While the Graun includes the Badenoch/Tennant spat deep in its rolling coverage, there is no mention at all of it, still less any story on its election website front page.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
My tongue is in my cheek, but still let’s pick on some of those:
- We should have one national, or a small number of regional, police force(s) with CT and serious and organised crime hived off into the NCA, taking the opportunity to break up the Met. Same with the fire brigade. They have no scale at present.
- See no reason not to have a library service run nationally. Would allow for a much tighter supply chain.
- Parking could be centralised and app driven.
The problem is social care, truly local amenities (like parks), and local roads, where some local sense matters.
So my realistic proposal is “radically de-scope local Gvt, probably by consolidation into regions instead of boroughs/counties, but keeping some parish functions”.
Think I agree.
It's about striking the balance between efficiency/consistency and the fine sentiment that "power should rest closest to the people affected by the decisions of those who hold it".
See this gives me hope that I might one day bowl for England in a test match.
England fast bowler Ollie Robinson was hit for 43 runs in the most expensive over in the history of the County Championship.
Sussex’s Robinson was struck for two sixes, six fours - three of which were off no-balls - and a single by Leicestershire's Louis Kimber in the fourth and final day of their Division Two match on Wednesday.
It is believed to be the most expensive over in all first-class cricket when there was no compliance from the bowler (i.e. bowling for a declaration).
Kimber's feat is comfortably the most runs scored by a batter in one over of English first-class cricket.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
I don't see it.
For some services District Councils are already way too big.
I was working for Oswestry Council when Hazel Blears unitised Shropshire, and some aspects of it were a mess. Much local knowledge / sympathy was just lost.
I'd be interested to see a comparison / contrast of say UK vs France, where much is at the level of Mairie, of which there are 35,000 - not dissimilar to the number of Parishes here. And we know how little power they have.
You can see similar issues in County Durham where things get waved through because they don't impact the people on the planning committee so another retail park in Bishop Auckland gets built because the councillors for Durham don't care.
North Yorkshire are starting to see similar issues but they haven't being going long enough yet...
Labour is going to change the planning process. So presumably local decisions are going out, so it will not matter how big the planning authority is?
Um, you've got a massive leap in logic there.
All I've seen so far is some focus on improving how nationally important schemes can be implemented without wasting billions of paperwork no one will ever read in its entirety.
How about some focus on improving how all schemes can be implemented without that crap?
Why don't we just bin it and replace it with a tax on the imputed rental value of the property?
Trying to think of a suitable name....
I'm old enough to remember when such things, maybe called "rates" - shall we try that?, were decried by the Conservative Party government of the day as unfair to the well off Tory voting householder.
Northern Ireland still uses Rates. And the annual water bill is part of the Rates payment.
While the Graun includes the Badenoch/Tennant spat deep in its rolling coverage, there is no mention at all of it, still less any story on its election website front page.
It's on their main election news feed, and has been for mcuh of today. There is only so much space on the page itself.
North Korea's Central Military Commission announced that North Korea would join forces with the Russian military. And as part of the North Korea and Russia military alliance, the North Korean Army engineer unit would be dispatched to Donetsk, Ukraine, which remains occupied by Russia. It will be dispatched as early as next month... https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1805871124388983109
Lol, now they have nothing left but sending NorKs to Donetsk. NorKs that have never had an actual fight with anyone.
What happens to that relationship, when it only takes a few weeks for thousands of bodies to return to families - or will they just be marked as ‘missing’, their wives and mothers destined to be forever unaware of what happened?
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
I don't see it.
For some services District Councils are already way too big.
I was working for Oswestry Council when Hazel Blears unitised Shropshire, and some aspects of it were a mess. Much local knowledge / sympathy was just lost.
I'd be interested to see a comparison / contrast of say UK vs France, where much is at the level of Mairie, of which there are 35,000 - not dissimilar to the number of Parishes here. And we know how little power they have.
You can see similar issues in County Durham where things get waved through because they don't impact the people on the planning committee so another retail park in Bishop Auckland gets built because the councillors for Durham don't care.
North Yorkshire are starting to see similar issues but they haven't being going long enough yet...
All the more reason to nationalise it. Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
Get rid of the NIMBY scum standing in the way of development.
We could widen the M62 to 100 lanes and pave over Warrington. Better traffic flow and Warrington substantially improved
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
You must have missed the Tories making bin emptying a central element of the WAR ON WOKE.
North Korea's Central Military Commission announced that North Korea would join forces with the Russian military. And as part of the North Korea and Russia military alliance, the North Korean Army engineer unit would be dispatched to Donetsk, Ukraine, which remains occupied by Russia. It will be dispatched as early as next month... https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1805871124388983109
Lol, now they have nothing left but sending NorKs to Donetsk. NorKs that have never had an actual fight with anyone.
What happens to that relationship, when it only takes a few weeks for thousands of bodies to return to families - or will they just be marked as ‘missing’, their wives and mothers destined to be forever unaware of what happened?
I'm not sure that's the kind of thing that troubles the North Korean government.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
Round where I live, they have decided that emptying the bin once every two weeks is the way to go.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Just occurred to me this year might see three remarkable and potentially epochal political events in the west
The total destruction of the British Tories An absolute parliamentary majority for the hard/far right in France The re-election of POTUS Trump: and this time he means it
Perhaps we are all being simplistic in our analyses of political evolutions. Its not just a “rightwards surge” but nor is it “a nuanced mixed picture”
It’s not mixed at all. The voters are reaching for evermore extreme solutions and radical punishments. Mostly that’s far/hard right to punish incumbents but absolutely not always: see the UK
But everywhere there is anger and a willingness to think the unthinkable
Let's hope people chill out a bit then and start thinking inside the box. It's there for a reason.
Oh sure the same failed policies as before. No disrespect but living in Hampstead doesnt imply you have any real thirst for a change in the status quo outside woke virtue signalling.
If I'm into virtue signalling how come my Labour sticker is small and on an upstairs window?
When people throw virtue signalling as an accusation, 9 times out of 10 they’re just showing that they’re incapable of countenancing altruism.
Is tipping virtue signalling?
This question cost my office an hour of intense discussion. Lots of dredged up economic theory. How about buying a big issue?
No, it’s an economic transaction. Virtue signalling comes at no cost to yourself.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
You must have missed the Tories making bin emptying a central element of the WAR ON WOKE.
Actually that feeds my point, if bin collection rules are set nationally, why should the nation not pay for it?
What do the middlemen in the Council do that can't be abolished?
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
Of course, in America, they elect people specifically for the sole purpose of managing refuse collection. (There was a Simpsons episode about it. So I assume it's true.)
🚨 Manchester United considering selling naming rights to Old Trafford as they seek to drive up revenues as part of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s plans to refurbish Old Trafford or build a new stadium. Ticket price increases also under consideration.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
What you're asking, I think, is if there's a Labour way of emptying the bins. It's a good question and it's one you can generalize to provide steer on this topic (of what should be local vs national).
Broadly speaking, if there is no or hardly any political (ideological) element to a service, that's a prime candidate for centralization, ie whoever is elected locally should make no difference to that service.
The weather is lovely today, lots of sport on TV, and then there is politics
I would just say I have accepted the result will see a landslide Starmer government and the conservative party can have no complaints if they are marginalised
I hope Starmer proves better than is expected as he is likely to be PM for a long time, but then events happen so who knows
I am looking forward to my wife and my 2 trips up Snowdon and on the Welsh Highland Railway next month and only have one question that really is a mystery to me and no doubt many others
Why on earth did Sunak suddenly call an election :
Concern the economy will be poorer in the Autumn
Expected an imminent vonc
Just wanted out
No doubt in time all will be revealed but to those who bet good luck, to those who have waited for a labour government your time is here, and to those of us who are one nation conservatives pray that Farage is consigned to the dustbin of history
While the Graun includes the Badenoch/Tennant spat deep in its rolling coverage, there is no mention at all of it, still less any story on its election website front page.
