Which is rather silly given how they are desperate to push "localism"

(Bazongaloid, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:11, 3 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

They'd rather have people vote out their local councilors rather than MP's

(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:19, Reply)

It doesn't help that local authorities (Labour ones) are happy to make people redundant
rather than use their surplus funds. That doesn't get the national party votes.

I was staggered to read the levels of surplus cash and whatnot the authorities have.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:20, Reply)

That changes a lot during the year.
It's generally good to have surplus cash though, in case something unexpected happens.
And I'd rather they get rid of anyone they can do without rather than spend money on stuff they don't need.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:22, Reply)

Agreed.
But the local authority jobs are good, pensionable jobs where the people pay tax and national insurance. They are not McJobs.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:27, Reply)

I've had experience of a sort of localism through the programme I used to work on.
It was a bit of a mixed bag. Having group of people deciding on how to spend programme money isn't a bad idea when they are looking to support social enterprises or community services. Having them want to spend £7500 on paying an electricity bill so a railway bridge can have some pretty lights is a different kettle of trout.

Then again you can say that the State spends money on stupid things as well, so...
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:29, Reply)

I think the idea is that it's easier to hold local government to account
so it should shut down that sort of stupid spending.
That is if the voters bother to look into this shit, but they never do.
(PsychoChomp, Mon 3 Oct 2011, 15:36, Reply)