Current Affairs The Conservative Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wonder why the Tories are hated so much on this forum and in our city?

Wonder why we call them scummy?

Read the evidence below.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/new...fKkQA26g5ipauvTRaJI0r_gssrm6AtENXLDMeorphVQBc


The devastating numbers that show just how BADLY Liverpool is treated by the Tories

New report says city is the worst in UK in terms of cuts - and it is now at total breaking point

It is official - Liverpool is the UK city that has been most devastated by the Tory government's budget cuts and austerity agenda.

Since 2009/10, every person living in Liverpool has shouldered the burden of the equivalent of an £816 fall each in day-to-day council spending.

To put that into stark perspective, everyone in Oxford has had a £115 increase in day to day cash spent on them in that same period.

The figures - which form part of the Centre for Cities' latest Outlook Report - appear to confirm what many in the city and its council believe: that Liverpool and its people are treated unfairly by the Government.

The total fall in the council budgets during this period since 2009/10 was 32%, the second highest in Britain after Barnsley.

This puts cuts to local government services in Liverpool 18 percentage points higher than the national average in real terms, which works out at £529 above the national average per head.

View attachment 53583

These devastating statistics show how badly Liverpool has been treated by the current government


The crippling effect of the cuts

Liverpool Council has been forced to make do with less by becoming more efficient - but as the Centre for Cities points out, the severe funding cuts coupled with an increase in demand for social care across the city has led to budgets being slashed in other areas.

For example, spending on public conveniences such as toilets in the city has fallen by 98% over the past decade, while council spending on tourism has dropped by 67% and arts development and support by 57%.

The growing demand for social care has added to the squeeze on council finances in Liverpool.

Across Britain, more and more cities are spending greater proportions of their budgets on social care, adding to the overall pressure on their finances.

If this pattern continues, the only role for many councils will be to provide social care.

Liverpool Council's budget woes

The amount of cuts faced by Liverpool Council since 2010

£444m

The total amount made from Council Tax in 2010

£220m

The total amount the council makes from Council Tax now

The report found that the cities least equipped to absorb the loss of central government grants have been hardest hit due to their weaker local economies.

They are less able to raise money locally, for example through council tax increases. This applies most strongly outside the South of England.

The report urges the Government to use the Spending Review to ensure that its promise to end austerity fully applies to local government, and in particular to cities.

View attachment 53584

These devastating statistics show how badly Liverpool has been treated by the current government
"Little more than social care providers"

Andrew Carter, Centre for Cities Chief Executive, said: “Cities drive the national economy and, while austerity has improved local government efficiency, its sheer scale has placed public services in Liverpool under huge pressure.

"Cities Outlook 2019 shows that the cities most affected are economically weaker and have been less able to absorb the loss of central government funding.

“Liverpool Council has managed as best they can but the continued singling-out of local government for cuts cannot continue. There is a very real risk that many of our largest councils will in the near future become little more than social care providers. Fairer funding must mean more funding for Liverpool.

Falling budgets and rising social care needs are hitting Liverpool hard

“If, as the Prime Minister has said, austerity is coming to an end then the Spending Review must address the financial challenges facing Liverpool councils. But this does not just mean more money

"Giving local authorities more power to decide how they raise and spend funds, providing more flexible multi-year budgets and reforming the way social care is paid for also need to be urgently introduced.”

"They just don't get it"
As Mr Carter said, at last year's Conservative Party conference, Theresa May made the bold claim that 'austerity is over.'
For Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson, that couldn't be further from the truth.
Since he came to power in 2010, he has seen his council budget slashes massively - meaning that by 2020 they will have lost a total of £444m - that's 64% of the council’s overall budget over the last decade.
Struggling to add up

£3m

what every 1% budget cut means in real money

£8.4m

Public Health Grant cut in real terms

21,000

Adult social care requests each year

The National Audit Office has reported that local government has seen a real terms cut in funding of 49.1% from 2010/11 to 2017/18.

And the Government’s own published ‘Core Spending Power’ figures show that Liverpool City Council would have been £72m better off by 2019/20 if it had incurred funding cuts in line with the national average for all English councils.

View attachment 53585

These devastating statistics show how badly Liverpool has been treated by the current government

Mayor Joe Anderson said: “This report confirms what I’ve been saying for years. We’ve not been asking for special treatment – just fairness. If we’d have had the average cut of other councils we’d be £80 million better off.

“Since 2010 we’ve cut around 3,000 staff, and had to take tough decisions on all areas of spending including adult social care, transferring some libraries and youth centres to the voluntary sector and selling buildings.

“We’ve worked hard to keep all of our children’s centres and leisure centres open and continued to run the best cultural events programme in the country.

"We are doing great things around infrastructure such as housing, regeneration and jobs by being entrepreneurial and creative, but we are being held back by the cuts in day-to-day spending.

“We’re making millions of pounds every year from our innovative ‘Invest to Earn’ strategy, where we make smart investments that deliver a return, but instead of using that money to grow the economy further we are having to use it to plug the cuts made by Central Government.