It's on their main election news feed, and has been for mcuh of today. There is only so much space on the page itself.
Yes deep in their rolling coverage but not as a standalone story.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
You must have missed the Tories making bin emptying a central element of the WAR ON WOKE.
Actually that feeds my point, if bin collection rules are set nationally, why should the nation not pay for it?
What do the middlemen in the Council do that can't be abolished?
It's all subbed out to Veolia and Biffa anyway. Might as well just do a national contract tbh.
North Korea's Central Military Commission announced that North Korea would join forces with the Russian military. And as part of the North Korea and Russia military alliance, the North Korean Army engineer unit would be dispatched to Donetsk, Ukraine, which remains occupied by Russia. It will be dispatched as early as next month... https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1805871124388983109
Under fire in a muddy trench in Donetsk being a step up from life in North Korea.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
I don't see it.
For some services District Councils are already way too big.
I was working for Oswestry Council when Hazel Blears unitised Shropshire, and some aspects of it were a mess. Much local knowledge / sympathy was just lost.
I'd be interested to see a comparison / contrast of say UK vs France, where much is at the level of Mairie, of which there are 35,000 - not dissimilar to the number of Parishes here. And we know how little power they have.
You can see similar issues in County Durham where things get waved through because they don't impact the people on the planning committee so another retail park in Bishop Auckland gets built because the councillors for Durham don't care.
North Yorkshire are starting to see similar issues but they haven't being going long enough yet...
All the more reason to nationalise it. Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
Get rid of the NIMBY scum standing in the way of development.
We could widen the M62 to 100 lanes and pave over Warrington. Better traffic flow and Warrington substantially improved
Warrington only has 3 motorways running through it. They could definitely do with a few more. Pave over the ship canal?
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
You must have missed the Tories making bin emptying a central element of the WAR ON WOKE.
Actually that feeds my point, if bin collection rules are set nationally, why should the nation not pay for it?
What do the middlemen in the Council do that can't be abolished?
It's all subbed out to Veolia and Biffa anyway. Might as well just do a national contract tbh.
Absolutely!
Just put it to tender and abolish the local councils entirely.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
I’ll disagree with ‘rails against’, but the point remains, that any property taxation based on an absolute, rather than relative to the local area, value of property, will create way more problems than it solves, make living in London even more expensive than it is now for the lower-paid, and make local authories even more dependent than they are already on central government. Meanwhile, the old Alastair Meeks attitude, that the rest of the country is being supported by London so they can all go eat dirt when it comes to spending, becomes even more prevalent.
Why shouldn't local council funding come from central government?
Local council expenditure overwhelmingly comes from central government diktats already.
Picture of the day, taken from the LGA (with a title page I disagree with for what its worth).
Where does every £1 in local spending go? Public health and Adult social care - 46p - Why not the Department of Health and Social Care? Children's Social Care - 22p - Why not the Department of Health and Social Care, or Department of Education? Environmental and regulatory services - 10p - Again national regulations, so why not national expenditure? Highways and Transport services - 4p - Since fuel duty and other taxes goes to HMRC, HMRC absolutely should be paying for this out of that revenue! Housing (4p) and planning (2p) - should be national too. Set the law, then let people do as they please.
Not sure what central and other (7p) covers. If its the cost of keeping this level of bureaucracy going, then bin it and save the money!
What's truly local? Culture (4p) maybe, although we do have a culture department and the Lottery etc for helping fund that too.
Just get rid of the bureaucrats. People always say what can you cut, here's an entire level of things that can be abolished entirely.
It's wierd. Seeing all those figures as 7p etc. makes it look like an advert from the Seventies.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
I don't see it.
For some services District Councils are already way too big.
I was working for Oswestry Council when Hazel Blears unitised Shropshire, and some aspects of it were a mess. Much local knowledge / sympathy was just lost.
I'd be interested to see a comparison / contrast of say UK vs France, where much is at the level of Mairie, of which there are 35,000 - not dissimilar to the number of Parishes here. And we know how little power they have.
You can see similar issues in County Durham where things get waved through because they don't impact the people on the planning committee so another retail park in Bishop Auckland gets built because the councillors for Durham don't care.
North Yorkshire are starting to see similar issues but they haven't being going long enough yet...
All the more reason to nationalise it. Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
Get rid of the NIMBY scum standing in the way of development.
We could widen the M62 to 100 lanes and pave over Warrington. Better traffic flow and Warrington substantially improved
Warrington only has 3 motorways running through it. They could definitely do with a few more. Pave over the ship canal?
Good idea.
There's the M62 to the North, the M6 to the East and the M56 to the South.
But there's none to the West.
Building a motorway to the West with a bridge over the canal and over the Mersey to the West is something I would wholeheartedly endorse.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
The Tories will collect the blue bins, Labour the red ones. Fill the appropriate bin for a politically defined collection...
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
"Just determine what collection is appropriate" - who decides what is most appropriate , locally? I know - have a vote on it.
I wonder what first attracted this chap to Nigel Farage?
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
The weather is lovely today, lots of sport on TV, and then there is politics
I would just say I have accepted the result will see a landslide Starmer government and the conservative party can have no complaints if they are marginalised
I hope Starmer proves better than is expected as he is likely to be PM for a long time, but then events happen so who knows
I am looking forward to my wife and my 2 trips up Snowdon and on the Welsh Highland Railway next month and only have one question that really is a mystery to me and no doubt many others
Why on earth did Sunak suddenly call an election :
Concern the economy will be poorer in the Autumn
Expected an imminent vonc
Just wanted out
No doubt in time all will be revealed but to those who bet good luck, to those who have waited for a labour government your time is here, and to those of us who are one nation conservatives pray that Farage is consigned to the dustbin of history
I think it was the very real prospect of enough letters being received by the 1922 committee, on the question of Farage, I hope he, Corbyn and Galloway all lose in their respective seats, but I fear at least two will win
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
From both their tables, there is a significant difference in Conservative support between 75+ and 65-74, so a single 65+ segment is likely to be less accurate.
That said, there still is a 7% difference in the headline figures for Conservatives between Survation and More in Common.
While the Graun includes the Badenoch/Tennant spat deep in its rolling coverage, there is no mention at all of it, still less any story on its election website front page.
It's on their main election news feed, and has been for mcuh of today. There is only so much space on the page itself.
Yes deep in their rolling coverage but not as a standalone story.
It was at the top of the rolling coverage when it was put there ...
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You said that you wouldn't want someone to build a balcony directly perpendicular to your garden, therefore you don't really think they should be able to build anything they want on their land.
This is the election campaign that keeps on giving.
NEW on Honey Trap scandal:
I understand Labour was notified today of the arrest of a party member in Islington. The Labour Party immediately administratively suspended the individual from membership of the Labour Party.
North Korea's Central Military Commission announced that North Korea would join forces with the Russian military. And as part of the North Korea and Russia military alliance, the North Korean Army engineer unit would be dispatched to Donetsk, Ukraine, which remains occupied by Russia. It will be dispatched as early as next month... https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1805871124388983109
Looks to me that the Russians are desperate for warm bodies too.
They keep on managing to find them without having to anger the Muscovy core. There's an estimate of 3,000 Nepalis fighting for the Russians, for example.
