Tagged: public money

Berwick – Concerns raised over use of council funds for legal threat

A councillor has called for restrictions on decisions taken under delegated powers by Berwick Town Council.

Councillor Georgina Hill feels it is an important pillar in her drive for the council to be more open and transparent in its business.

Speaking at full council, she said: “This council will not be able to move forward in a positive way until there is a recognition that mistakes have been made in the past and things need to change.

“We need to be more open and transparent in everything we do. We need more robust systems and safeguards in place. And we need to move decisively away from a culture where all the meaningful discussions take place by a select few in the town council office and then are presented in such a way as to go through “on the nod” at council meetings, where the devil and the lack of detail is contained well within council documents.

“Above all else, we need more scrutiny and accountability especially when it comes to spending public money.”

She was particularly concerned at the ‘unlawful’ decision of the staffing sub-committee to ratify the spending of £1,500 public money to threaten legal action over her blog.

It is entirely inappropriate for these members, who are personally embarrassed by my revelations on Facebook, to use public money to advance their own interests,” she said.

However, her proposal that the town council does not authorise spending of council funds on external solicitors where expenditure exceeds £250, without the express authority of the finance committee, was defeated. Instead, an amendment for the matter to go the finance strategy group was carried.

Source –  Berwick Advertiser,  01 Aug 2014

On Yer Bike ! The Ghost Of Tebbit Rides Again

Old Tory policies die hard – or perhaps they (like Labour, LibDems, UKIP, etc) just dont have the depth of imagination to think up new innovative ones.

Whatever, another Thatcherite policy rears its ugly head again. All the way from the days when they seriously considered cutting cities like Liverpoool adrift to die, comes a reprise of Norman Tebbit’s “on yer bike” advice.

An article in The Economist titled Some towns cannot be preserved. Save their inhabitants instead  informs us that –

“Middlesbrough, Burnley, Hartlepool, Hull and many others were in trouble even before the financial crisis. These days their unemployment rates are roughly double the national average, and talented young people are draining away. Their high streets are thick with betting shops and payday lenders, if they are not empty.

“Under the last Labour government these towns were propped up on piles of public money. Some built museums and arts centres in an attempt to draw tourists, though this rarely worked. All became dependent on welfare.

“But there is little money for grand projects these days. And cuts to welfare, enacted by the Conservative-led coalition government in an attempt to balance the books, are falling brutally there. In Hartlepool the cuts amount to £712 for every working-age person. In Guildford, a middle-class commuter town south of London, they add up to just £263.”

So, nothing we didn’t already know. Can you guess what the remedy is going to be ?

“Governments should not try to rescue failing towns. Instead, they should support the people who live in them.

That means helping them to commute or move to places where there are jobs—and giving them the skills to get those jobs.”

Ok, right – so that means we all have to uproot and head for the South East ? And, if/when we manage to scrabble to the top of the heap and win the coveted prize of a minimum wage service industry job, where are we going to live ? Some London boroughs are already enacting what amounts to economic cleansing of the poor when it comes to housing.

Still, perhaps we’ll see the esthablishment of squatter camps outside the city limits, from where those with jobs can be bussed in every day to labour for their pennies.

Actually, the article may have been thinking along similar lines – “…new communities can be created in growing suburbs fringing successful cities. It has happened before.”

It certainly has. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. Finally, I’d like to quote one of the comments published in response to the article, which I think succinctly sums up the problems that the piece’s author evidently failed to forsee –

“The obvious consequence of this article is that you support the people by moving them from “dead” areas to “live” areas like, er, London and the Greater South East. Obviously in leaving a dead area you will get very little for your house (after all it is being effectively abandoned), so you will have to be subsidised in the South – or live on the streets – something I don’t think the locals in London like.

Then of course the problem is London
– The motorways are clogged (despite having more lanes than anywhere else in the country),

– the railways are apparently a hell hole (despite having better rolling stock than the rail-buses we still have where I live and despite getting the Crossrail investment and tube extensions),

– the airports are apparently even worse (despite or possibly because of a hogging of international connections)

– Housing is a nightmare – made worse apparently by immigrants (you wait until the Northerners arrive!)

– Key workers are not available (probably because they cannot afford to live in central London and cannot afford to travel into London)

– There are water shortages (which will probably get worse when the people from Hartlepool, Burnley, Hull Middlesbrough et al arrive)

Actually being unemployed and living on the Durham coast sounds like quite a good life in comparison – and will probably cost the exchequer less than solving all the additional problems London would have if you moved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people from “dead” areas to London.”

 

 

Economist, 12 Oct 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21587790-city-sicker