Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Sandstorm]

One of those is that the quality of recruit across all levels has fallen. It has fallen because there is now a points based selection process. In that process, points for being from a minority, a state school and other factors outweighs actual ability to do the job, even at quite senior levels.

What industry is this? Public sector??

I've recruited 5 new staff members this year and not once did we look at the school they went to or what colour their skin was. We interviewed and picked the best candidate for the role. Period.

Retail banking.

I think there is an element of banks now trying very hard to be seen as socially aware, serving the community etc., and rather over doing it.

Just hire a woman with short hair and you'll cover all the bases.

[dpedin]

One of those is that the quality of recruit across all levels has fallen. It has fallen because there is now a points based selection process. In that process, points for being from a minority, a state school and other factors outweighs actual ability to do the job, even at quite senior levels.

What industry is this? Public sector??

I've recruited 5 new staff members this year and not once did we look at the school they went to or what colour their skin was. We interviewed and picked the best candidate for the role. Period.

Retail banking.

I think there is an element of banks now trying very hard to be seen as socially aware, serving the community etc., and rather over doing it.

Lots of sectors have now realised that recruiting purely on basis of academic attainment doesnt guarantee a good well rounded employee. Indeed because the private school and posh universities are very good at churning out folk good at sitting exams and public speaking candidates from these sources do look good on paper and in interview. However I have found in a range of different sectors, from oil and gas to healthcare, that the danger is you end up recruiting intellectual idiots with little ability to transfer their knowledge into a real life working scenario.

In oil and gas it wasn't unusual these top graduate recruits were 'man marked' by an experienced worker to make sure they didn't cause a major disaster. The downside of this was that they continued their career paths to higher level jobs because no one wanted to be in the way when the shit hit the fan due to these graduates cock ups so it was easier to keep a close eye on them and keep the fingers crossed they were moved on soon. Some of the most incompetent went on to very high level jobs!

In healthcare case I was asked to meet with a junior doctor who was disruptive in work and alienating others in the team. He couldn't believe his progress was being reviewed given he had passed all his exams, he was as he had always been top of his class, and refused to believe his behaviour was an issue. He just could not see the importance of working with others who, apart from his consultant, he treated as thick, this included majority of his patients who he treated as something he would have found on the sole of his shoe. His career was 'managed' so that he ended up pursuing a career in research in a lab discipline with little contact with human beings!

Medical schools have realised that making good doctors is more than just recruiting based on exam results and indeed many more mature students or those from more disadvantaged backgrounds go onto to make excellent, competent top doctors.

[weegie01]

To be clear, I am a vociferous advocate of recruiting the best person for the job. Sometimes that means the person with the best potential, and having to provide support to turn that potential into achievement.

In the bank I mentioned above, I was a strong supporter of the apprentice scheme recruiting from schools, which had as one of its tenets that some recruits would need more support and development than others due to their disadvantaged backgrounds. The critical starting point was whether they had the potential to grow and be effective at the job.

What I oppose is where recruiting from disadvantaged backgrounds becomes an end in itself with ability a secondary consideration so boxes can be ticked of x% recruitment.

[Tichtheid]

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

If what you are asking is, do I think there is long history of discrimination and under-representation based on race and sex, then yes I do. Jobs and opportunities have long been offered on those criteria, only in a conservative and negative way.

Should we take steps to redress a long imbalance on those issues? Yes I think we should, not least for the fact that we then cast our net wider we have more talent to choose from.

I appreciate this causes resentment for some people who may be passed over for jobs or opportunities, but I don't see how that is different to those who have been passed over because they are from under-represented groups.
There is no easy way to do this, but we are not at the place where there is a level playing field yet

[Random1]

No there isn’t. You just think it’s a point of principle because that’s what we all do, subconsciously, to justify our positions. What level of disability do we allow parking spaces for? Why that level? If the disability isn’t one that’s visible, does that count? If it’s self inflicted from a car crash, does that count? What about self inflicted from drunken driving? What about obesity? That’s all on a sliding scale as well, it’s not a point of principle. And the evidence base for educational attainment from different societal backgrounds is pretty large, so just writing that off because you don’t like it isn’t a point of principle. Should disabled people get advantaged acces to education?

So, can you run me through what you think equity would look like for race please.

You’re kind of missing the point here, but I’m not answering your questions if you won’t answer mine, that’s only polite.

Ok - I’ll try to answer your questions.

1 - what level of disability do we allow spaces for. Here’s the criteria: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... y-read.pdf

Basically it’s anything where the disability can impact safe access and egress to somewhere.

