Britain's ten poorest areas face biggest council cuts - as rich Tory authorities get budget rises

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I am unsure as to why you should think that your chosen extract from the Institute for Fiscal Studies should be at all relevant in this context as it refers to "public spending as a share of national income"; overall "spending on public services" and "public investment spending."

Capital Grant is only a part of the government's overall public spending programme and may well have increased  during the period 1997 to 2010 as part of the entire national budget; indeed, given prevailing inflation rates it would be amazing had it not increased.

The point of discussion here, however, is how CG was apportioned between local authorities, not how much of it was paid out nationally.

And I maintain, having served as a councillor for part of the period in question, that Capital Grant to rural local authorities such as my own was reduced in real terms (I admit to having omitted to use the words "in real terms" - sorry) while they were being increased in real terms, and in some instances significantly, to  many local authorities in the Labour heartlands. The North East of England was particularly favoured, as I recall.

Incidentally, could you clarify whether that extract which you have used is an unedited and accurate quotation of the relevant IFS report, or whether it appears in that form in a Labour briefing paper.

I'm in no way doubting your word, you'll understand, but the IFS staunchly maintains that it is politically independent, yet some parts of your extract clearly indicate a  stance supportive of Labour in comparison to the Conservatives.

That extract is straight from the IFS 2010 election briefing which is available on their website.

Have you got the figures for the overall funding from central government that was made available to the region that you claim received a cut in their funding? Reliable source please.

As a matter of fact I still have access to the relevant archives, but I have "cited" as a reliable source my own considerable experience as a former councillor , and if you think that I am going to identify that council and therefore myself you have, as they say, another think coming to you.

Some of us in these forums have a wealth of personal experience and knowledge about the fairly limited range of subjects which we choose to address and have no need, even if we had either the time or the inclination, to spend hours Googling up (sometimes entirely incorrect) facts and pouring over old propaganda sheets.

And if that's not to your liking, then tough.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Blair, Campbell, Whelan, MacBride, MacShane, Moran, Uddin, Chayton, Moreley, Illsley, Devine............................

Oh Christ here come them badgers moving goalposts again.

Sassy wrote:Andy, being a tit as normal.   No change there then.

grumpy old git wrote:which, when push comes to shove proves only one thing

labour OR tory, both are mean spirited nast little oiks that like playing games with peoples lives, are mad as a box of frogs and actually unfit to govern.
surely the grants made should be dependant upon need?

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

As a matter of fact I still have access to the relevant archives, but I have "cited" as a reliable source my own considerable experience as a former councillor , and if you think that I am going to identify that council and therefore myself you have, as they say, another think coming to you.

Some of us in these forums have a wealth of personal experience and knowledge about the fairly limited range of subjects which we choose to address and have no need, even if we had either the time or the inclination, to spend hours Googling up (sometimes entirely incorrect) facts and pouring over old propaganda sheets.

And if that's not to your liking, then tough.

If that would reveal who you are then I would accept that as a legitimate reason not to provide the data. Can you select another Tory region then to support your claim......

Labour poured central grant resources into mainly Labour controlled county, borough and district authorities throughout their period in office while systematically cutting resources for rural - and  primarily Tory and Lib Dem controlled - councils.

You must have picked that up from somewhere surely.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Blair, Campbell, Whelan, MacBride, MacShane, Moran, Uddin, Chayton, Moreley, Illsley, Devine............................

Oh Christ here come them badgers moving goalposts again.

Far from it; you were the one daft enough to try to score a cheap political point by throwing out an unspecified taunt about "liars, cheats and professional robbers."

I've just provided you with a few examples of real ones.

I would have thought that as someone who appears to spend most of his waking hours scrabbling around for rods with which to beat the wicked Tories, you would have been grateful.

Catman wrote:
Fat fucking Tory   that stole all the fucking pies!

Communities Secretary: Eric Pickles
Getty

Britain's 10 worst-off areas will suffer the biggest council cuts – as some rich Tory authorities get budget rises, research shows.

Deprived boroughs in Liverpool, London, Manchester and Middlesbrough, will lose ten times more from the government than the ten richest.

The reason lies in funding formulas used by the Tory-led Government which hits Labour-held areas hardest.

These local authorities will have their budgets slashed by an average 16.9% during this Parliament, but Tory-controlled councils will lose just 6.6% and Lib Dem councils, 7.8%.

But Communities Secretary Eric Pickles is hitting worst-off areas harder.

Liverpool will lose 27.1% in funding from 2010-15, Hackney in London, 27%, Manchester City Council, 26%, Middlesbrough, 24% and Birmingham, 23.3%.

But Tory-run Wokingham, one of the richest areas in England, will get a 1.1% rise and Education Secretary Michael Gove’s council of Surrey Heath will receive a 0.9% increase in funding.

Other councils serving the seats of Cabinet ministers will also do well.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s local council Epsom and Ewell will enjoy a 3% increase, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s Waverley council is getting a 1.3% rise and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond’s Runnymede, 0.6%.

On average councils in the ten most deprived areas will have cuts of 25% but councils in the ten richest areas will only lose 2.5%, according to the figures compiled by Labour and Newcastle City Council.

