8 days to go and Ipsos brings no good news for the Tories – politicalbetting.com

kamski said:

Leon said:

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

Voting Labour after 14 years of Conservative government is hardly thinking the unthinkable.

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

PedestrianRock said:

stodge said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@TSE

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?

MisterBedfordshire said:

If Labour scrap the 25% pension tax free lump sum in their post election "emergency" budget then I'm handing in my notice pronto so I'm gone by 5th April.

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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.

Heathener said:

kamski said:

Leon said:

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

Voting Labour after 14 years of Conservative government is hardly thinking the unthinkable.

Unfortunately 95% of what Leon posts is drivel.

The 5% is the small fraction of travelogue that doesn’t fall into the same category.

MisterBedfordshire said:

If Labour scrap the 25% pension tax free lump sum in their post election "emergency" budget then I'm handing in my notice pronto so I'm gone by 5th April.

Nigelb said:

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

MisterBedfordshire said:

Glorious BEDFORDSHIRE


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/property/overlooked-county-new-commuter-favourite/

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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?

SandyRentool said:

Nigelb said:

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.

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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.

TimS said:

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

PedestrianRock said:

stodge said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@TSE

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.

Nigelb said:

Good.

..Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has rejected calls for politicians to be banned from betting on politics, arguing that the gambling scandal was about behaviour rather than the rules...

Beibheirli_C said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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?

It sounds rather like the creation of ICL (by Tony Benn IIRC???) were the govt of the day "raided" various IT dept.s up and down the country and produced the "British IBM". The main problem was that many of the "recruits" were not the finest members of their respective organisations who knew a good clearing out opportunity when they saw one...

ICL did some good stuff, but there was always a slightly "naff" feel to their kit.

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

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.

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

BBC end up spending too much time wibbling rather than reporting and analysing results.

Beibheirli_C said:

TimS said:

SandyRentool said:

Nigelb said:

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.

Defections to "the West" must surely be a possibility. I assume army engineers are probably much more privileged than most in NK but still, double bonus of escaping your own dictatorship and escaping the trenches alive.

I am sure that those sent to the front will be told that their families in NK will pay dearly if they defect on the battlefield.

williamglenn said:

Has Ed Davey’s latest stunt been covered yet?

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1805889641771413738

IanB2 said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

BBC end up spending too much time wibbling rather than reporting and analysing results.

But the quality of discussion is better.

Have sky on mute for the latest declarations and listen to BBC for the debate, analysis and any corrections

Dumbosaurus said:

Beibheirli_C said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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?

It sounds rather like the creation of ICL (by Tony Benn IIRC???) were the govt of the day "raided" various IT dept.s up and down the country and produced the "British IBM". The main problem was that many of the "recruits" were not the finest members of their respective organisations who knew a good clearing out opportunity when they saw one...

ICL did some good stuff, but there was always a slightly "naff" feel to their kit.

You say that, but at least by the time Fujitsu bought it, they started building software of incomparable quality, so good they were happy to testify to its bug free nature in court.

LostPassword said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

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.

Mexicanpete said:

IanB2 said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

BBC end up spending too much time wibbling rather than reporting and analysing results.

But the quality of discussion is better.

Have sky on mute for the latest declarations and listen to BBC for the debate, analysis and any corrections

You do realise Kuenssberg is presenting? You might as well have Sunak hosting.

biggles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

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.

The worry is that involving North Korea might be calculated to bring in China, as NK's longstanding champion.

I do question the fitness of the average Korean infantryman.

Mexicanpete said:

You do realise Kuenssberg is presenting? You might as well have Sunak hosting.

stodge said:

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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.

Mexicanpete said:

IanB2 said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

BBC end up spending too much time wibbling rather than reporting and analysing results.

But the quality of discussion is better.

Have sky on mute for the latest declarations and listen to BBC for the debate, analysis and any corrections

You do realise Kuenssberg is presenting? You might as well have Sunak hosting.

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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?

I wouldn't go so far as to nationalise it all but the council and district system needs binning. Everywhere should be unitary.

I mean what have I got now

A national constituency (Fair enough)
Regional mayor
County council
District council
Parish council.

It's ridiculous not to knock at least one of those out and I'd go for the county expanding the district to a North Notts unitary.

Beibheirli_C said:

Mexicanpete said:

IanB2 said:

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

BBC end up spending too much time wibbling rather than reporting and analysing results.

But the quality of discussion is better.

Have sky on mute for the latest declarations and listen to BBC for the debate, analysis and any corrections

You do realise Kuenssberg is presenting? You might as well have Sunak hosting.

Well, he will need a new job shortly..... Might as well start early

SandyRentool said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Richardr said:

Anabobazina said:

Ghedebrav said:

On preparing for the evening, my default setting is BBC for these things. Like poor, poor Rishi we don't have Sky, so I guess my other option will be ITN?

I'll have a PB tab open as well ofc.

ITN is far, far superior to the BBC and has been for years. That BBC now have the hopeless LauraK as 'anchorwoman' can only add to their irrepressible malaise.

Meanwhile, ITN have Ozzy and Ballzy – two of the finest political pundits and a great double act.

DYOR.

Based on previous elections:

ITV tend to announce many of the results faster - they don't wait for the declarations - albeit this time around there may be less in it where there are fewer safe seats. The other side of that though is that they show fewer declarations in favour of studio chat.

BBC (and Sky) have the results as they are declared and as a result tend to show a lot more declarations live, and have the numbers in line with each other.

I think in the past ITN has had to backtrack on the odd estimated result. In the overall scheme of things, especially if there is a landslide, but for constituency betting it is unhelpful.

I’ll probably flick between the two and settle on who is least irritating. No adverts is always a big draw for BBC though.

My memory is there are no ads on any of them (including Sky and ITN)?

Yes, I always find Sky on election night MUCH better than the Beeb, and they cancel their advertising on election night and go advert free.

Sky is quicker but the BBC more reliable.

BBC end up spending too much time wibbling rather than reporting and analysing results.

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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).

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

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?

tlg86 said:

An interesting thread...

https://x.com/bryanglick/status/1805948707864527211

@bryanglick
Fujitsu's Gareth Jenkins at the #PostOfficeInquiry represents an archetype recognisable to anyone who's worked in IT - the grumpy old techy.

Worked for one company for ages. Knows his stuff and respected for his knowledge, but a bit of a pain in the butt to deal with... (1/5)

JosiasJessop said:

Cookie said:

LostPassword said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:

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.

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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.

Sandpit said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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.

MisterBedfordshire said:

Re Council tax.

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....

eek said:

MattW said:

stodge said:

Pulpstar said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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.

Here is an outline of the French setup.
https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/France-Introduction.aspx .

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...

TimS said:

williamglenn said:

Has Ed Davey’s latest stunt been covered yet?

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1805889641771413738

Yes, and it's given me a brainworm all day.

biggles said:

stodge said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

@TSE - seriously, why do you do this to me?

FPT

Afternoon all

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”.