Saturday, June 23, 2007

There's what was. There's what is. And there's... what????????

I watched a BBC news slot this morning when it seemed that all involved with the last decade of government (and staying on) seemed to be awarded a 'get out of everything free' card.

Me... I prefer to look at track records and facts. Or such as they are. And here's one: Council tax 'doubles in 10 years'

Or, to put it another, equally walletally-painful way: 'three times higher than the rate of inflation and twice the increase in average earnings'.

Now, there is an attempt at balance, and: "Councils may well turn round and say well that's because they're providing better services."

O........k. What do we reckon?

Maybe there could be another reason; one raised a short while ago.

Now, there was a slight tweak back to the 'Cross of Ross' posting in the reply section, but really, can there be much doubt as to where a large wadge of the money seems to be going, and 'increased services' are hard to reconcile when weekly rubbish collections are moving in a distinctly unincreased direction.

I'm afraid all this does is push my trust factor in government, and some rather... cooperative... aspects of publicly-funded media, even lower.

BBC - Brown interview: key quotes - I am simply intrigued as to how what is factual 'cannot be accepted' in so many cases. What the heck does that mean?

NOT Gordon Brown

So he has learned, will reach out, build consensus and answer questions at last.

But if the answers to such questions are, and allowed to be (especially in the case of what is surely easily established fact) 'I don't accept that', I'm afraid to all of the above I can only have one reply:

"I don't accept that".

But, as always in this newsflip era, that's probably all there is time for. Shame. On all involved, and complicit.

 Friday, 22 June, 2007 - Not looking like many others were too impressed with either the interviewee, or ers. For all the good it does.
at

2 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:51 pm

    One of the main reasons for the rapid rise in council tax is that it only makes up about a quarter of the income of local government. A large part of the rest comes from central government (ie from general taxation).

    This means that if local goverment spending rises 1%, then council tax needs to rise by 4% to pay for it. This is if the grant from central government doesn't rise enough, which generally they don't.

    All of which means that local government takes the rap for something decided by central government.

    Lawrence

    ReplyDelete
  2. Emma11:24 am

    I can see Lawrence as being a more than welcome (especially in terms of brevity - not my forte) check and balance.

    A very simple, clear, and interesting insight into the numbers.

    I was with a bunch of local authority officers yesterday (see date for when in the future this is... er.. was) discussing climate change and how Gloucestershire could act to mitigate it, and it is so easy to forget how many real folk there are working to imrpove matters.

    It doesn't get around a lot of the issues raised by some rather unfortunate excesses and differences of time and money between those in public service and those not in the super-salary league of the private sector who are being asked to stump up.

    But there is a case for the actual amounts (especially those used, abused or withdrawn) being laid at the door of those actually responsible.

    ReplyDelete

I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.

Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.

I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.