Council leaders are already cutting libraries, road maintenance and youth clubs and will struggle to maintain vital services such as social care.

And the harsh spending cuts are being felt in cities with the most children living in poverty.

A worrying 38% of kids in Manchester live below the breadline – 33% in Liverpool. In Wokingham just 9% of children are living in poverty.

Shadow Communities Secretary Hilary Benn said: “These figures are shocking. They show the direct impact of David Cameron and Eric Pickles’s unfair policies.

"The Government claims that those with the broadest shoulders must bear the biggest burden, but they are doing the exact opposite and hitting the poorest communities hardest.”

“One Nation Labour will ensure that future funding of vital council services is done on the basis of need.”

But local Government Minister Brandon Lewis claimed: “The coalition government has delivered a fair settlement to every part of the country - north and south, rural and urban, metropolitan and shire.”

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/council-cuts-britains-ten-poorest-3091450#ixzz2rqW4kX4s
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


  ....Get the Tory bastards out now!

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Far from it; you were the one daft enough to try to score a cheap political point by throwing out an unspecified taunt about "liars, cheats and professional robbers."

I've just provided you with a few examples of real ones.

I would have thought that as someone who appears to spend most of his waking hours scrabbling around for rods with which to beat the wicked Tories, you would have been grateful.

Both sides have their fair share of those and I'm sure you are no stranger to the wicked Labour party rhetoric that spews out from a place that you frequent regularly.

And you will find my time on here is limited mainly to the evenings rather than most of my waking hours

Cheap shots abound and as you have just shown you are not entirely innocent in that respect so please spare me the lecture on that score.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Far from it; you were the one daft enough to try to score a cheap political point by throwing out an unspecified taunt about "liars, cheats and professional robbers."

I've just provided you with a few examples of real ones.

I would have thought that as someone who appears to spend most of his waking hours scrabbling around for rods with which to beat the wicked Tories, you would have been grateful.

Both sides have their fair share of those and I'm sure you are no stranger to the wicked Labour party rhetoric that spews out from a place that you frequent regularly.

And you will find my time on here is limited mainly to the evenings rather than most of my waking hours

Cheap shots abound and as you have just shown you are not entirely innocent in that respect so please spare me the lecture on that score.

Sassy wrote:Moley, did you forget to post?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

As a matter of fact I still have access to the relevant archives, but I have "cited" as a reliable source my own considerable experience as a former councillor , and if you think that I am going to identify that council and therefore myself you have, as they say, another think coming to you.

Some of us in these forums have a wealth of personal experience and knowledge about the fairly limited range of subjects which we choose to address and have no need, even if we had either the time or the inclination, to spend hours Googling up (sometimes entirely incorrect) facts and pouring over old propaganda sheets.

And if that's not to your liking, then tough.

If that would reveal who you are then I would accept that as a legitimate reason not to provide the data. Can you select another Tory region then to support your claim......

Labour poured central grant resources into mainly Labour controlled county, borough and district authorities throughout their period in office while systematically cutting resources for rural - and  primarily Tory and Lib Dem controlled - councils.

You must have picked that up from somewhere surely.

Of course I did; by taking part in endless committee meetings and briefing sessions involving not only my own but neighbouring councils...a thankless task, but some of us  are (were, in my case) public spirited enough to do it.

Perhaps you're annoyed that instead of presiding over a doubling of council tax as happened during Labour's tenure of office, the Coalition has eased the burden on countless thousands of taxpayers by freezing it.

The naturally profligate Left must be furious about that.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Far from it; you were the one daft enough to try to score a cheap political point by throwing out an unspecified taunt about "liars, cheats and professional robbers."

I've just provided you with a few examples of real ones.

I would have thought that as someone who appears to spend most of his waking hours scrabbling around for rods with which to beat the wicked Tories, you would have been grateful.

Both sides have their fair share of those and I'm sure you are no stranger to the wicked Labour party rhetoric that spews out from a place that you frequent regularly.

And you will find my time on here is limited mainly to the evenings rather than most of my waking hours

Cheap shots abound and as you have just shown you are not entirely innocent in that respect so please spare me the lecture on that score.

Perhaps that is because I have taken my cue from more established members of the forum.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Sassy wrote:Moley, did you forget to post?

Did I forget to post what, Sassy?

Hmmm, see what you mean. It seems to have downloaded twice; once as a blank. Strange, that.

But no, I didn't forget. I know I have many of the defects of old age, but loss of memory ain't one of them.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Of course I did; by taking part in endless committee meetings and briefing sessions involving not only my own but neighbouring councils...a thankless task, but some of us  are (were, in my case) public spirited enough to do it.

Perhaps you're annoyed that instead of presiding over a doubling of council tax as happened during Labour's tenure of office, the Coalition has eased the burden on countless thousands of taxpayers by freezing it.

The naturally profligate Left must be furious about that.

Ah, the old chestnut of Labour doubling council tax. I wondered how long it would take for that one to get rolled out.

Figures published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) show that there has indeed been a doubling since Labour took power in 1997.

