| Another U-turn incoming on 11:57 - Feb 19 with 281 views | DJR |
Of course the overall costs on business would have been much less if the Government had reversed the Tories' unfunded cuts to employees' NI as I thought they should have done.
In other words, their pre-election strategy (no increase in the main taxes on working people) was flawed from the start.
They also put all their eggs in the growth basket which I always thought was a hostage to fortune.
Having said all this, a slowing in the increase in the minimum wage in the circumstances does seem pragmatic, and therefore not like the 16 U-turns that Sky reported. [Post edited 19 Feb 11:59]
|  | |  |
| Another U-turn incoming on 15:13 - Feb 20 with 179 views | flykickingbybgunn |
| Another U-turn incoming on 21:49 - Feb 18 by DJR |
I can't say I am a fan of Polly Toynbee but I thought this from an article in today's Guardian was good.
"What were they thinking? Labour inherited the worst of everything, including prisons beyond breaking point, court backlogs as bad as NHS waiting lists, children cast into exceptional destitution, the National Grid unable to cope with demand, reservoirs unbuilt while sewage poured into rivers, high debt, no money and deep public distrust in politics. Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves were honest about what they found.
So what on earth can have seized them, within months of taking over, to decide this was a good time for a gigantic English council re-disorganisation? Angela Rayner, who was in charge of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government at the time, kicked it off in December 2024. But why, when councils are near-bankrupt and crippled by the ballooning costs of social care and provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities?
Steve Reed, the local government secretary, boasted to council leaders this week that it will “deliver the most ambitious reforms of local government in a generation”. But what for? Local government reform wasn’t in the manifesto. Until it was legally challenged – because the reorganisation would have delayed local elections in 30 places in England – it barely featured on the political horizon because it had no political purpose. Few people know much about what responsibilities fall to different layers of local authority and national government – which is why mayors are a good idea, putting an identifiable person in charge. Few people bother to vote: average council election turnout in 2024 was 30.8%, not much changed over recent decades. There was scant political mileage in this, but great organisational risk.
The shake-up merges districts into county councils, creating unitary authorities in some areas, with neighbouring councils merging in others. Given the country’s present cynical anti-politics state of mind, voters might suspect this is some kind of crafty gerrymander that will favour Labour. Not at all. On the contrary, scores of towns and cities with a distinct political identity, many with universities, which usually vote Labour, Liberal Democrat or Green, will be swallowed up into large surrounding counties that traditionally vote blue. Oxford, Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich, Exeter, Reading and many more will disappear as civic entities, losing their identities as they are melded into counties of opposing politics. No wonder neither the Tories nor Reform put up objections to the plan itself.
Goodness knows what evidence Rayner and the rest were shown to persuade them to create this huge turbulence. There is no evidence that unitary councils do any better than areas with both district and county councils, according to Tony Travers, local government expert at the London School of Economics. He tells me: “There’s no evidence that Hampshire, with its district councils, is better or worse governed than, say, Buckinghamshire or other unitaries.” The House of Commons library research is also inconclusive: “It is not clear from available evidence whether unitary councils save money compared with a two-tier system,” says Travers."
[Post edited 18 Feb 21:53]
|
I was part of Local Govt reorganisation in 1974.
Nearly all the bosses took very early pensions at vast cost.
The middle tier stepped up to take their jobs with a massive pay rise.
In the lower jobs some stepped up into the middle with a pay rise.
Those still left to do the actual work were much thinned out and had to carry everybody else. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
