badgerx16

Just to put this into context, based on what I heard on the financial reports on the radio this morning; This new report is based on certain presumptions over the rate of inflation and the performance of bonds and stocks. According to a talking head on 'Wake up to Money' on R5Live, ( other radio stations are available ), there is a potential flaw in the method used as it assumes that the performance of these areas will continue into the forseable future at the current level, with low yields and low interest rates. The manager of the London Pension Scheme countered by saying it was a particularly pessimistic view of how things would develop, and that the forecasts of the people managing the schemes do not agree with this particular individual.

I expect you to go straight round to their offices tomorrow and indicate exactly which parts of the 'scroungers support plan' they should immediately curtail, and which non-jobs should be pruned, to cover this loss of finance.

Southampton reduction = £9.6 million, -4.37% Hampshire reduction = £7.8 million, -0.95% Unfortunately there is no county of Merseyside, they are all Unitaries, like So'ton, : Knowsley -10.72%, Liverpool City -11.34%, Sefton ( Southport ) -6.74%, Wirral -7.42%, .

I'll say it because it's true. Have you ever been there ?

It's unfair because St Helens, due to it's various social and economic issues, requires that money, whereas Dorset doesn't. It's the basic concept of a social welfare system, everybody subscribes to the pot, and those that require it get access to it.

If you want to divert into silly games try this one : Birmingham City Council, population 1.028 million, budget REDUCTION £105.3 million, -8.32%.

Just for comparison : St Helens : 2010-2011 budget £192.4 million. Reduction for 2011-2012 £18.1 million, = -9.39% Plymouth : 2010-2011 budget £241.1 million. Reduction for 2011-2012 £10.5 million, = -4.35% Dorset CC : 2010-2011 budget £289.3 million. Increase for 2011-2012 £700,000, = +0.25%

Why do Dorset get an INCREASE ? The formula used is obviously flawed, and it doesn't come across as fair, does it ?

Follow this link www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/xls/1796201.xls, download the spreadsheet and read it for yourself. What is happening is that all the core social welfare budgets are being squeezed, so areas with high unemployment, low adult literacy, high immigration, poor quality housing, large numbers of HMOs, and/or poor health data will be hit hardest.

Actually, if he's looking and the Dept for Communities spreadsheet he does, because it's all on there. I've seen it, and it's exactly as he says.

That is what they have said on many occasions. There is, of course, the caveat that applies to whatever a politician might say, and it is much easier to say things in opposition, as the Condems are finding out.

No, but they would not have been as deep, nor implemented over as short a time. And I doubt that the northern cities and Inner London boroughs with most deprivation would have the largest %age reductions whilst some southern Tory shire councils get a budget rise.

I think it highly appropriate that fat basturd Pickles is the Tory pinup boy for this dogmatic exercise in slash & burn economics. I also liked the question on the radio this morning to the LibDem talking head posted to face up to the real fact the the heath budget is being cut, despite being "ring fenced"; "Why is it that the LibDems are being used as 'human shields' for all the bad news coming out of the spending review ?".

Do it yourself, you lazy, greedy, tory barsteward

I have a copy, thanks. Now all I need is the IP address of your computer, and a user account with administration rights so I can map your hard disc as a networked drive, then I can transfer it over to you.

It's on the Dept for Communities & local Government website, you can download a spreadsheet.

How many people in the western world live in "basic concrete tower blocks" and earn a "pittance of a wage". Can you please answer the question posed earlier - account for the poverty and deprivation in the most "successful" market economy on the planet.

As a concept or an ideal it can work, and there is nothing wrong with aspiring to an ideal. Unfortunately, whilst the predominant controlling doctrine is the one that deems it necessary to aspire to the most expensive baubles, gewgaws, and trinkets; that to show off one's accrued bling is deemed 'celebrity'; and that success is measured in horsepower and gallons to the mile, it is fighting a losing battle. The multinational advertising juggernaut will pander to western materialism, and will inform third world populations that what they all need is an iPad and a Porsche Cayenne, and the rape of 90% of the globe to fatten the remaining 10% will continue.

I will if you want me to ! China. A Socialist country so successful it is estimated by some to own about $1.7 TRILLION of the US national debt.

John Cage for XMAS #1

Can you identify at birth which will be which ?

Why must you always resort to petulant playground taunts ? It hardly helps your credibility, or that of any argument you attempt to support. ( And in typical playground style, I know that I subsequently referred to you as 'June', but you started it ).

Interesting the in the "Sweet Land of Liberty", to be a 'libertarian' is to be consigned to the political wilderness.

That's why June's crony, St George, refers to BO as a 'commie'.

You do know that you get child raping murderers in capitalist countries, don't you ?