Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Deegan
They received a substantial funding increase because they are deprived areas. This usually means high unemployment, and low income, meaning less income from taxes.
|
I've just compared Tower Hamlets and Newham with my own Borough in London, this money doesn't seem to be going on front line services.
Tower Hamlets for example has a 25% higher population yet spends 3 times as much and only £160,000,000 of this £800,000,000 is accounted for by transfer payments.
I suspect these councils are inefficient as hell to be honest thanks to having all this extra money in block grants. From silly things like that Tower Hamlets and Newham both insist on weekly and fortnightly respectively doses of tax payer funded council propaganda while Richmond only gives it quarterly and covers it through advertising through to multi-million pound offices, grants to Islamist organisations and ever expanding chief executives' pay.
I picked on Tower Hamlets and Newham though I'm sure it applies in many different areas.
In short some councils need to wind their neck in and focus on providing core services rather than having central government tax payers pay for them to put a newspaper through every resident's door saying how great they are once every week or two. Doesn't it seem odd to you that councils like Richmond and Wokingham, with tiny or non-existent central government grants, are more efficient than councils that get huge grants?