Yes, invisible disabilities can be tested for.

I don’t think there’s a morality criteria to exclude self inflicted disabilities. And from the government website, it seems to be agnostic as to cause. The criteria seems to be based on demonstrable impediment to safely accessing whatever service you’re trying to visit in your car.

Again on obesity and drunk driving, there isn’t a moral judgement. If you have a disability that demonstrably impacts you enough to need to park closer, you get a badge. I’m assuming obesity would lead to demonstrable mobility limitations, and so, once those limitations impede safe access and egress, I’m assuming they’d get a blue badge.

Disabled people do get preferential access to education (or at least they should, but the current school system is underfunded, so it can be shit), if their disability impacts their learning. Everything from extra time in exams to SEN classes.

I understand the point you’re trying to make regarding sliding scales. I think you’ll see the point I’m trying to make once you try to answer my question; how do you see equity working in relation to race?

[Biffer]

So, can you run me through what you think equity would look like for race please.

You’re kind of missing the point here, but I’m not answering your questions if you won’t answer mine, that’s only polite.

Ok - I’ll try to answer your questions.

1 - what level of disability do we allow spaces for. Here’s the criteria: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... y-read.pdf

Basically it’s anything where the disability can impact safe access and egress to somewhere.

Yes, invisible disabilities can be tested for.

I don’t think there’s a morality criteria to exclude self inflicted disabilities. And from the government website, it seems to be agnostic as to cause. The criteria seems to be based on demonstrable impediment to safely accessing whatever service you’re trying to visit in your car.

Again on obesity and drunk driving, there isn’t a moral judgement. If you have a disability that demonstrably impacts you enough to need to park closer, you get a badge. I’m assuming obesity would lead to demonstrable mobility limitations, and so, once those limitations impede safe access and egress, I’m assuming they’d get a blue badge.

Disabled people do get preferential access to education (or at least they should, but the current school system is underfunded, so it can be shit), if their disability impacts their learning. Everything from extra time in exams to SEN classes.

I understand the point you’re trying to make regarding sliding scales. I think you’ll see the point I’m trying to make once you try to answer my question; how do you see equity working in relation to race?

But those criteria aren't some kind of absolute principle, they're just a line that's been put in, using a particular set of criteria. You only have to look at the howling about disability benefits regularly in some of the press to see that there isn't any kind of universal agreement on where that line should be.

But the whole thing there is that there is demonstrable evidence of reduced access. There's also demonstrable reduced access to education for people from deprived backgrounds, which tends to be emphasised more in racial minority communities. So where there is a demonstrable disadvantage, as with disability, then an easier access route should be applied.

[Random1]

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

If what you are asking is, do I think there is long history of discrimination and under-representation based on race and sex, then yes I do. Jobs and opportunities have long been offered on those criteria, only in a conservative and negative way.

Should we take steps to redress a long imbalance on those issues? Yes I think we should, not least for the fact that we then cast our net wider we have more talent to choose from.

I appreciate this causes resentment for some people who may be passed over for jobs or opportunities, but I don't see how that is different to those who have been passed over because they are from under-represented groups.
There is no easy way to do this, but we are not at the place where there is a level playing field yet

Yeah - and I think that is why the tories will keep pressing this agenda. The people that lose out are the rural white working class.

[Tichtheid]

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

If what you are asking is, do I think there is long history of discrimination and under-representation based on race and sex, then yes I do. Jobs and opportunities have long been offered on those criteria, only in a conservative and negative way.

Should we take steps to redress a long imbalance on those issues? Yes I think we should, not least for the fact that we then cast our net wider we have more talent to choose from.

I appreciate this causes resentment for some people who may be passed over for jobs or opportunities, but I don't see how that is different to those who have been passed over because they are from under-represented groups.
There is no easy way to do this, but we are not at the place where there is a level playing field yet

Yeah - and I think that is why the tories will keep pressing this agenda. The people that lose out are the rural white working class.

They're the ones who have been losing out for centuries - that is the "group" I come from.

[I like neeps]

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

If what you are asking is, do I think there is long history of discrimination and under-representation based on race and sex, then yes I do. Jobs and opportunities have long been offered on those criteria, only in a conservative and negative way.

Should we take steps to redress a long imbalance on those issues? Yes I think we should, not least for the fact that we then cast our net wider we have more talent to choose from.

