LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

1…978979981983984…1133

Comments

  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 2,144
    @Pross There is a report somewhere that details it. From memory a huge part is what they term 'admin' costs. This includes tv hosting, ceremonies, wages and a load of other stuff. I believe the WM policing bill was about 40 or 50 million!

    The major infrastructure was rebuilding Alexander stadium, the new aquatics centre in Sandwell and the redevelopment of Perry Barr rail station. My guess is that lot was probably about a third of the total spend.

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,839
    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You have to remember that you are only allowed to blame anything on one or more of the following three things in this forum:
    1. The nasty Torwies
    2. Bwexit
    3. Wiggle.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,829
    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,031
    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    It shouldn't be the treasury. It should be the FCA if it has jurisdiction or the police if it doesn't.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,829
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    It shouldn't be the treasury. It should be the FCA if it has jurisdiction or the police if it doesn't.
    Treasury would be paying ultimately. They're never going to recover losses on that scale from an individual so what does a court case achieve. Negligence is usually a civil matter so no question of police involvement for just poor decision making.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,658
    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Jezyboy said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    Did the Birmingham commonwealth games cost more than the Manchester games? I feel like Manchester made a lot more of them...
    Manchester was £200m and Brum was £750m
    Do these numbers include the infrastructure? Manchester built a load of new facilities whereas Birmingham was mainly existing with events held outside of the city where they didn't have something suitable e.g. a velodrome so even allowing for the 20 year gap it's hard to understand why Birmingham was more expensive.
    That is not the point.

    The point is that they were in a financial crisis and they bid to host a mickey mouse sports event and even paid £25m for the privilege.

    These people should be making sure the bins are emptied not paying for people to do some running and jumping
    Even if it makes an apparent profit?

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,031
    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    It shouldn't be the treasury. It should be the FCA if it has jurisdiction or the police if it doesn't.
    Treasury would be paying ultimately. They're never going to recover losses on that scale from an individual so what does a court case achieve. Negligence is usually a civil matter so no question of police involvement for just poor decision making.
    If no laws have been broken then they can do very little other than change the law for next time.

    The FCA can prosecute negligence, but I suspect Thurrock council is not covered despite the quantum of money involved and lent.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    It shouldn't be the treasury. It should be the FCA if it has jurisdiction or the police if it doesn't.
    Treasury would be paying ultimately. They're never going to recover losses on that scale from an individual so what does a court case achieve. Negligence is usually a civil matter so no question of police involvement for just poor decision making.
    If no laws have been broken then they can do very little other than change the law for next time.

    The FCA can prosecute negligence, but I suspect Thurrock council is not covered despite the quantum of money involved and lent.
    I believe they have changed the rules so that councils turning over tens of millions can notborrow billions to pay top dollar for distressed assets and prop up the local commercial property market
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Jezyboy said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Pross said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Jezyboy said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    Did the Birmingham commonwealth games cost more than the Manchester games? I feel like Manchester made a lot more of them...
    Manchester was £200m and Brum was £750m
    Do these numbers include the infrastructure? Manchester built a load of new facilities whereas Birmingham was mainly existing with events held outside of the city where they didn't have something suitable e.g. a velodrome so even allowing for the 20 year gap it's hard to understand why Birmingham was more expensive.
    That is not the point.

    The point is that they were in a financial crisis and they bid to host a mickey mouse sports event and even paid £25m for the privilege.

    These people should be making sure the bins are emptied not paying for people to do some running and jumping
    Even if it makes an apparent profit?

    I suspect that you are in a small minority of one who thinks that Birmingham City Council made a profit.

    Maybe you could get a job as a CEO of another commonwealth city and offer to host the 2026 games. They could use part of the profit to put up a gigantic statue of you.
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 2,144
    I understand the point about not bidding for the games but on balance it was the right decision IMO.

    It was a genuine boost to the local economy and brought in tourism and spending, and I would guess the net profit is probably accurate.

    As to the sporting merit, I don't think this matters. The money, in part, went on lasting infrastructure which will benefit local communities, far more than an Olympic games does.

