Politics

[Happy Face 29]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

[Happy Face 29]

Further analysis of the numbers I linked to shows that if you take council tax out of the equation altogether (which you'd expect to be what's bumping Windsors coffers)....then the gap is being widened between what the rich south already recieve in excess of the poor north....

 

Last year

South Tyneside grants = £131.3m = £858 per person

Windsor grants = £33.5m = £1183 per person

 

Next year

South Tyneside grants = £111.5m = £728 per person (£130 cut)

Windsor grants = £32.5m = £1148 per person (£35 cut)

 

Where a Windsor resident was £325 a year better off from government handouts to councils, they will be £420 better off next year.

 

A 30% increase.

 

In it together.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Happy Face

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

You do get that theres a link between average wealth (or however you want to put it) and council expenditure don't you?

 

"Trimming back" = somone loses out - better to be people in ST or those in Windsor?

 

Better to be those that dont need the money as much.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

 

 

Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should.

 

Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money.

 

Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way.

[NJS 4365]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

 

 

Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should.

 

Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money.

 

Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way.

 

So what do you imagine Windsor spends its money on that in some way is better than how ST does it?

 

Do you honestly think they have a greater need for social services or do you think the money goes to councillors cronies on things like consultancy?

[Guest alex]

This is one of the major problems with the Tories in relation to the NE for me. While Labour have to consider all parts of Britain in order to gain power, the Tories can literally shit all over entire regions (and countries for that matter) and not have to give a shit.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

 

 

Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should.

 

Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money.

 

Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way.

 

So what do you imagine Windsor spends its money on that in some way is better than how ST does it?

 

Do you honestly think they have a greater need for social services or do you think the money goes to councillors cronies on things like consultancy?

 

 

I think theres probably a very good explaination but its far too close to Christmas to go trawling google for counter happy face statistics. Particularly when it looks like Cable could be about to be sacked or forced to resign, Barton could be sold and more importantly its pub night in an hour.

 

TBC.....

[Guest alex]

Don't hold your breath on his getting back to you on that one though

[Matt 0]

Will they replace Vince with another LibDem?

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Will they replace Vince with another LibDem?

 

I would think they put a proper Tory in the job and give a lib dem some overseas book.

 

The Lib Dems just keep fucking things up.

[Matt 0]

Will they replace Vince with another LibDem?

The Lib Dems just keep fucking things up.

 

Well, it's hard to argue with your view of the party that delivered this coalition.

[Happy Face 29]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

 

 

Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should.

 

Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money.

 

Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way.

 

 

You seem to be agreeing it's wrong that councils that get too much, like Windsor, should go from getting £325 more per person in government cash, to getting £420 more? But then confounding your statement by supporting the Tories for doing it.

 

If South Tyneside is a more cost effective council per person, why should it's cuts be higher?

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

 

 

Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should.

 

Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money.

 

Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way.

 

 

You seem to be agreeing it's wrong that councils that get too much, like Windsor, should go from getting £325 more per person in government cash, to getting £420 more? But then confounding your statement by supporting the Tories for doing it.

 

If South Tyneside is a more cost effective council per person, why should it's cuts be higher?

 

 

On returning from the pub and a quick look on the BBC website I understand there is a 152 page manual that clearly sets out how the council tax and goverment grant is worked out and why each individual council gets what it gets.

 

The temptation to delve further into said manual for the bits that make the Tories look good escapes me.

 

Bearing in mind I genuinely feel your fopless pain, I can only apologise for an extremely piss poor performance. As I trudge off to the Belta Minge thread I can only hope there is a more determined knight of the blue brigade, ready to step up and defend the honour.

[Tooj 17]

At least Fop had an ounce of intelligence....

[Dr Gloom 21793]

I think it's a fucking outrage that the poorest boroughs in London, like newham, are getting bigger cuts to council funding than the more desirable areas like Richmond. It's pretty obvious which area needs the money more. It looks to me like a vindictive attack by the government against a borough that voted labour

[Happy Face 29]

Shock horror that it's the labour councils who were already doing very well and now need trimming back.

