Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 5:20 pm
And no, social disadvantage in Cheltenham is not equivalent to that in Tower Hamlets.

3/4 of my life have been spent in Cheltenham and Tower Hamlets combined. Of course, deprivation in Cheltenham isn't equivalent to Tower Hamlets in deprivation. But equally it's not the opposite of Tower Hamlets either.

Admirable Chrichton wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 7:45 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:13 pm Cheltenham has its share of economic and educational deprivation, as it goes. It dumps most of its social tenants in a couple of areas (Hester's Way, St Paul's), and anyone who can avoids the two schools that the kids from there go to.

I knew someone would post that (well, I knew Tubbz would)

You understand my point, though?

And no, social disadvantage in Cheltenham is not equivalent to that in Tower Hamlets.

The Conservatives on Bolton council pull this "fair distribution" shtick when they try to justify each ward in the town getting an equal share of funds. In purely numerical terms every ward is "equal". In reality though, the more affluent wards benefit more (who often vote Tory. Who'd think!) as their infrastructure (like roads) are in much better shape already.

What a conservative politician thinks is "fair" doesn't always match up with what a lot of people think is fair!!

It's also why the flat taxes that are fetishized by disingenuous libertarians and other right-wing cranks are a nonsense.

I went to Bath for university and it became apparent that the worst school in Bath was still leagues ahead of the worst school in neighboring Bristol for finances, resources etc.

That was at the basis of the Blair government's Foundation Schools - funding was let loose from Local Authority control, and later (starting in the Excellence in Cities programme) the mantra was coined of 'funding follows disadvantage' - instantly cancelled by Osborne in 2010 and the funds 'redistributed fairly'. A lot of EiC money went to pay for public school bursaries...

Our own version of the Jim Crow laws...

Don't forget percentage pay rises. Everybody gets 2 1/2%. That's fair. So the employee on £1000 per week gets £25 extra, while the ones on £100 get £2.50.

The great Tory con trick.

It's the old equality vs equity thing. Old as the hills - see the Widow's Mite bit in the BIbble.

It is as unfair to treat unequals equally as it is to treat equals unequally.
Aristotle.

Yeah but Aristotle's dead so fuck him, there's money to be made.*

*taken

Votes to be bought.

Division to be created

There is a good article on Warkwick Mansell's website where he shows that with one academy chain claims to spend £6000 per pupil in its secondary schools but in reality over £1000 per pupils ends up going back to the trusts main offices. When LEA's ran schools the amount of money retained by educational authorities was around 10% to cover things like payroll services, the advisory service and other shared services.

If academy trusts are creaming off so much extra money where is that money going? These trusts are meant to be non-profit making yet senior directors pocket extremely large pay cheques with big bonuses on top. It is hard to see how the government will level up education if it continues to push more and more schools into the arms of academy trusts.

The government isn't interested in levelling-up. The government is only interested in seeing that public money ends up in the right pockets.

Next week- Team Rishi visit Alderley Edge and see how the North West is being levelled up. And Mark Drakeford goes to Cowbridge to declare victory over poverty in South Wales.

'Hey wow, a government investing in a local area using central funds'

Golly gee wiz, imagine that.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:38 am 'Hey wow, a government investing in a local area using central funds'

Golly gee wiz, imagine that.

Yeah. We used to do that before 2010.

One policy mentioned is creating a load more unitary councils, I presume by taking away district councils under county councils. I live in one of those, Herefordshire, and it works because it's not a large county and the nearest thing to inner city is Hereford (which doesn't even fill one constituency by itself). So I'm generally in favour. But will that work with other counties? Do you split those into mini-counties?

And what the heck has this got to do with the levelling up anyway?

Conversion from the district to unitary model was specifically banned by Cameron between 2010 and 2015, despite it being perhaps the best way to cut costs while preserving services and jobs. The thought of lots of newly unemployed district councillors running to their friends in the local press maybe worried him.

Meanwhile Cumbria is due to split into 2. Barrow, Eden and South Lakes will become Westmoreland again, while Carlisle, Allerdale and Copeland revert to being Cumberland. Or at least that's what we're calling them. Most likely shared services and two masters. I worked in a similar system in Cheshire, and it's awkward.

London had a 3 borough arrangement once, with a funny name that suggests the people involved thought they were NYC heavyweights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-borou ... d_services

Lasted until one of the boroughs swung to Labour, at which point I presume the Labour councillors thought it was a bit harsh to have won an election and still have to worry what Tories (in other boroughs) thought about their services.

As you say, Cameron put the kibosh on money-saving consolidations of councils, so quite amusing to see him talking about the savings in the tri-borough case. What a guy. Labour's Hammersmith and Fulham councillors pulled out of the Tri-borough and for a further swing of 6.5% in the next election.

I'm wondering about these unitaries in terms of levelling up within regions. In Gloucestershire, the county city is the poorest part of the county and can use more jobs. Coleford will miss the district council jobs, but Cheltenham, Stroud, Cirencester and Tewkesbury won't too much. So that works OK.

But take eg Devon. Close down N Devon council and consolidate the county council, and you're moving jobs from Barnstaple to Exeter. That's not good.

Similar worries here. While places like Penrith and the Kirbys get along just fine on farming and retired pop stars, and Kendal and Ambleside have the seasonal trade and plenty of home-based professionals, elsewhere in the south of the county you've Barrow with its one big employer (BAE Systems), and everyone goes shopping in Lancaster because everything in Barrow's shut.

In the north, a similar thing. Farming and tourism aside, there's Sellafield and not much else. And everything gravitates to Carlisle.

I suspect levelling up will eventually be revealed to be a heady mix of gerrymandering and shifting cash into places that suit Tories. Got to prop up those city rentals somehow.

Yes, Barrow's already been offered some cash from the levelling up fund. Not much - we're talking in the single figure millions but that's peanuts when it comes to major projects. Probably see the shopping centre get a makeover, but what it really needs is actual shops.