Really? Why? Is it just for a big bag of money? Or is there more to it than that?
I hard something about Nepalis some time ago. The British Ghurkas are tiny in number compared to those in the Indian army, and joining either the British or Indian militaries are a major thing for many young Nepali men. Ones who do not make it often become soldiers for other people; sometimes other militaries such as Singapore or Brunei, but often anyone who will have them. Then there are ex-soldiers as well.
Thankfully there’s also no former NATO-country soliders, with no extensive experience on some of the donated weapons, working on the other side of the battlefield.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You said that you wouldn't want someone to build a balcony directly perpendicular to your garden, therefore you don't really think they should be able to build anything they want on their land.
I never said that. You tried (repeatedly) to get me to say that, but what I actually (repeatedly) said is whatever they want to do with their land should be up to them and if its on their land I have no objection whatsoever.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You said that you wouldn't want someone to build a balcony directly perpendicular to your garden, therefore you don't really think they should be able to build anything they want on their land.
I never said that. You tried (repeatedly) to get me to say that, but what I actually (repeatedly) said is whatever they want to do with their land should be up to them and if its on their land I have no objection whatsoever.
You did. When you eventually understood what kind of development I was proposing, you said you wouldn't be happy with it.
Why don't we just bin it and replace it with a tax on the imputed rental value of the property?
Trying to think of a suitable name....
I'm old enough to remember when such things, maybe called "rates" - shall we try that?, were decried by the Conservative Party government of the day as unfair to the well off Tory voting householder.
Then closet Tories would once again be able to stand for the council under the branding of "Ratepayers".
I wonder what first attracted this chap to Nigel Farage?
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
What you're asking, I think, is if there's a Labour way of emptying the bins. It's a good question and it's one you can generalize to provide steer on this topic (of what should be local vs national).
Broadly speaking, if there is no or hardly any political (ideological) element to a service, that's a prime candidate for centralization, ie whoever is elected locally should make no difference to that service.
Bin collection is such a good example to use for discussion. I think most people's idea is that waste magically disappears when of course getting rid of waste is a complex issue and subject to local variations (tourist locations = seasonal surges in waste v rural problems like flytipping).
If you have a national waste agency you'll have incinerators popping up in poor areas + genius moves like shipping plastic overseas and then watching it come back (or having poorer countries take said waste for backhanders).
Local waste operations - with lots of experiments running on using recycling, circular economy initiatives, new technology, clamping down on flytipping - and then best practice disseminated (nationally and internationally) would be hugely beneficial.
Whilst most people couldn't give a monkeys how their bins get emptied, more people (I think) would appreciate knowing who is (politically) emptying their bin, especially if it has a plan to reduce and eliminate burning and burying.
I think that has to happen locally cos you need to make the connection in people's minds between where waste is collected and what happens to it.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
This is the election campaign that keeps on giving.
NEW on Honey Trap scandal:
I understand Labour was notified today of the arrest of a party member in Islington. The Labour Party immediately administratively suspended the individual from membership of the Labour Party.
Just reading this: getting uncanny vibes of similarity with this election (presumably complete with the equivalent of simulated dog turds in the grass):
'“It’s weird that this genre not only exists, but is so popular,” explains Krist Duro, editor-in-chief of Duuro Plays, a video game reviews website based in Albania – and the first person I could find who has actually played and somewhat enjoyed Lawn Mowing Simulator. “But you need to be wired in a particular way. I like repetitive tasks because they allow me to enter into a zen-like state. But the actual simulation part needs to be good.”'
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You said that you wouldn't want someone to build a balcony directly perpendicular to your garden, therefore you don't really think they should be able to build anything they want on their land.
I never said that. You tried (repeatedly) to get me to say that, but what I actually (repeatedly) said is whatever they want to do with their land should be up to them and if its on their land I have no objection whatsoever.
You did. When you eventually understood what kind of development I was proposing, you said you wouldn't be happy with it.
Now without wanting to step in on Bart's behalf here - there is, or ought to be, a big difference between not being happy with something and wanting to see it banned.
This is the election campaign that keeps on giving.
NEW on Honey Trap scandal:
I understand Labour was notified today of the arrest of a party member in Islington. The Labour Party immediately administratively suspended the individual from membership of the Labour Party.
Perhaps there is an answer to help both reduce the Planning process and get some much needed tax revenue for the Government.
A developer can by pass the planning process IF they pay up-front a sum not less than 5x an independent valuation of the value of the land with granted permission. Otherwise, they can take their chances with the planning process.
Phone masts in urban areas should not have restrictions.
Sorry to make this point again but planning has come up and it's my area.
I've seen what mobile phone companies tried to do in the Dales - sorry but nope - the plans were utterly insane given that the only purpose of ruining the view was slightly improved reception on part of the M6.
Which reminds me of the time EE reorientated the masts around here and accidentally placed their third line support engineer for the emergency network in a no reception zone.
The weather is lovely today, lots of sport on TV, and then there is politics
I would just say I have accepted the result will see a landslide Starmer government and the conservative party can have no complaints if they are marginalised
I hope Starmer proves better than is expected as he is likely to be PM for a long time, but then events happen so who knows
I am looking forward to my wife and my 2 trips up Snowdon and on the Welsh Highland Railway next month and only have one question that really is a mystery to me and no doubt many others
Why on earth did Sunak suddenly call an election :
Concern the economy will be poorer in the Autumn
Expected an imminent vonc
Just wanted out
No doubt in time all will be revealed but to those who bet good luck, to those who have waited for a labour government your time is here, and to those of us who are one nation conservatives pray that Farage is consigned to the dustbin of history
I think it was the very real prospect of enough letters being received by the 1922 committee, on the question of Farage, I hope he, Corbyn and Galloway all lose in their respective seats, but I fear at least two will win
The weather is lovely today, lots of sport on TV, and then there is politics
I would just say I have accepted the result will see a landslide Starmer government and the conservative party can have no complaints if they are marginalised
I hope Starmer proves better than is expected as he is likely to be PM for a long time, but then events happen so who knows
I am looking forward to my wife and my 2 trips up Snowdon and on the Welsh Highland Railway next month and only have one question that really is a mystery to me and no doubt many others
Why on earth did Sunak suddenly call an election :
Concern the economy will be poorer in the Autumn
Expected an imminent vonc
Just wanted out
No doubt in time all will be revealed but to those who bet good luck, to those who have waited for a labour government your time is here, and to those of us who are one nation conservatives pray that Farage is consigned to the dustbin of history
I think it was the very real prospect of enough letters being received by the 1922 committee, on the question of Farage, I hope he, Corbyn and Galloway all lose in their respective seats, but I fear at least two will win
Agreed but one other thought occured, Sunak is rubbish at politics but didn't think he was
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You said that you wouldn't want someone to build a balcony directly perpendicular to your garden, therefore you don't really think they should be able to build anything they want on their land.
I never said that. You tried (repeatedly) to get me to say that, but what I actually (repeatedly) said is whatever they want to do with their land should be up to them and if its on their land I have no objection whatsoever.
You did. When you eventually understood what kind of development I was proposing, you said you wouldn't be happy with it.
No, I said it would be their choice in my system.
And I literally said in my system if they did that I'd be free to do the same. Or extend the property so their balcony gets a view of a brick wall.
People should be free to do what they please, within the law, on their own land. Neighbours should mind their own f***ing business.
Why don't we just bin it and replace it with a tax on the imputed rental value of the property?
Trying to think of a suitable name....
I'm old enough to remember when such things, maybe called "rates" - shall we try that?, were decried by the Conservative Party government of the day as unfair to the well off Tory voting householder.