I appreciate this causes resentment for some people who may be passed over for jobs or opportunities, but I don't see how that is different to those who have been passed over because they are from under-represented groups.
There is no easy way to do this, but we are not at the place where there is a level playing field yet

Yeah - and I think that is why the tories will keep pressing this agenda. The people that lose out are the rural white working class.

Partly pushing, the Tories aren't too happy about universities etc starting to penalise fee paying schools over fully paid public schools to benefit the working class

[robmatic]

You’ve stopped short of answering my question on the race and sex stuff though. I’m really interested in your thoughts on whether they have the same qualities as the socio economic piece.

If what you are asking is, do I think there is long history of discrimination and under-representation based on race and sex, then yes I do. Jobs and opportunities have long been offered on those criteria, only in a conservative and negative way.

Should we take steps to redress a long imbalance on those issues? Yes I think we should, not least for the fact that we then cast our net wider we have more talent to choose from.

I appreciate this causes resentment for some people who may be passed over for jobs or opportunities, but I don't see how that is different to those who have been passed over because they are from under-represented groups.
There is no easy way to do this, but we are not at the place where there is a level playing field yet

Yeah - and I think that is why the tories will keep pressing this agenda. The people that lose out are the rural white working class.

It can turn into a bit of a battleground for middle class people seeking advantage due to their 'oppression'. It's remarkable how many advocates of diversity and representation turn out to be privately educated members of minority groups.

[Random1]

If what you are asking is, do I think there is long history of discrimination and under-representation based on race and sex, then yes I do. Jobs and opportunities have long been offered on those criteria, only in a conservative and negative way.

Should we take steps to redress a long imbalance on those issues? Yes I think we should, not least for the fact that we then cast our net wider we have more talent to choose from.

I appreciate this causes resentment for some people who may be passed over for jobs or opportunities, but I don't see how that is different to those who have been passed over because they are from under-represented groups.
There is no easy way to do this, but we are not at the place where there is a level playing field yet

Yeah - and I think that is why the tories will keep pressing this agenda. The people that lose out are the rural white working class.

They're the ones who have been losing out for centuries - that is the "group" I come from.

Yes, I know, I recall you mentioning it in a previous natter. I’m also from that group.

So, when will we know that past misdeeds have been righted?

[_Os_]

I am 8 years retired now. Former colleagues tell me they can't wait to follow suit for a number of reasons. One of those is that the quality of recruit across all levels has fallen. It has fallen because there is now a points based selection process. In that process, points for being from a minority, a state school and other factors outweighs actual ability to do the job, even at quite senior levels.

But the whole thing there is that there is demonstrable evidence of reduced access. There's also demonstrable reduced access to education for people from deprived backgrounds, which tends to be emphasised more in racial minority communities. So where there is a demonstrable disadvantage, as with disability, then an easier access route should be applied.

This is going to become a bigger political issue. ONS data shows 30% of UK births are not white, 10% white other, and 60% white British. That's the baseline for the UK's future population, the 2021 census showed a 75% white British population so even without further immigration a lot changes. None of this would matter at all, if there was no commitment to using race in both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome measures, but there is so it does matter.

Race isn't useful in equality of opportunity measures, if someone is disadvantaged there'll be economic measures that can be used. Someone that went to the best private school and someone that went to the worst state school, can be deemed equally disadvantaged if race is the measure used (even a scorecard system is tilted in this direction if race is on the scorecard). If race is the measure used you can be sure the person that went to the best private school will use it to eat the lunch intended for the person who went to the worst state school who happens to be the same race, and at the same time use that opportunity to get ahead of the whites who went to the same best private school as them and indeed any other whites. This is obviously profoundly anti merit and means selecting for worse candidates. For example, someone that already has every advantage possible is provided lower entrance requirements for university.

Using race in equality of outcome measures is an even bigger fuck up. If it takes hold that all positions must reflect the demographics of the UK, then this is the minimum that happens. The businesses with the most resources will start recruiting the best talent that isn't white, they'll pay a premium for this talent to outbid rivals (supply and demand, increased demand and the same/similar supply). This will mean smaller businesses and the state sector cannot access this talent because they cannot afford it/offer the same level of opportunity. The big businesses that have made sure they reflect the demographics of the UK, will then use it as a weapon against competitors who do not, they may even push for whatever employment scorecards they're using to become economy wide legislation. Bluntly they'll say their competitors are racist, when in fact they're just weaker. Something like this happened to Glencore 10 years ago, they were the last FTSE 100 company to have an all white male board and were forced into hiring a woman, they were breaking no law but were pressured by their rivals (other London listed businesses supported by the UK media). For whites it'll mean downward pressure in the jobs market which means more poverty at the bottom.