The average council tax paid per dwelling has risen from £564 in 1997-98 to £1,195 in 2010-11, an increase of 112 per cent. When measured as the Band D average, another common indicator, bills have increased from £688 in 1997-98 to £1,439 in 2010-11, a rise of 109 per cent.

However as the Government’s own Minister David Willetts pointed out on yesterday evening’s Newsnight, it is not always fair to compare nominal values over long periods of time, as money depreciates in real value due to inflation.

When considered in real terms, there has been a 40 per cent growth in the average council tax bill per dwelling, with the average Band D property charges increasing slightly more, at 68.6 per cent growth on 1997 bills.

Whether or not the Labour Government can be held solely responsible for these rises, whatever their size, is also a contentious issue. Whilst the money raised through the council tax is distributed by DCLG, the rate of council tax itself is determined by local authorities, not by central government.

Furthermore, a closer inspection of the DCLG data reveals that the decisions behind council tax rises were not the responsibility of just one party.


http://fullfact.org/factchecks/did_labour_double_council_tax-1575

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Of course I did; by taking part in endless committee meetings and briefing sessions involving not only my own but neighbouring councils...a thankless task, but some of us  are (were, in my case) public spirited enough to do it.

Perhaps you're annoyed that instead of presiding over a doubling of council tax as happened during Labour's tenure of office, the Coalition has eased the burden on countless thousands of taxpayers by freezing it.

The naturally profligate Left must be furious about that.

Ah, the old chestnut of Labour doubling council tax. I wondered how long it would take for that one to get rolled out.

Figures published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) show that there has indeed been a doubling since Labour took power in 1997.

The average council tax paid per dwelling has risen from £564 in 1997-98 to £1,195 in 2010-11, an increase of 112 per cent. When measured as the Band D average, another common indicator, bills have increased from £688 in 1997-98 to £1,439 in 2010-11, a rise of 109 per cent.

However as the Government’s own Minister David Willetts pointed out on yesterday evening’s Newsnight, it is not always fair to compare nominal values over long periods of time, as money depreciates in real value due to inflation.

When considered in real terms, there has been a 40 per cent growth in the average council tax bill per dwelling, with the average Band D property charges increasing slightly more, at 68.6 per cent growth on 1997 bills.

Whether or not the Labour Government can be held solely responsible for these rises, whatever their size, is also a contentious issue. Whilst the money raised through the council tax is distributed by DCLG, the rate of council tax itself is determined by local authorities, not by central government.

Furthermore, a closer inspection of the DCLG data reveals that the decisions behind council tax rises were not the responsibility of just one party.


http://fullfact.org/factchecks/did_labour_double_council_tax-1575

I've just checked my own file and mine went up from £956 pa to £2,485 pa between 1997 and 2010. That looks more like two and a half times to me.

Perhaps I was just unlucky, though recalling the angst which appeared generally in the local and region press come rate-fixing time every November, I somehow doubt it.

Sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Did I forget to post what, Sassy?

Hmmm, see what you mean. It seems to have downloaded twice; once as a blank. Strange, that.

But no, I didn't forget. I know I have many of the defects of old age, but loss of memory ain't one of them.

You posted a reply to Irn twice, once in the post about mine, without a comment in it, and once after.

Oh hell, and you added to the second one while I posted this lol

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Sassy wrote:

You posted a reply to Irn twice, once in the post about mine, without a comment in it, and once after.

Oh hell, and you added to the second one while I posted this lol

I excuse myself on the grounds that I'm suffering a senior moment and that I haven't had my Sanatogen tonight....

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I've just checked my own file and mine went up from £956 pa to £2,485 pa between 1997 and 2010. That looks more like two and a half times to me.

Perhaps I was just unlucky, though recalling the angst which appeared generally in the local and region press come rate-fixing time every November, I somehow doubt it.

Tory council was it?

Sassy wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:


I excuse myself on the grounds that I'm suffering a senior moment and that I haven't had my Sanatogen tonight....

Lol, I'm sticking to hot chocolate.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I've just checked my own file and mine went up from £956 pa to £2,485 pa between 1997 and 2010. That looks more like two and a half times to me.

Perhaps I was just unlucky, though recalling the angst which appeared generally in the local and region press come rate-fixing time every November, I somehow doubt it.

Tory council was it?

Yes, it was - and for the very reasons that I have given. I would have thought that fairly obvious.

Irn Bru wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Yes, it was - and for the very reasons that I have given. I would have thought that fairly obvious.

It was and the post I put in from Fullfact pretty much makes it obvious that your council tax didn't go up because of Labour.

Sassy wrote:The areas that you say Labour gave extra money to, where the areas that Thatcher, as deliberate policy, had let run into the ground, and were on their knees.   That's the way the money should be spent, to those that need it the most, so I'm really hoping you are right and have the figures to prove it Fred.

Clarkson wrote:Its simple M'Lud If labour are biased "Its fair" if the Tories are biased "Its unfair".

The lefts idea of fair is anything that Labour agree with. Neither you nor I have tried to cover up the fact the Tories did the same before but get them to admit Labour did anything wrong you haven't a chance especially with Irn Bru.