Then closet Tories would once again be able to stand for the council under the branding of "Ratepayers".
Like something in Mega-City One in the early issues of 2000AD. And actual socialists in the streets of Glasgow.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
Round where I live, they have decided that emptying the bin once every two weeks is the way to go.
For me, it is: Brown bin - garden waste and food waste - every fortnight, but an extra £40 a year charge. Blue bin - paper and cardboard - every 4 weeks, in a week between the brown bin collections Green bin - glass, tins, hard plastic (aka the jakey bin) - every 4 weeks, in the alternate week between brown bin collections Black bin - general waste - every 3 weeks, so will coincide with any one of the other 3 bins.
North Korea's Central Military Commission announced that North Korea would join forces with the Russian military. And as part of the North Korea and Russia military alliance, the North Korean Army engineer unit would be dispatched to Donetsk, Ukraine, which remains occupied by Russia. It will be dispatched as early as next month... https://x.com/jurgen_nauditt/status/1805871124388983109
Lol, now they have nothing left but sending NorKs to Donetsk. NorKs that have never had an actual fight with anyone.
What happens to that relationship, when it only takes a few weeks for thousands of bodies to return to families - or will they just be marked as ‘missing’, their wives and mothers destined to be forever unaware of what happened?
I'm not sure that's the kind of thing that troubles the North Korean government.
I quite like the idea, mentioned above, that they won’t take much persuading to defect to Ukraine.
Perhaps Ukraine can get the message out that they’re going to be short of young men for the rebuilding of their country, and the NorKs have an opportunity to live and work in future freedom.
This is the election campaign that keeps on giving.
NEW on Honey Trap scandal:
I understand Labour was notified today of the arrest of a party member in Islington. The Labour Party immediately administratively suspended the individual from membership of the Labour Party.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
But let's keep that outside the Box.
But if we agree that we need a bigger box, we'll need Bart's support to get planning permission for it. And an Overton window which overlooks his back garden.
We'll be able to wave to him while we're thinking inside it.
I wonder what first attracted this chap to Nigel Farage?
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
Always conditional on new roads. You're at least as bad as a NIMBY who insists on basic sanitation.
Phone masts in urban areas should not have restrictions.
Sorry to make this point again but planning has come up and it's my area.
Yes, they should. You don't want them plonked in the middle of a school playing field, the flight path of an airport, or in a cemetery.
Come on. This anti-NIMBY stuff is starting to get a bit silly.
You don't need planning to deal with the former or the latter, the owners of the field or cemetery should determine what is appropriate with their own land. No need for NIMBYs to stick their oars in.
As for flight paths, flight safety is already dealt with separately under specific regulations, again no need for nosy neighbours to get involved.
Nice header, but why do you/we focus on the bad polls for the Tories?
I accept that Ipsos and Survation have some pedigree, but Varian, JLP and MiC are all solid enough and members of the BPC. I appreciate that even they are not so great for the Blue team, but they do at least feed a little life into what otherwise would be the dried out corpse of the outgoing government.
The question is why are we seeing such a wide divergence (the gap between 18% and 25% is vast in statistical terms). Is it methodology, sampling, weighting, re-allocation of Don't Knows?
I pointed to a huge discrepency in the over 65 vote shares between More In Common (40% for the Conservatives) and R&W (25%).
JL Partners has 43% Conservative share among the over 65s which explains its higher Conservative VI.
I saw something on Twitter that was saying some pollsters were accounting for some of the older Tory vote dying off since 2019, and some weren’t.
Didn’t look into it too much but that could explain a lot if it differs between pollsters?
The bigger issue for the MRPs is that the census data they use to back-project their poll findings and analysis onto each constituency are often quite old.
When you look at by-election swings, the Lib Dems have mahoosively outperformed Labour (Even though Labour had some very good swings this parliament). I think the yellows could be in for a very good night indeed.
I dare not jinx it but getting my hopes up. Done that too often.
I'll be relieved if we go above 20 seats, happy if we get 25+ and delirious if we beat the SNP into 3rd place.
I worry for you when the LDs beat the Tories into 2nd.
Yes I still think this bet at 4.5 is stunning value. If tactical voting is anything like all the indications suggest it will be, the LDs should have a good shot at getting over the line.
Not a chance. Even on the MRPs which generally show worse seat numbers than UNS the Tories are generally getting comfortably over 100 seats. And there remain at least 2 or 3 percentage points of Reform left to squeeze even if the Ref vote holds up much higher than in recent local elections.
I find this a little unhelpful for a betting site, Tim. When you write ‘not a chance’ this is more party politicking or hoping than a betting comment?
Clearly the LibDems do have some chance of taking second place on seats. I still agree that the Conservatives are more likely but 4.5 looks a decent bet on the LibDems to me. It’s not ‘no chance’.
Phone masts in urban areas should not have restrictions.
Sorry to make this point again but planning has come up and it's my area.
Yes, they should. You don't want them plonked in the middle of a school playing field, the flight path of an airport, or in a cemetery.
Come on. This anti-NIMBY stuff is starting to get a bit silly.
You don't need planning to deal with the former or the latter, the owners of the field or cemetery should determine what is appropriate with their own land. No need for NIMBYs to stick their oars in.
As for flight paths, flight safety is already dealt with separately under specific regulations, again no need for nosy neighbours to get involved.
So it's only the regulations that you personally don't like that should be ignored?
Just reading this: getting uncanny vibes of similarity with this election (presumably complete with the equivalent of simulated dog turds in the grass):
'“It’s weird that this genre not only exists, but is so popular,” explains Krist Duro, editor-in-chief of Duuro Plays, a video game reviews website based in Albania – and the first person I could find who has actually played and somewhat enjoyed Lawn Mowing Simulator. “But you need to be wired in a particular way. I like repetitive tasks because they allow me to enter into a zen-like state. But the actual simulation part needs to be good.”'
Sounds excellent. I sometimes see a chap with a huge grazing field near me just sitting on his ride on mower for hours cutting the grass and I’m so jealous of him. He does different patterns each time and I have to force myself to step away and stop watching.
Then I’ve found myself watching long videos of people professionally power washing absolute shitholes.
There must be some psychological need for weirdos like me to just watch the change, I can sit for ages admiring my own lawn mowing or power washing. Maybe I just need a life.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
Always conditional on new roads. You're at least as bad as a NIMBY who insists on basic sanitation.
Why is that bad?
Investment should include new stuff, yes.
What's wrong with saying when we invest we should build new stuff. That's kind of the point!
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
I don't see it.
For some services District Councils are already way too big.
I was working for Oswestry Council when Hazel Blears unitised Shropshire, and some aspects of it were a mess. Much local knowledge / sympathy was just lost.
I'd be interested to see a comparison / contrast of say UK vs France, where much is at the level of Mairie, of which there are 35,000 - not dissimilar to the number of Parishes here. And we know how little power they have.
You can see similar issues in County Durham where things get waved through because they don't impact the people on the planning committee so another retail park in Bishop Auckland gets built because the councillors for Durham don't care.
North Yorkshire are starting to see similar issues but they haven't being going long enough yet...
All the more reason to nationalise it. Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
Get rid of the NIMBY scum standing in the way of development.
We could widen the M62 to 100 lanes and pave over Warrington. Better traffic flow and Warrington substantially improved
Warrington only has 3 motorways running through it. They could definitely do with a few more. Pave over the ship canal?
Good idea.
There's the M62 to the North, the M6 to the East and the M56 to the South.
But there's none to the West.
Building a motorway to the West with a bridge over the canal and over the Mersey to the West is something I would wholeheartedly endorse.
