounds on wheelie bins. Politics is about choices. Labour, now they have control of the city council, have clearly decided to accept rubbish on the streets.

The Labour administration in Birmingham need to wake up and smell the coffee. They are in charge of the priorities. My constituents want the city kept clean. There is, in fact, good evidence that this reduces crime. It is not a trivial issue. My constituents are right about this.

We are poaching Solihull's Chief Executive. Maybe he will get Labour to see sense. I don't blame Stephen Hughes for the mess on the Streets I blame Sir Albert Bore and the Labour Councillors.

Comments

Unknown said…
I can't see how BCC thinks it will be saving money or breaking even. If only a small percentage of the public pay £35 per year then BCC will be obliged to collect green waste across the city making it completely uneconomical and lose money trying to fulfil its duties. Its the same cost in diesel to collect from 1 person in a street as it is to collect another 99 in the same street. Have they gone mad? John Hemming
3:13 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why are babies born young?

Why are babies born young? This sounds like an odd question. People would say "of course babies are born young". However, this goes to the core of the question of human (or animal) development. Why is it that as time passes people develop initially through puberty and then for women through menopause and more generally getting diseases such as sarcopenia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cancer, but most of the time babies start showing no signs of this. Lots of research into this has happened over the years and now I think it is clear why this is. It raises some interesting questions. Biological youth is about how well a cell functions. Cells that are old in a biological sense don't work that well. One of the ways in which cells stop working is they fail to produce the full range of proteins. Generally the proteins that are produced from longer genes stop being produced. The reason for this relates to how the Genes work (the Genome). Because the genome is not gettin...
1 comment
Read more