These are just the obvious calls, there's more that may manifest (eg the same logic applied to employment can be applied to ownership). It's a quick way to fuck a country.

[_Os_]

It can turn into a bit of a battleground for middle class people seeking advantage due to their 'oppression'. It's remarkable how many advocates of diversity and representation turn out to be privately educated members of minority groups.

Exactly.

The Tories and big business will be fine with it too. They'll use it as a means to gather resources at the top, and then fight over those resources among themselves. I've posted about Braverman's career path before, it shows how the Tories are already parachuting substandard candidates into (at a minimum) the cabinet, who their own branches/members have rejected multiple times.

[David in Gwent]

I'll give an anecdotal example. My daughter was given lower entrance requirements from a Russell Group university because the school she went to has a large majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students compared to other applicants (we are really talking about fee-paying schools as the competition for places, as she discovered when she went to uni).

She in fact didn't need the reduced offer, but she was given it anyway, she went on to gain first class degree and then a Masters from another RG uni.

The help she was offered in terms of entrance was equity, it gave her an equal opportunity, equal to those who have large resources at their disposal up through their school years.

Just as a matter of interest, how do they define "socio-economically disadvantaged students"

Surely this "equity" is geographical and doesn't apply to everyone?

[Tichtheid]

I'll give an anecdotal example. My daughter was given lower entrance requirements from a Russell Group university because the school she went to has a large majority of socio-economically disadvantaged students compared to other applicants (we are really talking about fee-paying schools as the competition for places, as she discovered when she went to uni).

She in fact didn't need the reduced offer, but she was given it anyway, she went on to gain first class degree and then a Masters from another RG uni.

The help she was offered in terms of entrance was equity, it gave her an equal opportunity, equal to those who have large resources at their disposal up through their school years.

Just as a matter of interest, how do they define "socio-economically disadvantaged students"

Surely this "equity" is geographical and doesn't apply to everyone?

https://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/undergr ... al-offers/

[_Os_]

A list of Tory run councils which accumulated £500m+ of debt with little to show for it would be interesting. £1b+ of debt loaded onto some random council with fuck all new infrastructure and no one in jail, is insane.

This BBC article has a list of every local authority which can be sorted by predicted budget deficit in 2025/26, not total debt but the annual budget shortfall.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66428191

Top projected budget deficits:
Thurrock £521m predicted deficit by 2025/26 (net revenue £327.6m)
Slough £339m (£143m)
Glasgow City £196m (£1919.3m)
Kent £141.9m (£1315.6m)
Hampshire £132m (£902m)
Surrey £114.2m (£1100m)

There needs to be criminal investigation into Thurrock and Slough. Both are so absurdly far in front of any other local authority, that I'm wondering if those projections are correct. Thurrock looks like a Tory rotten borough and Slough like a Labour rotten borough, both are bankrupt. They have predicted annual deficits larger than their annual net revenue.

On those numbers which surely cannot be right, Thurrock is totally out of control, it already has a £1.3b debt pile. Slough is on £800m.

Some other local authorities are potentially travelling down the same path as Thurrock. This Sky article has list of councils which can be sorted by spend on services and spend on debt. Spelthorne and Runnymede are mentioned in the article for spending more on debt than services:
https://news.sky.com/story/councils-spe ... s-12832879

Spelthorne (Tory since creation in the 1970s until 2020 when it went NOC) for the year ending 2022, spent £22.8m on services and £36.1m on debt. Runnymede (Tory since creation in the 1970s other than briefly NOC in the mid-1990s and NOC since 2023) for the year ending 2022, spent £11.6m on services and £17m on debt.

In the article both Spelthorne and Runnymede justify this by the commercial property investments made when they were Tory run. The rents bring in more than the debt payments. The finances of these councils are now highly sensitive to the property market, I'm guessing they're each carrying £100m+ of mortgage debt. Not great if interest rates go up. Not great if hybrid working and online retail decrease demand for commercial property, and/or the economy struggles generally.

The Sky article also has a searchable list of local authorities by depletion of their unallocated reserves comparing 2016 to 2022. Unallocated reserves are supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances when there's a budget shortfall. The depletions of 80% or more are:
Newark and Sherwood -84% (Tory from 2007 until 2023 when it went NOC), South Norfolk -82% (Tory since 2007), Uttlesford -81% (Tory from 2007 until 2019 when a local party took control), Bexley -80% (Tory since 2006).