That would mean building over the top of a huge refuse tip.
I wonder what first attracted this chap to Nigel Farage?
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
From both their tables, there is a significant difference in Conservative support between 75+ and 65-74, so a single 65+ segment is likely to be less accurate.
That said, there still is a 7% difference in the headline figures for Conservatives between Survation and More in Common.
Yes, that's what I've been trying to say but it's very difficult to have a proper discussion about polls and polling currently as the hyperbole increases nearer next Thursday.
For More in Common, I added the 65-74 and 75+ samples to arrive at 40% for the Conservatives but R&W had a much larger sample of the 65+ tranche of voters and came up with 25% Conservative support. The Survation sample is even smaller than More in Common.
I don't know - I wish we had a 10,000 sample poll just of those aged 65 or over.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
You must have missed the Tories making bin emptying a central element of the WAR ON WOKE.
Actually that feeds my point, if bin collection rules are set nationally, why should the nation not pay for it?
What do the middlemen in the Council do that can't be abolished?
It's all subbed out to Veolia and Biffa anyway. Might as well just do a national contract tbh.
Leaving bin collection to Viz characters sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Phone masts in urban areas should not have restrictions.
Sorry to make this point again but planning has come up and it's my area.
Yes, they should. You don't want them plonked in the middle of a school playing field, the flight path of an airport, or in a cemetery.
Come on. This anti-NIMBY stuff is starting to get a bit silly.
You don't need planning to deal with the former or the latter, the owners of the field or cemetery should determine what is appropriate with their own land. No need for NIMBYs to stick their oars in.
As for flight paths, flight safety is already dealt with separately under specific regulations, again no need for nosy neighbours to get involved.
So it's only the regulations that you personally don't like that should be ignored?
No, regulations should be set by the law, debated in Parliament.
Then people should be free to liberally do whatever they please within the law, without their neighbours having a say.
Nice header, but why do you/we focus on the bad polls for the Tories?
I accept that Ipsos and Survation have some pedigree, but Varian, JLP and MiC are all solid enough and members of the BPC. I appreciate that even they are not so great for the Blue team, but they do at least feed a little life into what otherwise would be the dried out corpse of the outgoing government.
The question is why are we seeing such a wide divergence (the gap between 18% and 25% is vast in statistical terms). Is it methodology, sampling, weighting, re-allocation of Don't Knows?
I pointed to a huge discrepency in the over 65 vote shares between More In Common (40% for the Conservatives) and R&W (25%).
JL Partners has 43% Conservative share among the over 65s which explains its higher Conservative VI.
I saw something on Twitter that was saying some pollsters were accounting for some of the older Tory vote dying off since 2019, and some weren’t.
Didn’t look into it too much but that could explain a lot if it differs between pollsters?
The bigger issue for the MRPs is that the census data they use to back-project their poll findings and analysis onto each constituency are often quite old.
When you look at by-election swings, the Lib Dems have mahoosively outperformed Labour (Even though Labour had some very good swings this parliament). I think the yellows could be in for a very good night indeed.
I dare not jinx it but getting my hopes up. Done that too often.
I'll be relieved if we go above 20 seats, happy if we get 25+ and delirious if we beat the SNP into 3rd place.
I worry for you when the LDs beat the Tories into 2nd.
Yes I still think this bet at 4.5 is stunning value. If tactical voting is anything like all the indications suggest it will be, the LDs should have a good shot at getting over the line.
Not a chance. Even on the MRPs which generally show worse seat numbers than UNS the Tories are generally getting comfortably over 100 seats. And there remain at least 2 or 3 percentage points of Reform left to squeeze even if the Ref vote holds up much higher than in recent local elections.
I find this a little unhelpful for a betting site, Tim. When you write ‘not a chance’ this is more party politicking or hoping than a betting comment?
Clearly the LibDems do have some chance of taking second place on seats. I still agree that the Conservatives are more likely but 4.5 looks a decent bet on the LibDems to me. It’s not ‘no chance’.
Betting profits can only happen when opinions differ......
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
Always conditional on new roads. You're at least as bad as a NIMBY who insists on basic sanitation.
Why is that bad?
Investment should include new stuff, yes.
What's wrong with saying when we invest we should build new stuff. That's kind of the point!
Are new cycle lanes any of "your bloody business"?
Nice header, but why do you/we focus on the bad polls for the Tories?
I accept that Ipsos and Survation have some pedigree, but Varian, JLP and MiC are all solid enough and members of the BPC. I appreciate that even they are not so great for the Blue team, but they do at least feed a little life into what otherwise would be the dried out corpse of the outgoing government.
The question is why are we seeing such a wide divergence (the gap between 18% and 25% is vast in statistical terms). Is it methodology, sampling, weighting, re-allocation of Don't Knows?
I pointed to a huge discrepency in the over 65 vote shares between More In Common (40% for the Conservatives) and R&W (25%).
JL Partners has 43% Conservative share among the over 65s which explains its higher Conservative VI.
I saw something on Twitter that was saying some pollsters were accounting for some of the older Tory vote dying off since 2019, and some weren’t.
Didn’t look into it too much but that could explain a lot if it differs between pollsters?
The bigger issue for the MRPs is that the census data they use to back-project their poll findings and analysis onto each constituency are often quite old.
When you look at by-election swings, the Lib Dems have mahoosively outperformed Labour (Even though Labour had some very good swings this parliament). I think the yellows could be in for a very good night indeed.
I dare not jinx it but getting my hopes up. Done that too often.
I'll be relieved if we go above 20 seats, happy if we get 25+ and delirious if we beat the SNP into 3rd place.
I worry for you when the LDs beat the Tories into 2nd.
Yes I still think this bet at 4.5 is stunning value. If tactical voting is anything like all the indications suggest it will be, the LDs should have a good shot at getting over the line.
Not a chance. Even on the MRPs which generally show worse seat numbers than UNS the Tories are generally getting comfortably over 100 seats. And there remain at least 2 or 3 percentage points of Reform left to squeeze even if the Ref vote holds up much higher than in recent local elections.
I find this a little unhelpful for a betting site, Tim. When you write ‘not a chance’ this is more party politicking or hoping than a betting comment?
Clearly the LibDems do have some chance of taking second place on seats. I still agree that the Conservatives are more likely but 4.5 looks a decent bet on the LibDems to me. It’s not ‘no chance’.
Thank you for your necessary corrective on my language. I shall sit in the discourse sin-bin for a while. I know you would never make such confident statements about politics.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
Always conditional on new roads. You're at least as bad as a NIMBY who insists on basic sanitation.
Why is that bad?
Investment should include new stuff, yes.
What's wrong with saying when we invest we should build new stuff. That's kind of the point!
Are new cycle lanes any of "your bloody business"?
No.
For the umpteenth time, I have no objection to new cycle lanes and new roads getting built. I support it.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
Always conditional on new roads. You're at least as bad as a NIMBY who insists on basic sanitation.
Why is that bad?
Investment should include new stuff, yes.
What's wrong with saying when we invest we should build new stuff. That's kind of the point!
Are new cycle lanes any of "your bloody business"?
No.
For the umpteenth time, I have no objection to new cycle lanes and new roads getting built. I support it.
So the Cons are in the invidious position of being likely to be out-polled by Reform and out-seated by the LibDems.
Three reasons why I don't think Reform will outpoll the Tories:
1 Reform are standing about 20 fewer candidates than the Tories 2 Reform has virtually no local-level activity, their ground game is amateur at best (on the day of the Wellingborough by-election they were observed campaigning in an area adjacent to, but outside, the constituency) and they do not have the large databases of past canvassing and voting records which Labour and the Conservatives have so they are unable to target effectively 3 Reform are several points behind the Tories in the majority of polls and IMO the Tories' "avoid a Labour supermajority" plea will peel away a point or two of Reform support on polling day.