“My fear is that with Brexit dominating the domestic political agenda and Parliament in deadlock, the needs of desperate councils – especially larger urban authorities – are way down the ministerial pecking order."


Scummy Tories.

We haven’t had any austerity, we’ve had minor cut backs.....
 
I experienced real austerity and I didn’t like it. That’s why I worked really hard all my life.....

So for decades, you've voted to erode the social institutions that were created so that you might prosper from your hard work - the only reason you prospered from your hard work - because your suffering negates everybody else's, and you'd prefer to leave millions of people too poor to feed themselves if it means you have a bit more money to spend on ridiculous ego-pampering toys.

This is what is known as 'being a cruel and narcissistic asshole'.

I present this - truly - not as a personal attack, but as a simple empirical description.

Still, if the distinction is too delicate, then I'll happily accept the ban.
 
So for decades, you've voted to erode the social institutions that were created so that you might prosper from your hard work - the only reason you prospered from your hard work - because your suffering negates everybody else's, and you'd prefer to leave millions of people too poor to feed themselves if it means you have a bit more money to spend on ridiculous ego-pampering toys.

This is what is known as 'being a cruel and narcissistic asshole'.

I present this - truly - not as a personal attack, but as a simple empirical description.

Still, if the distinction is too delicate, then I'll happily accept the ban.

No mate, I worked really hard and generated an amount of money to get my family into a position where we were not poor. I’m sorry if this offends you, but the hours I put in would be described today as slave labour.

This is what’s known as being a hard working husband.

I present this - truly - not as a personal attack , but as a simple reference to what we all had to do.....
 
No mate, I worked really hard and generated an amount of money to get my family into a position where we were not poor. I’m sorry if this offends you, but the hours I put in would be described today as slave labour.

This is what’s known as being a hard working husband.

I present this - truly - not as a personal attack , but as a simple reference to what we all had to do.....

Pete, the issue people have though is that for many people, working hard for long hours no longer allows them to put money aside, to better themselves or to improve their families chances.
 
No mate, I worked really hard and generated an amount of money to get my family into a position where we were not poor. I’m sorry if this offends you, but the hours I put in would be described today as slave labour.

This is what’s known as being a hard working husband.

I present this - truly - not as a personal attack , but as a simple reference to what we all had to do.....
Pete, the issue people have though is that for many people, working hard for long hours no longer allows them to put money aside, to better themselves or to improve their families chances.

^Exactly.

Pete, you've predictably managed to completely swerve the issue, wallowing in your own personal mythology instead. As if all critics of austerity care about is denying that you once put in a shift 50 years ago!

You seem incapable of understanding politics beyond the context of your own biography. This is narcissism.

Nobody is denying that you worked hard, but this is utterly beyond the point.

If you put in those same hours today at, say, an Amazon warehouse, you'd still be stuck doing the same thing at the same wage forty years later, if they hadn't just sacked you at the first sign of physically aging. And you'd be paid so little that you'd be queued up at the food bank every week just to be able to support your family.

How much did your first house cost relative to your income? How much did it cost you for your kids' tuition? How many decades did you endure where wages shrank even as the economy grew? Everything that your labour has earned you came about because of social institutions which were designed to make life as comfortable as possible for people your age, and to ensure that for the first time in this country's history, hard work alone might actually pay off.

Or do you think that two centuries of coal miners coughed themselves to death in poverty by age 50 instead of buying themselves fancy toys because they didn't work as hard as you did?

You've been voting relentlessly to destroy the connection between hard work and prosperity ever since you first started to feel comfortable.

And even now, when literally millions of working people cannot feed themselves without others' charity, you still refuse to be accountable for your political choices. Open your eyes.

I too am getting by, but I am not so self-absorbed as to think that this means everything is working swimmingly for everyone else, and that those in paid employment queued at the foodbank where we make a weekly drop-off could be doing just as well as I am, if only they applied themselves or worked some more overtime. The homeless population did not grow by 170% in less than a decade because people suddenly became %170 lazier.

Nobody who works 40 hours a weeks should be unable to feed their family. End of.

But that is exactly what we have now, because people like you are still too consumed with congratulating yourselves for being the protagonists of your own self-indulgent fairy tales to perceive what is blindingly obvious all around you.

Come around to the food bank some time and try telling people that there hasn't been any austerity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No mate, I worked really hard and generated an amount of money to get my family into a position where we were not poor. I’m sorry if this offends you, but the hours I put in would be described today as slave labour.

This is what’s known as being a hard working husband.

I present this - truly - not as a personal attack , but as a simple reference to what we all had to do.....

Quite possible the silliest response to a post highlighting your flawed thinking it was possible to make
 
It takes something for them to surprise me, but even for them this is absolutely astonishing:

Saturday morning, and Stevenage appears to be bracing itself for a riot. Police cars block off road after road. Sirens scythe the air. Officers hurry about in hi-vis. And at the eye of this storm is not some motley crew of furious insurgents, but hundreds of children and mums and dads, marching last weekend to save the school they love.