The Tory funding model for local authorities seems to be: cut government spending and turn councils into strange debt funded property businesses probably run by incompetents, grow local authority debt from the £85b it was in 2014 to the £123b it is now in the process, if the debt funded business blows up the council goes bankrupt, no one goes to jail.

[Biffer]

Total number is a bit misleading as population sizes vary hugely

On those numbers, Thurrock is over spent by £3000 per person in the council area. Slough by over £2000 per person.

Glasgow is £300 per head. Kent less than £100.

Doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem, but adds context to the numbers.

[Sandstorm]

Total number is a bit misleading as population sizes vary hugely

On those numbers, Thurrock is over spent by £3000 per person in the council area. Slough by over £2000 per person.

Glasgow is £300 per head. Kent less than £100.

Doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem, but adds context to the numbers.

Slough will need more than that back just to make 1/4 look presentable.

[_Os_]

Total number is a bit misleading as population sizes vary hugely

On those numbers, Thurrock is over spent by £3000 per person in the council area. Slough by over £2000 per person.

Glasgow is £300 per head. Kent less than £100.

Doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem, but adds context to the numbers.

Totally correct. I was just trying to answer my own question on local authority debt. Having another look before bed eventually found the answer here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... nt-finance

It's in the first download, and the last table, enabling editing and sorting the "Loans Longer-term - PWLB" column (which isn't all the debt, but is £95.4b of it) gives the list. Everything over £900m of long term debt:

Transport for London 5,754,693,000
Birmingham 2,524,172,000
Greater London Authority 2,066,000,000
Woking 1,864,833,000
Leeds 1,790,172,000
Warrington 1,502,115,000
Thurrock 1,364,389,000
Edinburgh 1,155,918,000
Spelthorne 1,082,408,000
South Lanarkshire 1,023,223,000
North London Waste Authority 1,000,000,000
Enfield 991,423,000
Southwark 910,587,000

Thurrock has more longterm debt than Edinburgh, it's ahead of every massive city in absolute terms other than London/Birmingham/Leeds. Woking is somehow worse than Thurrock, and was also Tory run for decades until recently. I have no clue how this isn't a national news story.

Spelthorne's commercial property deals mean £1b of debt, Runnymede which did the same is on £600m.

Woking/Spelthorne/Runnymede are all Surrey councils, and all engaged in buying commercial property on an industrial scale. Home county Tories seem to have taken their property mania into government.
Woking council’s total debt percentage of core spending power is 14643.6%. Spelthorne council is 9336.8% and Runnymede is 7371.9%. These numbers are incomprehensible.
https://www.room151.co.uk/treasury/oflo ... -councils/

The places which heavily depleted their unallocated reserves weren't so bad on debt (without running Biffer's per capita test anyway):
Newark and Sherwood (£73m), South Norfolk (£20m), Uttlesford (£158m), Bexley (£223m).

To put some of this in perspective NI's longterm local authority debt is £340m, Wales is £4.8b. Random Tory towns of about 100k people have more local authority debt than all of NI, and combining not many of these places equals the total Welsh local authority debt.

[Biffer]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

[robmatic]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

[tabascoboy]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

Strongly depends if it's a Tory or Labour run council ( or am I being cynical...?)
But...here's the official line, being forced to sell assets looks a likely directive - and reducing services

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/wh ... -bankrupt/

A council’s chief financial officer has a statutory duty to issue a ‘section 114 notice’ if they believe the council will be unable to meet its expenditure commitments from its income. The chief financial officer does not need councillors’ consent to issue this notice.

The media often describes issuing a section 114 notice as ‘bankruptcy’, but in fact, local authorities in the UK cannot go bankrupt. A section 114 notice means the council cannot make new spending commitments and must meet within 21 days to discuss what to do next.

Previously, most councils in this situation have then passed an amended budget reducing spending on services. This is what happened after the severe financial problems in Northamptonshire (2018) and Croydon (2020): more details of these can be found in the Library briefing Local authority financial resilience.

In the early 2020s, a number of councils facing financial difficulties have sought ‘capitalisation directions’ from the Government. These provide special permission to use their capital funds – for instance, from selling assets or property – to top up service spending. Capitalisation directions have sometimes been incorrectly described as ‘bailouts’.

The Government has powers to intervene in how council services are run (see the Library briefing Local government in England: structures). However, this does not happen automatically when a section 114 notice is issued.

Another option would be for councils’ statutory duties to be reduced. Instead of increasing councils’ income, this would reduce the services that councils are required by law to provide. This option is suggested in Kent and Hampshire’s letter to the Government.