Nice header, but why do you/we focus on the bad polls for the Tories?
I accept that Ipsos and Survation have some pedigree, but Varian, JLP and MiC are all solid enough and members of the BPC. I appreciate that even they are not so great for the Blue team, but they do at least feed a little life into what otherwise would be the dried out corpse of the outgoing government.
The question is why are we seeing such a wide divergence (the gap between 18% and 25% is vast in statistical terms). Is it methodology, sampling, weighting, re-allocation of Don't Knows?
I pointed to a huge discrepency in the over 65 vote shares between More In Common (40% for the Conservatives) and R&W (25%).
JL Partners has 43% Conservative share among the over 65s which explains its higher Conservative VI.
I saw something on Twitter that was saying some pollsters were accounting for some of the older Tory vote dying off since 2019, and some weren’t.
Didn’t look into it too much but that could explain a lot if it differs between pollsters?
The bigger issue for the MRPs is that the census data they use to back-project their poll findings and analysis onto each constituency are often quite old.
When you look at by-election swings, the Lib Dems have mahoosively outperformed Labour (Even though Labour had some very good swings this parliament). I think the yellows could be in for a very good night indeed.
I dare not jinx it but getting my hopes up. Done that too often.
I'll be relieved if we go above 20 seats, happy if we get 25+ and delirious if we beat the SNP into 3rd place.
I worry for you when the LDs beat the Tories into 2nd.
Yes I still think this bet at 4.5 is stunning value. If tactical voting is anything like all the indications suggest it will be, the LDs should have a good shot at getting over the line.
Not a chance. Even on the MRPs which generally show worse seat numbers than UNS the Tories are generally getting comfortably over 100 seats. And there remain at least 2 or 3 percentage points of Reform left to squeeze even if the Ref vote holds up much higher than in recent local elections.
I find this a little unhelpful for a betting site, Tim. When you write ‘not a chance’ this is more party politicking or hoping than a betting comment?
Clearly the LibDems do have some chance of taking second place on seats. I still agree that the Conservatives are more likely but 4.5 looks a decent bet on the LibDems to me. It’s not ‘no chance’.
Betting profits can only happen when opinions differ......
True to both but to come back on Tim’s point…my main line of thinking here is being bullish on the Lib Dems and all indication of tactical voting between them and Labour. If this turns out to be the case it means fewer Tory losses are needed, than would otherwise be needed for the Lib Dems to come 2nd in seats.
Phone masts in urban areas should not have restrictions.
Sorry to make this point again but planning has come up and it's my area.
Yes, they should. You don't want them plonked in the middle of a school playing field, the flight path of an airport, or in a cemetery.
Come on. This anti-NIMBY stuff is starting to get a bit silly.
It'd have to be bloody tall to interfere with a flight path. What's wrong with the middle of a cemetery? - the dead won't object. If it's on the school playing field it would mean less microwaving of the little dears, not more.
I wonder what first attracted this chap to Nigel Farage?
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
Just reading this: getting uncanny vibes of similarity with this election (presumably complete with the equivalent of simulated dog turds in the grass):
'“It’s weird that this genre not only exists, but is so popular,” explains Krist Duro, editor-in-chief of Duuro Plays, a video game reviews website based in Albania – and the first person I could find who has actually played and somewhat enjoyed Lawn Mowing Simulator. “But you need to be wired in a particular way. I like repetitive tasks because they allow me to enter into a zen-like state. But the actual simulation part needs to be good.”'
Sounds excellent. I sometimes see a chap with a huge grazing field near me just sitting on his ride on mower for hours cutting the grass and I’m so jealous of him. He does different patterns each time and I have to force myself to step away and stop watching.
Then I’ve found myself watching long videos of people professionally power washing absolute shitholes.
There must be some psychological need for weirdos like me to just watch the change, I can sit for ages admiring my own lawn mowing or power washing. Maybe I just need a life.
Not at all. Some of us have the same. Working on the rigging of a model of HMS Victory. Sorting through the miscellaneous screws from my dad's workshop in the shed. Or being on PB and reading Barty vs NIMBY scum.
Financing local Government is one of those issues which nobody, if they've got any sense, wants to go anywhere near. The fact we are dealing with a hastily imposed settlement brought in as a result of the overthrow of Margaret Thatcher speaks volumes.
30+ years on and the consequences of that stupidity are clear. We have a banding system which bears little or no resemblance to the value of the properties to which it relates and the main reason for its creation - to allow local authorities to fund themselves without having to rely on central Government largesse - has also failed to be addressed.
In some authorites, up to two thirds of expenditure is on the provision of care for vulnerable adults and children as well on children with Special Education Needs (SEN). SEN referrals have increased exponentially since the end of lockdown but the provision of suitable teaching accommodation and the supply of qualified teachers has not. The funding of transport for SEN children is a particular area of concern with many authorities cutting it for children over sixteen.
The central question is what do you want local councils to do? In theory, adult social care could be taken out of local authority control and run by a national care agency which would ensure adequate levels of residential care, specialist (including dementia) care and domiciliary care across the country based on the maxim the older population should be treated with respect and dignity and the care offer should provide that. At the same time, the agency should be promoting in-family care where possible and acting as a positive help for carers of all ages and types. Caring should be viewed as a vital part of family life and carers should be encouraged as much as possible (employers hsould be given huge tax breaks to employ carers).
How do you fund the rest of local Government? With the pressure off in terms of care, other functions can be looked at - we need local community hubs where a range of services and advice are available and very often just a place for the lonely and the alone to go and meet other people. This needs to be a 24 hour a day, seven day a week service provision - the message being if you're lonely, you don't have to be alone.
How this society deals with the alone and the lonely is reprehensible and a shame to us all. Sport, for example, should be leading on this getting people out and about providing free or discounted admission so those who have no social life can have the opportunity to live a little.
Back to funding? @Sandpit rails against property taxation and the truth is there is no fair form of local Government funding. The truth is those with high value properties are doing very well out of the current system and any changes will disadvantage them (and they will whinge) and benefit the providers of Council Tax software (who won't).
Easy. Abolish local government. Everything gets run from the centre and everyone gets the same. Massive efficiencies are made.
The cherry on the top is killing off local politics, so that local busybodies never get any power.
As I'm sure your tongue is firmly in your cheek, let's play.
You'd have a National Refuse Collection Service presumably, a National Library Service, a National Fire Service, a National Police Service, a National Street Cleaning Service and a National Parking Management Agency and bring all locally-owned land and property assets under the Property Services Agency.
Can't quite see these efficiency savings.
No doubt somebody will pipe up about getting Planning abolished except for "national guidelines" - let's define those guidelines, shall we? Let's allow huge overdevelopment in one area and no development in another. Can you imagine recruiting the hundreds of civil servants required to adopt the National Plan - they could be recruited from all the local Planning departments perhaps?
The council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.
That's a different question and I broadly agree.
The problem is not everywhere is the same. One example I'll offer is Surrey - 1 county council and 11 district and borough councils.
I suspect the County would like to take over the districts and boroughs as happened in Cornwall.
The districts and boroughs (and of course the "twin hat" councillors of all parties) aren't huge on that idea and favour three authorities, a West, a Mid and an East of about 350,000 each which is about the size of a London Borough and the Government's preferred size for a local authority.