6406.jpg





"We are a small town and we aren’t used to staging demonstrations,” says councillor Josh Bennett Lovell, which explains both the law-and-order overkill and the bright-eyed kids enjoying all the excitement of a big day out. Only when the marchers hit the town square does the carnival spirit give way to speeches highlighting the seriousness of their situation.

Should these fighters lose, on Friday the Barclay school will be handed over to an academy trust based 35 miles away in central London that has, they say, barely shown its face at the secondary, let alone talked to staff or parents. That will be despite months of protest by the head and governors, a series of strikes by teachers, packed meetings with worried locals, and parents and children taking to the streets. Into the mic roars Pete Hawkins: “We want to work with a partner, not have a dictatorship come in!”

With that plaintive shout, the father of two Barclay pupils not only captures this cause, he also shows up the bogus politics that has stalked this country for over two and a half years. How many times have you heard that Brexit is about taking back control, about throwing off shackles made in Brussels and embracing homegrown democracy? Even if that means ministers flirting with the idea of introducing martial law, contracting a ferry service with no ferries or turning a motorway into a lorry park. Anything goes in government today, provided it is done with full ceremonial lip service to the will of the people – the very same people, of course, who the entire political class has spent decades ignoring.

Then on an ice-cold Saturday morning along come some of the most ignored people in British politics – residents of a taken-for-granted satellite town – to point out that what’s happening to their school is more undemocratic and untransparent and unfair than any number of Eurocrat directives, and it is entirely the creation of the British state.

Because Barclay got a poor Ofsted report two and a half years ago, the government will forcibly turn it into an academy. Which trust it is handed to is determined solely by a Whitehall civil servant. Neither the local authority, nor the school governors, nor the staff – and least of all the parents and pupils – get any say in the process. This is the lawful regime, as set by former education secretary turned defender of democracy Michael Gove.

The school was first paired up with a local trust, Herts for Learning, until the government suddenly changed its mind for reasons never properly explained to anyone at Barclay. The Department for Education told me on Monday that the trust – formerly part of Hertfordshire county council’s school improvement service – was “concerned” about its “capacity to absorb the school”. The trust’s head, Alex Thomas, vehemently denies this and says he would take the school tomorrow if he could.

Instead, the school was awarded last March to Future Academies trust (Fat), based in central London. In minutes of a meeting released under freedom of information, civil servants admitted to the school that there was no formal process in making the decision. There was “no list” of who had been approached and “no documented evidence”. In this hasty ad hoc fashion the future of nearly 900 pupils was decided – and a 70-year-old public asset, with plenty of land and its own Henry Moore sculpture, was given away.

Once a school becomes an academy, it is effectively privatised. Taxpayer money is still pumped in, but it is removed from local democratic oversight. So from Friday, Fat will control everything from uniform to the hours of the school to staff pay. People at the school say they don’t have a clue what the trust will do – because they have been told nothing. The first meeting staff and parents will have with Fat representatives will be after they have started running the school. When governors met the trust’s boss, Paul Smith, last September, I’m told he was asked about plans for curriculum, for governance – and at the end of the two-and-a-half hour long sessions, governors said he had provided them with no clarity, no specifics. (I did ask Fat about this and other issues in a set of detailed questions, but it did not respond.) Smith has been clear that he works to an 80/20 model, where only 20% of his policies are “negotiable”. At other Fat schools, whose staff I’ve spoken to, that means longer school days and compulsory Latin lessons from age 11.

The driving forces behind Fat are Lord and Lady Nash. John Nash’s background is not in schools but in private equity. He has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Conservative party, which ennobled him and made him Gove’s academies minister. During that time, you might think, he would have avoided any question of conflict of interest by giving up his own academy trust. He did not.

This isn’t democracy. This is a stitch-up. And far from the situation changing after 29 March, the likes of Nash will probably get more schools. Parents have appealed to their local MP to intervene. The Conservative Stephen McPartland posts open letters about how, as a democrat, he believes in pursuing Brexit. But the will of the people when they’re his constituents? Forget about it. When a parent raised her concerns two weeks ago, his response was to tell her to move her daughter to a school in Bedfordshire.

The MP didn’t respond to any questions I put, nor did I see him at Saturday’s march. Does he care that schoolchildren were carrying placards reading “I HEART Mr Allchorn”, the new head, who is working wonders? I don’t imagine the DfE cares too much that the school is scoring the best A-levels and GCSEs in years and has won plaudits from Ofsted for its “turnaround”. I suppose that Nash and his trust, waiting in the wings, will claim the credit for the hard work already done to transform a failing school.

This entire episode shows you where the true democratic deficit lies in Britain. Not between Westminster and Brussels, but between Westminster and the rest of us. And sometimes it takes a community school to teach us that lesson. Well done to the parents and teachers of Stevenage: they call you a dormitory town, but at least you’re not taking this outrage lying down.

• Aditya Chakrabortty is a Guardian columnist


from here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top