It is one of those purposeless performances, an exercise in democracy where the people elected have no real power beyond the ability to inflate themselves into grand poo-bahs of uselessness.
They may not have the power to do anything positive, but they do have powers to make things worse. For example by bringing in LTNs and selective licensing schemes.
Did a piece on the local elections as well as the Welsh and Scottish elections myself yesterday. The only thing of note will be to observe if Labour get a big enough kicking for Starmer to be pushed out of Downing Street. I suppose there are also questions to ask about the Greens and Reform, but that’ll be secondary.
In the end, I’ll be voting for my Lib Dem councillor. They at least try to do good.
This was an odd piece. Borderline nihilistic. Undeniably, there are kernels of truth with which I can't disagree.
The major kernel is that social care is indeed sucking the financial life out of the more visible activities mentioned. Streets are dirtier, pavements more broken, granted, I can't quibble.
The second kernel is that a 'Local Government transfer of powers' Bill ought to be published tomorrow by this Government, it is long long overdue. Local politicians deserve to be able to advocate for change, and be held to account on its delivery. At the moment, this is impossible as delivery is hamstrung by matters outside of their control. Tax raising powers for example.
But the central thrust of this piece is fatally undermined by two matters:
(1) There's one massive, epic, unmistakable thing that the complexion of one's council does influence and that is, drum roll, house building. To not mention housebuilding in this piece is unforgivable. If you elect one set of politicians, your council will spend four years actively discouraging new housing with all its attendant benefits. The making of Local plans will purposefully slow to a snail's pace, planning committees will vote down perfectly good applications, and planning inquiries will be lost and the presiding inspectors will instruct the mal-performing council to foot hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs.
(2) Social care is an important service, albeit not recognized nor seemingly appreciated by this author. If social care is mal-managed and mal-administered by a council then two things happen. One, vulnerable people, whether young disabled, elderly infirm, or learning disabled, all suffer. Two, government inspectors condemn said service, recruitment subsequently becomes nigh on impossible without increasingly eye watering financial incentives, and this all hits the Council's bottom line. Scarce resources become scarcer. A stable, thoughtful, and supportive set of politicians can positively influence the quality of social services. An unstable, thoughtless and unsupportive set of politicians have the opposite effect. There is a reason why some councils are highly performing in social services, and others languish in government oversight and intervention.
I understand why local politicians, included retired local politicians as in this case, feel dejected and borderline nihilistic. Local politicians are disempowered; there are truths unspoken on the campaign trail about their capacity to influence change locally once elected; the balance of power between national and local government should and must be rebalanced.
That all being said, this piece is very wide of the mark, skewed by the author's personal bias.
What benefits? Well one small benefit which springs to mind is that other human beings are able to occupy these new homes. Live their lives. Raise families. Stay warm. Decorate these new homes thereby creating economic activity. Commission improvements thereby creating work for tradespeople. Need I go on?
Human beings are distinguished from other species by our ability to create shelter, we call shelter in day to day English, a house. All other creatures crawl into caves for shelter, a rare few do something slightly more advanced, for example utilize discarded shells for shelter. The humble crab does this.
Addressing your specific point, the shift in funding policy over the last fifteen years means that most (if not all) local authorities now generate more funding through local taxation (rates) than through central government funding. The opposite of what you're describing. Yes, there's a very strong argument that local authorities ought to keep more of what is raised locally. The reform of business rates (promised by the previous government for the full fourteen years of its existence) would go a long way to incentvising growth. Hopefully this new government will implement this policy in full.
New housing brings, on average, more wealth to an area. And thereby disposable income. Disposable income is important for local hospitality and retail. People wonder why small towns are unable to support basic amenities anymore... This is in part because small towns refuse new housing. They consequently become dormitories for an increasingly aged population with a low propensity for disposable purchases.
Growing places thrive, stagnant places stagnate and die.
(1) Developers contribute S106/CIL funds to the local authority. Thesw funds are used to renovate or create new facilities. A 100 home development in my local area paid for a new community center plus a new 3G pitch for youngsters. Facilities which wouldn't exist but for the development.
(2) Local authorities are politically invested in the future of their high streets. To this end, they spend money promoting and improving high streets. An influx of newcomers, with a propensity for discretionary spend, will improve local high streets without the expenditure of scarce taxpayer funds.
(3) Local authorities retain 50% of the uplift in local business rates as an incentive for promoting local growth. New businesses arising from local population growth means local authorities receive a larger business rates growth payment.
