Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Aruntraveller on February 02, 2022, 08:12:01 AM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2022/feb/02/levelling-up-funding-inequality-exposed-by-guardian-research?
Obviously, the government is beyond reproach and would never try to bribe constituents in some of the wealthiest areas of the country.
For those who are weak at working these things out, that first sentence is dripping with sarcasm.
-
Squirrel!
-
Msy cause a further stooshie in the devolved parliaments. Right from the start, this kind of thing was channelled through the devolution setlements of 1999; now it appears that, in a cack-handed attempt to look 'British', the Westminster government seeks to bypass them.
-
Squirrel!
So I tried to understand this enigmatic one-word reply by looking it up in case I had missed some meaning that is current.
The only thing I came up with is this from the Urban Dictionary:
A promiscuous man-whore, who constantly seeks sexual pleasure which he calls a "nut".
It may serve as a description of Johnson, however, it doesn't make much sense in the context of the post.
Could you elaborate?
-
It is quite remarkable that the Conservatives are managing to paint themselves as the saviours of deprived communities as if they haven't been in power for 12 years and as if they haven't massively cut the money that local government receives.
This Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report explains what has happened:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/Summary-Final.pdf
Here is an important takeaway if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing:
The most deprived local authorities have
seen cuts of £220 per head, compared
to £40 per head in the least deprived.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
-
It is quite remarkable that the Conservatives are managing to paint themselves as the saviours of deprived communities as if they haven't been in power for 12 years and as if they haven't massively cut the money that local government receives.
This Joseph Rowntree Foundation Report explains what has happened:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/default/files/jrf/migrated/files/Summary-Final.pdf
Here is an important takeaway if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing:
The most deprived local authorities have
seen cuts of £220 per head, compared
to £40 per head in the least deprived.
If you aren't angry, you haven't been paying attention.
I am happier now that these facts concerning moneys to red wall areas under tory rule will come out since Partygate.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2022/feb/02/levelling-up-funding-inequality-exposed-by-guardian-research?
Obviously, the government is beyond reproach and would never try to bribe constituents in some of the wealthiest areas of the country.
For those who are weak at working these things out, that first sentence is dripping with sarcasm.
I get the sarcasm, but why would the government try to bribe the wealthiest areas, which are already solidy Tory? It'd make more sense to bribe the poor and middle-income areas.
-
I get the sarcasm, but why would the government try to bribe the wealthiest areas, which are already solidy Tory? It'd make more sense to bribe the poor and middle-income areas.
Ah yes, that would be quite straightforward.
My best guess is they just don't want to. They think that the wealthier areas deserve it more and it keeps their core base happy. Something to fall back on don't you know.
-
I get the sarcasm, but why would the government try to bribe the wealthiest areas, which are already solidy Tory? It'd make more sense to bribe the poor and middle-income areas.
Resources. If there's at all a risk of spending money on a constituency and their vote doesn't come your way then the government will have been had, You've lost money needed to keep Blue wall sweet i.e. their own money. I'm afraid it IS refurbishments and hanging baskets.
-
I get the sarcasm, but why would the government try to bribe the wealthiest areas, which are already solidy Tory? It'd make more sense to bribe the poor and middle-income areas.
Just possibilities, but:
a) they aren't convinced that those locations are 'solidly' Tory, right now
b) they're pacifying interests within the Party (local MPs, local party associations?) rather than the broader electorate
c) recent allegations notwithstanding, they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery (a lockdown, yes, but not a brewery)
d) there is no coherent plan here, they just heard someone shouting what seems like a good cause to them and went with it
e) their mate Tarquin in Gloucester has a traveller camp just at the edge of his smallholding, only 12 miles from the house, and it's bringing the value down.
f) because it's not a bribe, it's a reward for loyalty because they don't think they're in any real danger of losing, come election time, given the hatchet-job their media friends will do on the opposition and they're reasonably content that the BBC has been hobbled.
I'm waiting for some Toron to dribble on about 'relative' or 'local' inequalities to try and shit-spout their way out of this one.
O.
-
A thoughtful piece on this topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/02/a-tale-of-two-towns-one-in-the-north-one-in-the-south-exposes-the-lie-of-levelling-up?