Issues? The County would have to take on the key functions of refuse collection, council tax and crematoria/leisure management. If the County were split up, you'd need to build the three new authorities from the ground up and divvy up the County assets accordingly. You could continue to use three of the District Council buildings as HQ buildings and just sell the main County HQ.
If the County took on everything, the chances are they'd keep the eleven structures in the short term (it's what I would do) and migrate to, for example, a single Council Tax service using a single collection software system over a 3-5 year period.
None of it is pain or cost free.
Why do we need politicians for refuse collection?
Just determine what collection is appropriate then put it out to tender. Why do we need busybodies in the middle?
We could abolish the local councils and save a fortune and I doubt many people besides those interested in careers there would notice the difference.
What if I wanted a Labour bin collection not a Tory one. How would I get that if there were a Tory government?
Vote for a change of government, or pay for alternative collections.
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
What you're asking, I think, is if there's a Labour way of emptying the bins. It's a good question and it's one you can generalize to provide steer on this topic (of what should be local vs national).
Broadly speaking, if there is no or hardly any political (ideological) element to a service, that's a prime candidate for centralization, ie whoever is elected locally should make no difference to that service.
Bin collection is such a good example to use for discussion. I think most people's idea is that waste magically disappears when of course getting rid of waste is a complex issue and subject to local variations (tourist locations = seasonal surges in waste v rural problems like flytipping).
If you have a national waste agency you'll have incinerators popping up in poor areas + genius moves like shipping plastic overseas and then watching it come back (or having poorer countries take said waste for backhanders).
Local waste operations - with lots of experiments running on using recycling, circular economy initiatives, new technology, clamping down on flytipping - and then best practice disseminated (nationally and internationally) would be hugely beneficial.
Whilst most people couldn't give a monkeys how their bins get emptied, more people (I think) would appreciate knowing who is (politically) emptying their bin, especially if it has a plan to reduce and eliminate burning and burying.
I think that has to happen locally cos you need to make the connection in people's minds between where waste is collected and what happens to it.
One of the best arguments for local government, is the opportunity to innovate and experiment, so that everyone else can learn what works and what doesn’t.
A central government dictating bin collections is never going to work.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You get awfully upset about cycle lanes though. And LTNs.
No I don't, you must be confusing me with someone else.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
Always conditional on new roads. You're at least as bad as a NIMBY who insists on basic sanitation.
Why is that bad?
Investment should include new stuff, yes.
What's wrong with saying when we invest we should build new stuff. That's kind of the point!
Are new cycle lanes any of "your bloody business"?
No.
For the umpteenth time, I have no objection to new cycle lanes and new roads getting built. I support it.
How about just a cycle lane?
Its more practical typically to build a cycle lane with a new road, but if its eg building one parallel to an existing road eating into its embankment that can be a good idea too.
No objections to any of that. I've never once objected to a cycle lane, I just believe the practical way to do it is to build lanes and roads simultaneously.
So the Cons are in the invidious position of being likely to be out-polled by Reform and out-seated by the LibDems.
Yah.
We could be headed for the situation that Scotland is a stronghold for the Tories, relatively.
Doubt it. I think the Tories will win more than a fifth of all seats, but 5% of seats in Scotland
At least we've moved on from those hot tips of SCon gains and zero seats for the SNP.
What do you predict for D&G?
Alister Jack hasn't been harmed much by being an arrogant twat previously but his boasting about a 25/1 winner on the date of election then saying it was a joke then piously claiming the bets were outside the month in question might have had cut through, however he isn't standing. Don't know anything about his replacement, a journalist apparently, presumably with local connections. It may be one of these rare things, a genuine 3 way, or at least unpredictable.
[snip] Everything anyone wants to build should be waved through.
*Applauds.*
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
We established a few days ago that @BartholomewRoberts doesn't actually mean it. He is assuming that people won't decide to build things that he doesn't like.
What are you talking about? I never said that!
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
You said that you wouldn't want someone to build a balcony directly perpendicular to your garden, therefore you don't really think they should be able to build anything they want on their land.
I never said that. You tried (repeatedly) to get me to say that, but what I actually (repeatedly) said is whatever they want to do with their land should be up to them and if its on their land I have no objection whatsoever.
You did. When you eventually understood what kind of development I was proposing, you said you wouldn't be happy with it.
No, I said it would be their choice in my system.
And I literally said in my system if they did that I'd be free to do the same. Or extend the property so their balcony gets a view of a brick wall.
People should be free to do what they please, within the law, on their own land. Neighbours should mind their own f***ing business.
I wonder what first attracted this chap to Nigel Farage?
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
Just reading this: getting uncanny vibes of similarity with this election (presumably complete with the equivalent of simulated dog turds in the grass):
'“It’s weird that this genre not only exists, but is so popular,” explains Krist Duro, editor-in-chief of Duuro Plays, a video game reviews website based in Albania – and the first person I could find who has actually played and somewhat enjoyed Lawn Mowing Simulator. “But you need to be wired in a particular way. I like repetitive tasks because they allow me to enter into a zen-like state. But the actual simulation part needs to be good.”'
My son likes a pressure washing game. Helps him relax after school. It's called PowerWash Simulator (on Steam). Leaves me baffled but then I've always been more a first-person shooter kind of guy...
Just reading this: getting uncanny vibes of similarity with this election (presumably complete with the equivalent of simulated dog turds in the grass):
'“It’s weird that this genre not only exists, but is so popular,” explains Krist Duro, editor-in-chief of Duuro Plays, a video game reviews website based in Albania – and the first person I could find who has actually played and somewhat enjoyed Lawn Mowing Simulator. “But you need to be wired in a particular way. I like repetitive tasks because they allow me to enter into a zen-like state. But the actual simulation part needs to be good.”'
Sounds excellent. I sometimes see a chap with a huge grazing field near me just sitting on his ride on mower for hours cutting the grass and I’m so jealous of him. He does different patterns each time and I have to force myself to step away and stop watching.
Then I’ve found myself watching long videos of people professionally power washing absolute shitholes.
There must be some psychological need for weirdos like me to just watch the change, I can sit for ages admiring my own lawn mowing or power washing. Maybe I just need a life.
Comments
It's about striking the balance between efficiency/consistency and the fine sentiment that "power should rest closest to the people affected by the decisions of those who hold it".
England fast bowler Ollie Robinson was hit for 43 runs in the most expensive over in the history of the County Championship.
Sussex’s Robinson was struck for two sixes, six fours - three of which were off no-balls - and a single by Leicestershire's Louis Kimber in the fourth and final day of their Division Two match on Wednesday.
It is believed to be the most expensive over in all first-class cricket when there was no compliance from the bowler (i.e. bowling for a declaration).
Kimber's feat is comfortably the most runs scored by a batter in one over of English first-class cricket.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c4nng85x104o
So long as the bins are emptied, why does that need a party label on who does it?
What happens to that relationship, when it only takes a few weeks for thousands of bodies to return to families - or will they just be marked as ‘missing’, their wives and mothers destined to be forever unaware of what happened?
What do the middlemen in the Council do that can't be abolished?
Broadly speaking, if there is no or hardly any political (ideological) element to a service, that's a prime candidate for centralization, ie whoever is elected locally should make no difference to that service.
The weather is lovely today, lots of sport on TV, and then there is politics
I would just say I have accepted the result will see a landslide Starmer government and the conservative party can have no complaints if they are marginalised
I hope Starmer proves better than is expected as he is likely to be PM for a long time, but then events happen so who knows
I am looking forward to my wife and my 2 trips up Snowdon and on the Welsh Highland Railway next month and only have one question that really is a mystery to me and no doubt many others
Why on earth did Sunak suddenly call an election :
Concern the economy will be poorer in the Autumn
Expected an imminent vonc
Just wanted out
No doubt in time all will be revealed but to those who bet good luck, to those who have waited for a labour government your time is here, and to those of us who are one nation conservatives pray that Farage is consigned to the dustbin of history
Just put it to tender and abolish the local councils entirely.