They may not have the power to do anything positive, but they do have powers to make things worse. For example by bringing in LTNs and selective licensing schemes.
Sad but true. The only rational reason for voting is the chance to kick one party in the shins.
Did a piece on the local elections as well as the Welsh and Scottish elections myself yesterday. The only thing of note will be to observe if Labour get a big enough kicking for Starmer to be pushed out of Downing Street. I suppose there are also questions to ask about the Greens and Reform, but that’ll be secondary.
In the end, I’ll be voting for my Lib Dem councillor. They at least try to do good.
This was an odd piece. Borderline nihilistic. Undeniably, there are kernels of truth with which I can't disagree.
The major kernel is that social care is indeed sucking the financial life out of the more visible activities mentioned. Streets are dirtier, pavements more broken, granted, I can't quibble.
The second kernel is that a 'Local Government transfer of powers' Bill ought to be published tomorrow by this Government, it is long long overdue. Local politicians deserve to be able to advocate for change, and be held to account on its delivery. At the moment, this is impossible as delivery is hamstrung by matters outside of their control. Tax raising powers for example.
But the central thrust of this piece is fatally undermined by two matters:
(1) There's one massive, epic, unmistakable thing that the complexion of one's council does influence and that is, drum roll, house building. To not mention housebuilding in this piece is unforgivable. If you elect one set of politicians, your council will spend four years actively discouraging new housing with all its attendant benefits. The making of Local plans will purposefully slow to a snail's pace, planning committees will vote down perfectly good applications, and planning inquiries will be lost and the presiding inspectors will instruct the mal-performing council to foot hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs.
(2) Social care is an important service, albeit not recognized nor seemingly appreciated by this author. If social care is mal-managed and mal-administered by a council then two things happen. One, vulnerable people, whether young disabled, elderly infirm, or learning disabled, all suffer. Two, government inspectors condemn said service, recruitment subsequently becomes nigh on impossible without increasingly eye watering financial incentives, and this all hits the Council's bottom line. Scarce resources become scarcer. A stable, thoughtful, and supportive set of politicians can positively influence the quality of social services. An unstable, thoughtless and unsupportive set of politicians have the opposite effect. There is a reason why some councils are highly performing in social services, and others languish in government oversight and intervention.
I understand why local politicians, included retired local politicians as in this case, feel dejected and borderline nihilistic. Local politicians are disempowered; there are truths unspoken on the campaign trail about their capacity to influence change locally once elected; the balance of power between national and local government should and must be rebalanced.
That all being said, this piece is very wide of the mark, skewed by the author's personal bias.
What benefits? Well one small benefit which springs to mind is that other human beings are able to occupy these new homes. Live their lives. Raise families. Stay warm. Decorate these new homes thereby creating economic activity. Commission improvements thereby creating work for tradespeople. Need I go on?
Human beings are distinguished from other species by our ability to create shelter, we call shelter in day to day English, a house. All other creatures crawl into caves for shelter, a rare few do something slightly more advanced, for example utilize discarded shells for shelter. The humble crab does this.
Addressing your specific point, the shift in funding policy over the last fifteen years means that most (if not all) local authorities now generate more funding through local taxation (rates) than through central government funding. The opposite of what you're describing. Yes, there's a very strong argument that local authorities ought to keep more of what is raised locally. The reform of business rates (promised by the previous government for the full fourteen years of its existence) would go a long way to incentvising growth. Hopefully this new government will implement this policy in full.
New housing brings, on average, more wealth to an area. And thereby disposable income. Disposable income is important for local hospitality and retail. People wonder why small towns are unable to support basic amenities anymore... This is in part because small towns refuse new housing. They consequently become dormitories for an increasingly aged population with a low propensity for disposable purchases.
Growing places thrive, stagnant places stagnate and die.
(1) Developers contribute S106/CIL funds to the local authority. Thesw funds are used to renovate or create new facilities. A 100 home development in my local area paid for a new community center plus a new 3G pitch for youngsters. Facilities which wouldn't exist but for the development.
(2) Local authorities are politically invested in the future of their high streets. To this end, they spend money promoting and improving high streets. An influx of newcomers, with a propensity for discretionary spend, will improve local high streets without the expenditure of scarce taxpayer funds.
(3) Local authorities retain 50% of the uplift in local business rates as an incentive for promoting local growth. New businesses arising from local population growth means local authorities receive a larger business rates growth payment.