    Sandwell is one of the most deprived areas of England, they now have an intetnational class aquatics centre which is a community hub and used by schools (Sandwell LEA is the 2nd most deprived in England) and local residents.

    Perry Barr is also pretty deprived and the station regen has also led to much better new housing and infrastructure. This will benefit residents who usually get passed over for local investment at the expense of more affluent areas.

    On balance, CG was a good thing for they city and probably one of the few things BCC has turned into a success over the last decade.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,031
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    It shouldn't be the treasury. It should be the FCA if it has jurisdiction or the police if it doesn't.
    Treasury would be paying ultimately. They're never going to recover losses on that scale from an individual so what does a court case achieve. Negligence is usually a civil matter so no question of police involvement for just poor decision making.
    If no laws have been broken then they can do very little other than change the law for next time.

    The FCA can prosecute negligence, but I suspect Thurrock council is not covered despite the quantum of money involved and lent.
    I believe they have changed the rules so that councils turning over tens of millions can notborrow billions to pay top dollar for distressed assets and prop up the local commercial property market
    I'd still like some people to go to prison though. I hold a similar view with a lot of city workers.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    TheBigBean said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rjsterry said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You're probably right; I get the strong sense they're bounced into these hairbrained schemes (of which there is plainly no oversight) in a desperate attempt to make up the difference.

    Which makes sense; these are usually D-list politicians who want to make a name for themselves.
    But if they faced personal financial penalties and or jail time they would not be bounced.
    Perhaps improving the rewards is a better strategy than thinking this is something legal action can solve.
    I just think there should be a downside to making censored or illegal decisions. Some of them are gambling with other peoples money and they should be forced to have some skin in the game.

    A quick Google would suggest they are not underpaid
    Agreed. I just can't see the Treasury winning from a four year legal case to pick apart exactly who did what and at what point it tipped over into negligence in public office at Thurrock or Croydon. Lawyers would do very well out of it though.
    It shouldn't be the treasury. It should be the FCA if it has jurisdiction or the police if it doesn't.
    Treasury would be paying ultimately. They're never going to recover losses on that scale from an individual so what does a court case achieve. Negligence is usually a civil matter so no question of police involvement for just poor decision making.
    If no laws have been broken then they can do very little other than change the law for next time.

    The FCA can prosecute negligence, but I suspect Thurrock council is not covered despite the quantum of money involved and lent.
    I believe they have changed the rules so that councils turning over tens of millions can notborrow billions to pay top dollar for distressed assets and prop up the local commercial property market
    I'd still like some people to go to prison though. I hold a similar view with a lot of city workers.
    I agree with the threat of prison but there could be other threats that would deter them
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    I understand the point about not bidding for the games but on balance it was the right decision IMO.

    It was a genuine boost to the local economy and brought in tourism and spending, and I would guess the net profit is probably accurate.

    As to the sporting merit, I don't think this matters. The money, in part, went on lasting infrastructure which will benefit local communities, far more than an Olympic games does.

    Sandwell is one of the most deprived areas of England, they now have an intetnational class aquatics centre which is a community hub and used by schools (Sandwell LEA is the 2nd most deprived in England) and local residents.

    Perry Barr is also pretty deprived and the station regen has also led to much better new housing and infrastructure. This will benefit residents who usually get passed over for local investment at the expense of more affluent areas.

    On balance, CG was a good thing for they city and probably one of the few things BCC has turned into a success over the last decade.

    The claimed profit relates to the UK as a whole so it is jolly decent of brum council tax payers to subsidise others.

    Claimed benefits of sporting events is a bugbear of mine as I can not believe the best way to spend money in Sandwell was to build an intl class aquatics centre.

    Likewise a new station could have been built in Perry Barr and many other places with the money spent on building facilities for a one off event
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    BBC news running a rolling list of RAAC schools alongside PMQs - brutal
    _
  • MidlandsGrimpeur2
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 Posts: 2,144
    Claimed benefits of sporting events is a bugbear of mine as I can not believe the best way to spend money in Sandwell was to build an intl class aquatics centre.