[I like neeps]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

Government bails them out but they cut services to save money.

[Sandstorm]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

Government bails them out but they cut services to save money.

They've already cut services! The townsfolk find out exactly how much shit they're in & house prices crash, they'll string up their councillors from a lamp post.

Where's Panorama.....?

[Simian]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

Wtaf?? That’s mental!

[_Os_]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

It's that 14643.6% gearing percentage that gets me. It would be like someone on £40k, who has a take home salary of about £31k after tax, they save £1k-ish leaving them with £30k of spending power. With that £30k of spending power they get a £4.4m mortgage speculating on commercial property, for the purpose of supplementing their unsustainable regular spending.

[Sandstorm]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

It's that 14643.6% gearing percentage that gets me. It would be like someone on £40k, who has a take home salary of about £31k after tax, they save £1k-ish leaving them with £30k of spending power. With that £30k of spending power they get a £4.4m mortgage speculating on commercial property, for the purpose of supplementing their unsustainable regular spending.

Please stop!! You're melting my brain.

[Biffer]

Now reported that the debt is £2.6billion. The council area has just over 100,000 people. So £26,000 for each person.

At least, unlike Thurrock, they were borrowing to make genuine investments in the area’s infrastructure, rather than gambling on dodgy get rich schemes. Still no excuse for the moronic incompetence.

Personally, I think the Transport Scotland model is the one to follow. It has a degree of independence from Scottish Government and is a delivery, not policy arm for the most part. It has staff who are proper civil engineers rather than career civil servants, so they understand how to run large civil engineering projects. For example, they slapped Borders council for their estimates for the Borders railway line, where their public estimate was the low cost boundary. If you sign a contract with a supplier for the low cost estimate, you’ll pretty much always go over cost for that, and then get screwed sideways for every change (Edinburgh Trams, I’m looking at you). So similar agencies, operating at regional cross council level, as engineering delivery public bodies (NOT government policy delivery bodies) could be used to better manage investments in transport, schools, hospitals etc.

[Woddy]

Now reported that the debt is £2.6billion. The council area has just over 100,000 people. So £26,000 for each person.

At least, unlike Thurrock, they were borrowing to make genuine investments in the area’s infrastructure, rather than gambling on dodgy get rich schemes. Still no excuse for the moronic incompetence.

Personally, I think the Transport Scotland model is the one to follow. It has a degree of independence from Scottish Government and is a delivery, not policy arm for the most part. It has staff who are proper civil engineers rather than career civil servants, so they understand how to run large civil engineering projects. For example, they slapped Borders council for their estimates for the Borders railway line, where their public estimate was the low cost boundary. If you sign a contract with a supplier for the low cost estimate, you’ll pretty much always go over cost for that, and then get screwed sideways for every change (Edinburgh Trams, I’m looking at you). So similar agencies, operating at regional cross council level, as engineering delivery public bodies (NOT government policy delivery bodies) could be used to better manage investments in transport, schools, hospitals etc.

Unfortunately (and allegedly, obvs) they were at times more interested in "investing" in those contractors/friends/family who were building etc the infrastructure rather than the infrastructure itself or the public services to be derived from that.

[_Os_]

Now reported that the debt is £2.6billion. The council area has just over 100,000 people. So £26,000 for each person.

At least, unlike Thurrock, they were borrowing to make genuine investments in the area’s infrastructure, rather than gambling on dodgy get rich schemes. Still no excuse for the moronic incompetence.

£2.6b puts Woking into the same league as London and Birmingham on debt!

Woking is completely fucked:
https://www.wokingnewsandmail.co.uk/new ... ces-620774

A weak financial control environment.
Sub-optimal record keeping.
Weak management review processes.
Weak understanding of accounting guidance.
Weak understanding of statutory requirements in respect of accounting arrangements.
Insufficient resources generally to manage successfully the scale and complexity of the company structures, assets and liabilities that had been brought into existence by the council over many years.
The absence of external audit opinions on the council's accounts since 2018/19

