North v south

[Arthurgray50@blu]

London tonight/North &South.

I was very interested to watch this prog, with various people talking about employment, housing etc.

What a major problem is that in the North, there is no work for the simple reason, most of the companies have moved abroad where it is cheaper, but if the government provided funding for these companies, which would then employ staff and take them off the unemployment register.

Butin the South, it is expensive to live in, work in etc, which comes down again to the fact that the government must provide the incentive and the financal clout for this to happen, They can find the funds to bail out banks etc, but they won't provide the funds for the help of the workforce, but all they are doing is making cutbacks and th employment register go up.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

London tonight/North &South.

I was very interested to watch this prog, with various people talking about employment, housing etc.

What a major problem is that in the North, there is no work for the simple reason, most of the companies have moved abroad where it is cheaper, but if the government provided funding for these companies, which would then employ staff and take them off the unemployment register.

Butin the South, it is expensive to live in, work in etc, which comes down again to the fact that the government must provide the incentive and the financal clout for this to happen, They can find the funds to bail out banks etc, but they won't provide the funds for the help of the workforce, but all they are doing is making cutbacks and th employment register go up.

How do you do that?

They provide money for Education (less recently, admittedly) which in theory should provide a workforce that companies want to use. The south is expensive precisely because there are, relatively, a lot of jobs in the area and around London.

Incidentally bailing out the banks probably did save a lot of jobs. They didn't do it because they loved bankers, they did it because the knock on effects of a bank going under would have been very serious and cost more than the bail outs.

[dazzer89]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

London tonight/North &South.

I was very interested to watch this prog, with various people talking about employment, housing etc.

What a major problem is that in the North, there is no work for the simple reason, most of the companies have moved abroad where it is cheaper, but if the government provided funding for these companies, which would then employ staff and take them off the unemployment register.

Butin the South, it is expensive to live in, work in etc, which comes down again to the fact that the government must provide the incentive and the financal clout for this to happen, They can find the funds to bail out banks etc, but they won't provide the funds for the help of the workforce, but all they are doing is making cutbacks and th employment register go up.

The North South devide will only get bigger with Camamoron and Clugg in charge. Life doesn't exist north of Watford.

I wonder how many County Councils in the affluent South have been told their budgets are going to be cut by hundreds of millions of pounds each year

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by dazzer89

The North South devide will only get bigger with Camamoron and Clugg in charge. Life doesn't exist north of Watford.

I wonder how many County Councils in the affluent South have been told their budgets are going to be cut by hundreds of millions of pounds each year

This one had its contribution from the government cut by the maximum.

However it didn't affect us that much as we have high council tax and pay a large proportion of costs through that. For which this Borough is being portrayed as receiving special treatment and been vilified in the press.

Short of having us hand our council tax to other places there's not much more that can be done.

Nowhere was favoured.

---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

London tonight/North &South.

I was very interested to watch this prog, with various people talking about employment, housing etc.

What a major problem is that in the North, there is no work for the simple reason, most of the companies have moved abroad where it is cheaper, but if the government provided funding for these companies, which would then employ staff and take them off the unemployment register.

Butin the South, it is expensive to live in, work in etc, which comes down again to the fact that the government must provide the incentive and the financal clout for this to happen, They can find the funds to bail out banks etc, but they won't provide the funds for the help of the workforce, but all they are doing is making cutbacks and th employment register go up.

This is really confusing.

On one hand you complain about taxation, on the other you want the government to prop up the economy permanently by subsidising the private sector. Which does kinda defeat the point of having a private sector.

Yes we pay for everything, the government doesn't have its own money!

It is not the government's job to subsidise industry so that it can compete with the much cheaper labour elsewhere. The government can however stimulate through lowering of taxation.

Of course the downside to that is that it means cuts to services and people starting protests because the public sector is being shrunk and we do love our government services, just paying for them we hate.

You cannot have it both ways, if you want the government involved in everything you have to pay for them to be involved in everything. When the government gets involved and starts throwing money at private companies it messes up markets and doesn't inspire investment at all - why would a new entrant come to the UK if it is having to compete with a state subsidised existing company.

You're veering awfully close to communism with that post Arthur. I doubt you meant it but it's most certainly what you did. A state run economy of the one you describe where government pays for 'private sector' employment for all is basically one step away.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by dazzer89

I wonder how many County Councils in the affluent South have been told their budgets are going to be cut by hundreds of millions of pounds each year

Cambs County Council, like many others, has had a rather large reduction in its central government funding.

Mrs D and her colleagues are just over two weeks into a 90 day consultation period

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-12280870

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...nions-warn.htm

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...ector-cuts.htm

[Hugh]

Originally Posted by dazzer89

The North South devide will only get bigger with Camamoron and Clugg in charge. Life doesn't exist north of Watford.

I wonder how many County Councils in the affluent South have been told their budgets are going to be cut by hundreds of millions of pounds each year

Why not look for yourself - the information is easily available - Guardian

Here's a quick list of those who have a reduction of about 8% or more(more than a lot of Northern councils)(not including the London Boroughs, which all seem to be affected).

Bath, Bedford, Bournemouth, Bracknell Forest, Brighton & Hove, Central Bedfordshire, Herefordshire, Reading, Slough, South Gloucestershire, West Berkshire, Wiltshire, Windsor & Maidenhead, Wokingham, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, West Sussex, Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks, Wycombe, Cambridge, East Cambridgeshire, and lots, lots more.

It would appear your rhetorical question is a sub-optimal interpretation of available information.

[Ignitionnet]

As a precautionary note...

Windsor and Maidenhead, Poole, West Sussex, Wokingham, Richmond upon Thames and Buckinghamshire all get cuts of 1% or below.

Can't speak for all of them but for Wokingham and Richmond upon Thames, where I live, the cut in the government grant was the maximum, 14%.

However the overall spending power dropped considerably less because Richmond and Wokingham both get basically bugger all grant anyway and fund themselves from their council tax payers.

Following this settlement however Richmond upon Thames is still the worst funded borough in London receiving just £157.70 per head of population compared to the next lowest borough who will receive £213.51.

As I said above there was no way Richmond could take much more of a hit without actually taking the Borough's council tax from it and distributing it elsewhere. Which kinda defeats the point of council tax.

[heero_yuy]

West Sussex, which is my council, had well below inflation increases for the duration of the last administration which forced the council tax up by larger amounts. Seems only fair that the cuts here should be less.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

West Sussex, which is my council, had well below inflation increases for the duration of the last administration which forced the council tax up by larger amounts. Seems only fair that the cuts here should be less.

You will likely find it's the same story for you - the central government grant was cut similarly to most other places but because your council is largely funded by its own council tax payers the overall impact of that grant cut was minimal.

Infact yes.


West Sussex 378.7 141.2

First figures is council tax in millions, second figure is government grant in millions, that grant is having the maximum 16% taken from it.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You will likely find it's the same story for you - the central government grant was cut similarly to most other places but because your council is largely funded by its own council tax payers the overall impact of that grant cut was minimal.

Infact yes.


West Sussex 378.7 141.2

First figures is council tax in millions, second figure is government grant in millions, that grant is having the maximum 16% taken from it.

Looks like more above inflation council tax rises then. We're already paying a small fortune: Band C, no discount £1348 per year. It's a lot when you don't use much in the way of council services. And before anyone says we're being selfish I know that the council has to provide services for those less fortunate than us and also schools etc. It's still a lot of money though.