There's the M62 to the North, the M6 to the East and the M56 to the South.
But there's none to the West.
Building a motorway to the West with a bridge over the canal and over the Mersey to the West is something I would wholeheartedly endorse.
I don't agree, but I love mad and uncompromising certainty on an extreme position.
The danger is Politcal Collectness gone mad
I know - have a vote on it.
Reform candidate Leslie Lilley said he would ‘slaughter migrants’
The 70-year-old conspiracy theorist who is likely to reap 20 per cent of the vote in Southend East & Rochford is Facebook friends with the fascist leader Gary Raikes
A Reform candidate said he would “slaughter” migrants arriving on small boats and “have their family taken out”.
Leslie Lilley, who is set to win almost 20 per cent of the vote in the Labour battleground seat of Southend East & Rochford, made the threats on the official Facebook account he uses to run his local campaign.
In a post in June 2020, Lilley reacted to the news of a small boat arriving in Dover saying: “I hope I’m near one of these scumbags one day I won’t run away I’ll slaughter them then have their family taken out.”
The same month, Lilley, now 70, railed against “more scum entering the UK”, adding “I hope your family get Robbed, Beaten or attacked”.
He also suggested Border Force vessels should have razor wire to tear small boats carrying migrants across the Channel, and commented “gas” along with several laughing emojis under a video of Muslims praying.
Lilley, who has also argued that the pandemic was a plan to “depopulate the world” and was “mass murder by government”, is one of the 41 Reform UK candidates who are “friends” on Facebook with Gary Raikes, the fascist leader.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/reform-candidate-leslie-lilley-said-he-would-slaughter-migrants-d7rl2dgt6
If someone builds something I don't like, that's none of my bloody business is my position.
Survation https://cdn.survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/25230718/GMB_W3_2024-06-25_Tables.xlsx and More in Common https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/zhmphgw0/fo4vi.xlsx both split their age segmentation into a 65-74 and a 75+ whilst most other companies stick with a 65+ segment.
From both their tables, there is a significant difference in Conservative support between 75+ and 65-74, so a single 65+ segment is likely to be less accurate.
That said, there still is a 7% difference in the headline figures for Conservatives between Survation and More in Common.
This is the election campaign that keeps on giving.
NEW on Honey Trap scandal:
I understand Labour was notified today of the arrest of a party member in Islington. The Labour Party immediately administratively suspended the individual from membership of the Labour Party.
https://x.com/AgnesChambre/status/1805957577420734835
Sorry to make this point again but planning has come up and it's my area.
If you have a national waste agency you'll have incinerators popping up in poor areas + genius moves like shipping plastic overseas and then watching it come back (or having poorer countries take said waste for backhanders).
Local waste operations - with lots of experiments running on using recycling, circular economy initiatives, new technology, clamping down on flytipping - and then best practice disseminated (nationally and internationally) would be hugely beneficial.
Whilst most people couldn't give a monkeys how their bins get emptied, more people (I think) would appreciate knowing who is (politically) emptying their bin, especially if it has a plan to reduce and eliminate burning and burying.
I think that has to happen locally cos you need to make the connection in people's minds between where waste is collected and what happens to it.
I've said repeatedly I wholeheartedly support investing in building more cycle lanes and more roads.
And that building more new roads with cycle tracks enables converting pre-existing ones to have cycle tracks and be an LTN by alleviating the through traffic away from that road and onto the new one.
No wonder you're confused if you don't know who is who - I have never once objected to cycle tracks. I use the local cycle track to ride with my kids to take them to the local park.
https://www.theguardian.com/games/article/2024/jun/26/lawn-mowing-simulator-simulation-games
'“It’s weird that this genre not only exists, but is so popular,” explains Krist Duro, editor-in-chief of Duuro Plays, a video game reviews website based in Albania – and the first person I could find who has actually played and somewhat enjoyed Lawn Mowing Simulator. “But you need to be wired in a particular way. I like repetitive tasks because they allow me to enter into a zen-like state. But the actual simulation part needs to be good.”'
A developer can by pass the planning process IF they pay up-front a sum not less than 5x an independent valuation of the value of the land with granted permission. Otherwise, they can take their chances with the planning process.
Simple.
Which reminds me of the time EE reorientated the masts around here and accidentally placed their third line support engineer for the emergency network in a no reception zone.
Come on. This anti-NIMBY stuff is starting to get a bit silly.
And I literally said in my system if they did that I'd be free to do the same. Or extend the property so their balcony gets a view of a brick wall.
People should be free to do what they please, within the law, on their own land. Neighbours should mind their own f***ing business.
Brown bin - garden waste and food waste - every fortnight, but an extra £40 a year charge.
Blue bin - paper and cardboard - every 4 weeks, in a week between the brown bin collections
Green bin - glass, tins, hard plastic (aka the jakey bin) - every 4 weeks, in the alternate week between brown bin collections
Black bin - general waste - every 3 weeks, so will coincide with any one of the other 3 bins.
Perhaps Ukraine can get the message out that they’re going to be short of young men for the rebuilding of their country, and the NorKs have an opportunity to live and work in future freedom.
We'll be able to wave to him while we're thinking inside it.
Someone else immediately called him on it.
As for flight paths, flight safety is already dealt with separately under specific regulations, again no need for nosy neighbours to get involved.
Clearly the LibDems do have some chance of taking second place on seats. I still agree that the Conservatives are more likely but 4.5 looks a decent bet on the LibDems to me. It’s not ‘no chance’.
Then I’ve found myself watching long videos of people professionally power washing absolute shitholes.
There must be some psychological need for weirdos like me to just watch the change, I can sit for ages admiring my own lawn mowing or power washing. Maybe I just need a life.
Investment should include new stuff, yes.
What's wrong with saying when we invest we should build new stuff. That's kind of the point!
I seriously think I’m going to set up a UK political vetting company.
For More in Common, I added the 65-74 and 75+ samples to arrive at 40% for the Conservatives but R&W had a much larger sample of the 65+ tranche of voters and came up with 25% Conservative support. The Survation sample is even smaller than More in Common.
I don't know - I wish we had a 10,000 sample poll just of those aged 65 or over.
Then people should be free to liberally do whatever they please within the law, without their neighbours having a say.
For the umpteenth time, I have no objection to new cycle lanes and new roads getting built. I support it.
1 Reform are standing about 20 fewer candidates than the Tories
2 Reform has virtually no local-level activity, their ground game is amateur at best (on the day of the Wellingborough by-election they were observed campaigning in an area adjacent to, but outside, the constituency) and they do not have the large databases of past canvassing and voting records which Labour and the Conservatives have so they are unable to target effectively
3 Reform are several points behind the Tories in the majority of polls and IMO the Tories' "avoid a Labour supermajority" plea will peel away a point or two of Reform support on polling day.
What's wrong with the middle of a cemetery? - the dead won't object.
If it's on the school playing field it would mean less microwaving of the little dears, not more.
A central government dictating bin collections is never going to work.
No objections to any of that. I've never once objected to a cycle lane, I just believe the practical way to do it is to build lanes and roads simultaneously.
Goodwin thinks Reform may have been damaged by Farage's Ukraine comments which is significant coming from him.
It does play into the idea that Farage is most comfortable hanging around with the bad boys.