The council has also been underpaying minimum debt provision for 15 years.
As of March 2023, its debt portfolio is £1.8bn – but it is expected to climb to £2.6bn.
To offset this gross underpayment to repay its debt, the borough council must pay an additional £95m in 2023/24 and an average of £75m each year moving forward to cover the shortfalls.
The magnitude of this is so vast that if the additional charges of £75m a year were met by the council through service reductions, it would mean the council could no longer afford “any services at all” – and would still be running at a deficit.
The majority of the council’s assets that were paid for with the loans “have been re-valued by experts in the field and it is clear that asset values have diminished substantially over time and further valuation work will be required to bring these values up to date”. The report says this could be “a sum exceeding of £600m”.
In 2023/24, the council’s core funding – comprising council tax, business rates and government grants – is £16m and “out of step” with the size of its debt.
Because of general inflation, energy inflation, reduced parking revenues caused by homeworking, and the rise of internet shopping, the council’s assets are underperforming compared with their original commercial targets.
The council is already facing what it calls a ‘business-as-usual’ budget shortfall of £9m from 2024/25 which it says is “likely to increase as additional pressures are identified”, in addition to a repair and maintenance budget which is set to be insufficient by £45m per year.
The report said the overall balancing of next year’s budget will “result in very significant reductions in both budget and service levels”,

[Dinsdale Piranha]

Now reported that the debt is £2.6billion. The council area has just over 100,000 people. So £26,000 for each person.

At least, unlike Thurrock, they were borrowing to make genuine investments in the area’s infrastructure, rather than gambling on dodgy get rich schemes. Still no excuse for the moronic incompetence.

Personally, I think the Transport Scotland model is the one to follow. It has a degree of independence from Scottish Government and is a delivery, not policy arm for the most part. It has staff who are proper civil engineers rather than career civil servants, so they understand how to run large civil engineering projects. For example, they slapped Borders council for their estimates for the Borders railway line, where their public estimate was the low cost boundary. If you sign a contract with a supplier for the low cost estimate, you’ll pretty much always go over cost for that, and then get screwed sideways for every change (Edinburgh Trams, I’m looking at you). So similar agencies, operating at regional cross council level, as engineering delivery public bodies (NOT government policy delivery bodies) could be used to better manage investments in transport, schools, hospitals etc.

That's a generous assessment. Woking gambled on property and overspent, Thurrock gambled on solar power and overspent. At least Thurrock have a partial excuse in that it looks like they were taken to the cleaners by a genuine conman whereas Woking it's all on them.

[Biffer]

Now reported that the debt is £2.6billion. The council area has just over 100,000 people. So £26,000 for each person.

At least, unlike Thurrock, they were borrowing to make genuine investments in the area’s infrastructure, rather than gambling on dodgy get rich schemes. Still no excuse for the moronic incompetence.

Personally, I think the Transport Scotland model is the one to follow. It has a degree of independence from Scottish Government and is a delivery, not policy arm for the most part. It has staff who are proper civil engineers rather than career civil servants, so they understand how to run large civil engineering projects. For example, they slapped Borders council for their estimates for the Borders railway line, where their public estimate was the low cost boundary. If you sign a contract with a supplier for the low cost estimate, you’ll pretty much always go over cost for that, and then get screwed sideways for every change (Edinburgh Trams, I’m looking at you). So similar agencies, operating at regional cross council level, as engineering delivery public bodies (NOT government policy delivery bodies) could be used to better manage investments in transport, schools, hospitals etc.

That's a generous assessment. Woking gambled on property and overspent, Thurrock gambled on solar power and overspent. At least Thurrock have a partial excuse in that it looks like they were taken to the cleaners by a genuine conman whereas Woking it's all on them.

Yeah, it’s maybe a bit generous

[fishfoodie]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

Government bails them out but they cut services to save money.

Let me guess; in the unlikely event that previous Tories haven't got there first, they have to sell any playgrounds, car parks, sports pitches, council yards, scout huts etc to developers, at knock down rates, before they get a cent from Westminster ?

[_Os_]

This doesn't sound good at all:
https://www.ft.com/content/7c66e7f1-6c6 ... b8711640a7

India's minister of commerce and industry/India's top trade negotiator, nakedly says he wants a trade deal that's one sided and he's close to getting it:
"“India will grow from a $3.5tn economy to $35tn,” Goyal said, referring to a target he has said India should aim for by 2047, its centenary of independence. “But with a small population, largely satisfied, what would the UK economy be 25 years from now?” ".

India is pursuing this based on assumptions of what India will be in the future and what the UK will be. India the famously overperforming economy, that automatically grows to $35tn. Yet these negotiations are progressing on these terms it seems, piloted by Badenoch of all people. India wants "disproportionate opening up" (in quotes in the article, so Goyal said it) favourable to India, transition periods favourable to India, and increased access to the UK for Indian workers.