 

 

If you can provide evidence of that, I'll gladly concede the point....a cursory check of existing (labour) budgets of 2 of the councils being cut shows otherwise....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/uk...ity_funding.xls

 

Labour - South Tyneside Spending Power 10/11 = £188.7m (Population 153,000 = £1233 per person)

Tory - Windsor spending power 10/11 £99.3m (population 28,300 = £3508 per person)

 

Windsor have also just announced the largest cut in council tax in history.....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ouncil-tax.html

 

So you can't even argue that the inhabitants are contributing more to local serrvices in Windsor than they are in South Tyneside.

 

Do you just believe whatever you're told rather than actually check the factoids you come out with?

 

 

Excellent news tbh and long overdue. Most councils, particularly Labour just keep on taking and taking and taking. They will always find some new service to justify a rise, but just because they can find new ways to spend money, doesnt mean they should.

 

Councils have long since become little empires for local fools to waste money.

 

Nice to see the Tories once again leading the way.

 

 

You seem to be agreeing it's wrong that councils that get too much, like Windsor, should go from getting £325 more per person in government cash, to getting £420 more? But then confounding your statement by supporting the Tories for doing it.

 

If South Tyneside is a more cost effective council per person, why should it's cuts be higher?

 

 

On returning from the pub and a quick look on the BBC website I understand there is a 152 page manual that clearly sets out how the council tax and goverment grant is worked out and why each individual council gets what it gets.

 

The temptation to delve further into said manual for the bits that make the Tories look good escapes me.

 

Bearing in mind I genuinely feel your fopless pain, I can only apologise for an extremely piss poor performance. As I trudge off to the Belta Minge thread I can only hope there is a more determined knight of the blue brigade, ready to step up and defend the honour.

 

If you don't want to read the book, have a listen to this, the first report is on the complexities of council funding and should help you towards the Tory reasoning.....

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wlh2t

 

Or is it just me that enjoys this sort of thing in his spare time?

 

Edited December 22, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

At least Fop had an ounce of intelligence....

Probably marginally more mentally ill though.

[Billy Castell 0]

The Lib Dems have shown themselves to be the complete sell-outs we knew they were. Propping up what is increasingly looking like a vicious government that wants to give the rich more money at the expense of the vulnerable in return for a tiny scrap of power.

 

And no doubt the coalition will be crawling to Murdoch, apologising to their master.

[Park Life 71]

I think it's a fucking outrage that the poorest boroughs in London, like newham, are getting bigger cuts to council funding than the more desirable areas like Richmond. It's pretty obvious which area needs the money more. It looks to me like a vindictive attack by the government against a borough that voted labour

 

It's not the Govt is it. It's a perpetually ruling oligarchy.

[shackbleep 0]

I hear the coalition's answer to solving the CSA mess is to ask seperated parents to 'sort it amongst themselves amicably' or be charged £20 for using government savings.

 

Aye cos sticking another barrier in the way is going to make all the difference. Have they not got a fucking clue?

[AgentAxeman 169]

I hear the coalition's answer to solving the CSA mess is to ask seperated parents to 'sort it amongst themselves amicably' or be charged £20 for using government savings.

 

Aye cos sticking another barrier in the way is going to make all the difference. Have they not got a fucking clue?

 

 

bit of an odd one to be sure but it would be nice if people were responsible enough to actually do it (sort it between themselves) instead of resorting to what smacks of litigation.

 

mind you they've gotta do something (or at least be seen to do something) with the CSA cos its a fuckin mess which invariably makes a bad situation worse.

[Guest alex]

Another (non) solution from the coalition.

[Park Life 71]

The herders are insane.

[spongebob toonpants 3925]

The Oldham by-election result has definitely confirmed one thing for me. I will definitely be voting no in the AV referendum.

 

By my reading of the situation I would then have to order these remaining candidates in order.

 

Lib Dems

Conservatives

UKIP:

BNP:

Green Party:

Monster Raving Loony Party:

English Democrats:

Pirate Party:

Bus Pass Elvis Party

 

I can imagine going Green as a second choice if I was forced to choose, but beyond that (Elvis apart) I would find it impossible to do.

 

Combine that with a desire to see Nick Clegg have his shameful post election oportunism punished as fully as possible, I am hoping to see a overwhelming no vote, and the LibDems and the coalition implode

[Guest alex]

I would've gone for the pirates like. I agree though, I don't think I'll vote for AV. PR would've been something I'd have considered however.