Braverman: Rise of the Fascists

[pete75]

Local authorities bad their budgets on what they can raise through council tax, increases of which are capped, and what they receive in grants from central government. They must trim their expenditure to match this income . You seem to believe in some sort of naive fantasy world where public expenditure is unlimited. Any money a local authority borrows will have to be repaid from future income and borrowing for day to day expenditure is discouraged.

Yes, that is what borrowing means. You do have to pay it back. It seems that you are suggesting that it's morally preferable to keep to a budget and leave socially vulnerable persons homeless, than it is to seek to stretch the budget to ensure the safety of all those who are lawfully allowed to seek it. It is perhaps with some measure of relief from the general public that you have, in your own words, no longer working for the council. The general public do not need jobsworths, they need heroes.

It's illegal for local authorities to borrow money for day to day expenditure. You seem to have little idea about how local governemnet finances are being squeezed by central government. You might want to read this to find about LA funding and restrictions on borrowing ability https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... ng-england

. A council can only spend the money it has and has many responsibilitie sother than homelessness. Our council needed to funds to run schools, social services, planning,highways,public health, housing and council tax benefits, a crematorium, graveyards, parks, gyms, swimming pool, cycling infrastructure, care homes etc, refuse collection and disposal, bus subsidies etc etc all with increasing costs and all with a static or shrinking budget. You can't spend what you haven't got.

[pete75]

What you are describing, which is the curtailment of public services enshrined by law, to which the public has access, due to a failure of your council to properly budget, not only breaches the 7 (Nolan) principles of public life, but may actually be illegal.

It's not my council chum. I left it several years ago with a very nice , close to six figures redundancy package along with immediate payment of an index linked final salary pension from over 30 years scheme membership. Local authority salaries are not brilliant but if you stick it out retirement income makes up for that.

So... if you've left the council 'several years ago' then perhaps what you've stated in this thread might have actually changed following new advice from central government and outcomes from possible legal action brought by clients against councils?

Yes things have changed. Funds have been reduced even more and less is being done about homelessness and attitudes have become less benign. Unless there's a change of heart at Westminster or a change of governemnet an dlocal authoroities receive the funds needed to deal with properly with homelessness things won't get any better. The question to ask yourself is "Am I prepared to pay more Council Tax, more Income Tax, more VAT" because unless we all do pay more those funds will be unavailable.

[simonineaston]

It's exactly this sort of ill-tempered slanging match that Braverman hopes to stir up... She and her advisors know exactly which trigger words & phrases she should put out there, to be quoted by red-top and Guardian alike and the effect they have. The calculation they make is that enough of the electorate become sufficiently fired up that they will vote for her party and their "solutions", without pausing long enough to carefully examine in detail the proposals and the data they're based on.

[Pebble]

Why do you think it is other people who are being 'played' and brainwashed and not yourself?

Ask yourself why putting 500 people on a barge is a bigger story than the 160,000 asylum seekers awaiting their initial decision. Then ask who's pushing that story and why. There's your answer.

The deterrent of making it difficult to get here, then a very long wait for a decision with threats of deportation are the only things keeping the numbers as low as they are. Make it easy, free ferry then a welcome-to-uk-citizenship-pack would increase numbers exponentially, we can't cope with the population explosion as it is, the country is at breaking point, and more and more people is the last think we need.

[Jdsk]

"How a town in South Wales said no to fascism – and yes to Welsh cakes":
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2023/03/29/h ... lsh-cakes/

Jonathan

[reohn2]

Is this how we think people who've contributed to the UK all their lives should be treated in their time of need :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... umentation
Read and weep.

I can just imagine the distorted view the gaurdian will have, so won't bother reading it, any other less biased sources?

Suit yerself but his isn't an isolated case thanks to the hostile environment initiated by May and continued by Patel and then Bravermen.
People who were asked to come here from Commonwealth countries after WW2 when the 'motherland' : needed labour,only to be slapped in the face when they sought UK citizenship.
There's none so blind as them that will not see.

[roubaixtuesday]

Is this how we think people who've contributed to the UK all their lives should be treated in their time of need :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... umentation
Read and weep.

I can just imagine the distorted view the gaurdian will have, so won't bother reading it, any other less biased sources?

Classic denial, and sadly typical of right wing thought at the moment. Simply unable to deal with reality, so retreat into a cocoon of like minded.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

I expect wiki is also not an acceptable source.

If you want to know where this behaviour takes you in the end, try conservapedia.

[Jdsk]

"Home Office admits no evidence to support key claim on small boat crossings":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -crossings

"UK government concedes it cannot substantiate assertion that majority crossing Channel are economic migrants"

Jonathan

[roubaixtuesday]

"Home Office admits no evidence to support key claim on small boat crossings":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -crossings

"UK government concedes it cannot substantiate assertion that majority crossing Channel are economic migrants"

Jonathan

Almost as if they set out to set a narrative based on ideology rather than facts.

[reohn2]

"Home Office admits no evidence to support key claim on small boat crossings":
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... -crossings

"UK government concedes it cannot substantiate assertion that majority crossing Channel are economic migrants"

Jonathan

Almost as if they set out to set a narrative based on ideology rather than facts.

Ain't that the truth!

[pete75]

Is this how we think people who've contributed to the UK all their lives should be treated in their time of need :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... umentation
Read and weep.

I can just imagine the distorted view the gaurdian will have, so won't bother reading it, any other less biased sources?

Classic denial, and sadly typical of right wing thought at the moment. Simply unable to deal with reality, so retreat into a cocoon of like minded.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

I expect wiki is also not an acceptable source.

If you want to know where this behaviour takes you in the end, try conservapedia.

Probably goes here for the unbiased truth.

[wheelyhappy99]

we can't cope with the population explosion as it is, the country is at breaking point, and more and more people is the last think we need.

Public services in the UK are indeed struggling. Might that be due to the current governing party having reduced spending on them for more than a decade?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the near million vacancies the UK now has are going to be filled by the current population.

As my former (Tory) MP said 'If you want to meet a migrant go and see your doctor".

[mjr]

Why do you think it is other people who are being 'played' and brainwashed and not yourself?

Ask yourself why putting 500 people on a barge is a bigger story than the 160,000 asylum seekers awaiting their initial decision. Then ask who's pushing that story and why. There's your answer.

The deterrent of making it difficult to get here, then a very long wait for a decision with threats of deportation are the only things keeping the numbers as low as they are.

No evidence that any of that is true. In general, if you make something seem more exclusive, it can make it seem more desirable.

Make it easy, free ferry then a welcome-to-uk-citizenship-pack would increase numbers exponentially,

Literally no one is suggesting that. Can you not argue against real alternatives, so must argue against imaginary demons?

we can't cope with the population explosion as it is, the country is at breaking point, and more and more people is the last think we need.

Are we not struggling to fill job vacancies any more now?

[pete75]

we can't cope with the population explosion as it is, the country is at breaking point, and more and more people is the last think we need.

Public services in the UK are indeed struggling. Might that be due to the current governing party having reduced spending on them for more than a decade?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the near million vacancies the UK now has are going to be filled by the current population.

As my former (Tory) MP said 'If you want to meet a migrant go and see your doctor".

I think he or she was arguing against himself there. Many would think the number of immigrant doctors here an argument in favour of migration.

[pete75]

If you want to know where this behaviour takes you in the end, try conservapedia.

Just looked at Conservapedia - surely a parody?