    Likewise a new station could have been built in Perry Barr and many other places with the money spent on building facilities for a one off event


    Fair points but I would respectfully disagree. Perry Barr station was only regenerated because of the games as it was the main link to Alexander Stadium, the CG was the main catalyst in this instance.

    I do agree in the main with sporting legacies, but you have to look at context. With the amount of investment in Sandwell for the CG, you were not going to tackle poverty or structural inequality. I know a few people that way and my friend is a Head of a Primary school where 25% oh his pupils live in poverty. They swim there every week. If you are a 6 year old in abject poverty with little positive to look forward to, I suspect that 3hrs a week makes a huge difference to you.

    I also suspect it plays a larger role in better health and wellbeing outcomes for the community as a whole. Yes, the money could have gone elsewhere, but leaving a community hub that improves the quality of life for many local residents is a good thing IMO.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    Claimed benefits of sporting events is a bugbear of mine as I can not believe the best way to spend money in Sandwell was to build an intl class aquatics centre.

    Likewise a new station could have been built in Perry Barr and many other places with the money spent on building facilities for a one off event


    Fair points but I would respectfully disagree. Perry Barr station was only regenerated because of the games as it was the main link to Alexander Stadium, the CG was the main catalyst in this instance.

    I do agree in the main with sporting legacies, but you have to look at context. With the amount of investment in Sandwell for the CG, you were not going to tackle poverty or structural inequality. I know a few people that way and my friend is a Head of a Primary school where 25% oh his pupils live in poverty. They swim there every week. If you are a 6 year old in abject poverty with little positive to look forward to, I suspect that 3hrs a week makes a huge difference to you.

    I also suspect it plays a larger role in better health and wellbeing outcomes for the community as a whole. Yes, the money could have gone elsewhere, but leaving a community hub that improves the quality of life for many local residents is a good thing IMO.
    My utopian argument is that instead of CG, you would just build the new station.

    I am no expert but there must be better ways of regenerating an area than digging a swimming pool.

    I obviously know more about London and see the regeneration of Stratford could have been done by extening the tube and cleaning the land. There was no need to spend £1bn building West Ham a new stadium
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I'm with MG on this.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,515
    surrey_commuter said:

    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    Claimed benefits of sporting events is a bugbear of mine as I can not believe the best way to spend money in Sandwell was to build an intl class aquatics centre.

    Likewise a new station could have been built in Perry Barr and many other places with the money spent on building facilities for a one off event


    Fair points but I would respectfully disagree. Perry Barr station was only regenerated because of the games as it was the main link to Alexander Stadium, the CG was the main catalyst in this instance.

    I do agree in the main with sporting legacies, but you have to look at context. With the amount of investment in Sandwell for the CG, you were not going to tackle poverty or structural inequality. I know a few people that way and my friend is a Head of a Primary school where 25% oh his pupils live in poverty. They swim there every week. If you are a 6 year old in abject poverty with little positive to look forward to, I suspect that 3hrs a week makes a huge difference to you.

    I also suspect it plays a larger role in better health and wellbeing outcomes for the community as a whole. Yes, the money could have gone elsewhere, but leaving a community hub that improves the quality of life for many local residents is a good thing IMO.
    My utopian argument is that instead of CG, you would just build the new station.

    I am no expert but there must be better ways of regenerating an area than digging a swimming pool.

    I obviously know more about London and see the regeneration of Stratford could have been done by extening the tube and cleaning the land. There was no need to spend £1bn building West Ham a new stadium
    Isn't the argument that the CG gives fast track approval and less cost? If the games break even then you have free infrastructure. Adjust the cost on a sliding scale v profit, it should still be cheaper.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,829
    surrey_commuter said:

    MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:

    Claimed benefits of sporting events is a bugbear of mine as I can not believe the best way to spend money in Sandwell was to build an intl class aquatics centre.