The danger is this thing is just waved through before the Tories are ousted. They have form for signing shit trade deals just so they can say they've signed a trade deal, only for their own cabinet ministers to later say the deal was shit. Sunak will be thinking of his next job, the first Indian origin UK PM signing a trade deal with India will look good on his CV, it will not matter if it's shit for the UK or not.

Back in 2016/17 Bimbo was banging on about trade deals with China/India/US. I remember asking Bimbo if he knew how hard it was to get trade deals with those places, and if he thought the EU was bad on trade how many FTAs did he think China/India/US had?

China and India have no FTAs with any of the other BRICS countries because they want vassals not trade partners. Given the size disparity between the UK and India, it's possible the UK could deeply regret a FTA with India. Aussies thought a trade deal with China meant exporting to China without any negative consequences, they're now economically dependant on China.

[Hal Jordan]

Badenoch? Jesus, I reckon my 9 year old son could outwit her and he loses his shit at the drop of a hat if he doesn't get exactly what he wants when he wants.

[Torquemada 1420]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

They ARE bankrupt. That's what the nicety of a Section 114 Notice is. Bankruptcy of a local authority.

What is really interesting here is where they borrowed the money from. A fortune from other councils plus an undisclosed amount from local authority pension funds. And a significant sum of this was AFTER declaring they were bankrupt.
In regards the pension funds
a) Who is going to fill any gap? Wait. Don't answer that. It will be the public purse. Again.
b) There are supposedly strict rules in respect of borrowing from any pension funds (if it was borrowed rather than directly invested). If it was directly invested, the trustees should all be up before the beak for breach of statutory duty of care.

[Sandstorm]

I bet the people of woking don't know their council has £18,000 of debt for every single one of them,including their kids.

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

They ARE bankrupt. That's what the nicety of a Section 114 Notice is. Bankruptcy of a local authority.

What is really interesting here is where they borrowed the money from. A fortune from other councils plus an undisclosed amount from local authority pension funds. And a significant sum of this was AFTER declaring they were bankrupt.
In regards the pension funds
a) Who is going to fill any gap? Wait. Don't answer that. It will be the public purse. Again.
b) There are supposedly strict rules in respect of borrowing from any pension funds (if it was borrowed rather than directly invested). If it was directly invested, the trustees should all be up before the beak for breach of statutory duty of care.

There's an opportunity here for the Tories to regain some public trust by admitting: "Yeah, we fucked up in 2015 when we removed oversight from council investment and want to put this right immediately by re-instating the committee and not allowing this to happen again."

Fat chance.

[Biffer]

That's outrageous.

How are they not effectively bankrupt? And what happens when a council does go bankrupt, if that is what happens?

They ARE bankrupt. That's what the nicety of a Section 114 Notice is. Bankruptcy of a local authority.

What is really interesting here is where they borrowed the money from. A fortune from other councils plus an undisclosed amount from local authority pension funds. And a significant sum of this was AFTER declaring they were bankrupt.
In regards the pension funds
a) Who is going to fill any gap? Wait. Don't answer that. It will be the public purse. Again.
b) There are supposedly strict rules in respect of borrowing from any pension funds (if it was borrowed rather than directly invested). If it was directly invested, the trustees should all be up before the beak for breach of statutory duty of care.

There's an opportunity here for the Tories to regain some public trust by admitting: "Yeah, we fucked up in 2015 when we removed oversight from council investment and want to put this right immediately by re-instating the committee and not allowing this to happen again."

Fat chance.

The Tories will say it’s our fault for voting useless bastards into power, even though they’re Tory useless bastards. Democratic accountability, innit.

[Torquemada 1420]

They ARE bankrupt. That's what the nicety of a Section 114 Notice is. Bankruptcy of a local authority.

What is really interesting here is where they borrowed the money from. A fortune from other councils plus an undisclosed amount from local authority pension funds. And a significant sum of this was AFTER declaring they were bankrupt.
In regards the pension funds
a) Who is going to fill any gap? Wait. Don't answer that. It will be the public purse. Again.
b) There are supposedly strict rules in respect of borrowing from any pension funds (if it was borrowed rather than directly invested). If it was directly invested, the trustees should all be up before the beak for breach of statutory duty of care.

There's an opportunity here for the Tories to regain some public trust by admitting: "Yeah, we fucked up in 2015 when we removed oversight from council investment and want to put this right immediately by re-instating the committee and not allowing this to happen again."

Fat chance.

The Tories will say it’s our fault for voting useless bastards into power, even though they’re Tory useless bastards. Democratic accountability, innit.

If they had invested into asylum seeker hotels, they'd have been laughing all the way to the bank

[Sandstorm]