    Likewise a new station could have been built in Perry Barr and many other places with the money spent on building facilities for a one off event


    Fair points but I would respectfully disagree. Perry Barr station was only regenerated because of the games as it was the main link to Alexander Stadium, the CG was the main catalyst in this instance.

    I do agree in the main with sporting legacies, but you have to look at context. With the amount of investment in Sandwell for the CG, you were not going to tackle poverty or structural inequality. I know a few people that way and my friend is a Head of a Primary school where 25% oh his pupils live in poverty. They swim there every week. If you are a 6 year old in abject poverty with little positive to look forward to, I suspect that 3hrs a week makes a huge difference to you.

    I also suspect it plays a larger role in better health and wellbeing outcomes for the community as a whole. Yes, the money could have gone elsewhere, but leaving a community hub that improves the quality of life for many local residents is a good thing IMO.
    My utopian argument is that instead of CG, you would just build the new station.

    I am no expert but there must be better ways of regenerating an area than digging a swimming pool.

    I obviously know more about London and see the regeneration of Stratford could have been done by extening the tube and cleaning the land. There was no need to spend £1bn building West Ham a new stadium
    Pretty sure extending the tube and clearing the land are the really expensive bits. A new sports centre is as good as anything to give a run down place a bit of a boost.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,788
    She knows the jig's up.

    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 17,407
    Again, she has to know what she's doing here.

    When is the night of the long knives? Before, or after, the next election?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,829
    First.Aspect said:

    Again, she has to know what she's doing here.

    When is the night of the long knives? Before, or after, the next election?

    There's really nothing to gain by moving before the election.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,788
    I actually think it's not a deliberate act, but just utter misery that she can't hide.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,658
    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Again, she has to know what she's doing here.

    When is the night of the long knives? Before, or after, the next election?

    There's really nothing to gain by moving before the election.
    Having PM, rather than leader of the opposition on the CV
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,873
    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Again, she has to know what she's doing here.

    When is the night of the long knives? Before, or after, the next election?

    There's really nothing to gain by moving before the election.
    Having PM, rather than leader of the opposition on the CV
    Did they stop Truss getting all the extra benefits of having been PM because she was only there for 5 minutes.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,228
    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You have to remember that you are only allowed to blame anything on one or more of the following three things in this forum:
    1. The nasty Torwies
    2. Bwexit
    3. Wiggle.
    What is Wriggle?
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,662
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You have to remember that you are only allowed to blame anything on one or more of the following three things in this forum:
    1. The nasty Torwies
    2. Bwexit
    3. Wiggle.
    What is Wriggle?
    :D
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,839
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You have to remember that you are only allowed to blame anything on one or more of the following three things in this forum:
    1. The nasty Torwies
    2. Bwexit
    3. Wiggle.
    What is Wriggle?
    Fits in the list better than CRC :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,228
    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You have to remember that you are only allowed to blame anything on one or more of the following three things in this forum:
    1. The nasty Torwies
    2. Bwexit
    3. Wiggle.
    What is Wriggle?
    Fits in the list better than CRC :smile:
    CWC shurely.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,662
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Birmingham city council declaring its budget cannot be financed so has issued a section 114 notice (banning all new spending except for vulnerable people, statutory services and pre existing commitments)

    surely this should be in the Labour thread
    I do think it is cynical politics to put the major councils under pressure via cutting funding and then blaming the incumbent labour council when one inevitably fails.
    so this illegal problem of their own making had been rumbling on since 2012 and yet in 2017 they bid for the second most expensive sporting occasion in UK history.

    and yet it is the fault of the Tories.

    I have said it before and I will say it again that there has to be stronger governance and individual repercussions for negligence (at best) in local govt.

    We treat these organisations like the village fete yet they are running up debts of billions
    You have to remember that you are only allowed to blame anything on one or more of the following three things in this forum:
    1. The nasty Torwies
    2. Bwexit
    3. Wiggle.
    What is Wriggle?
    Fits in the list better than CRC :smile:
    CWC shurely.
    Mewlin
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono

Categories