Local lockdowns should be funded locally

[glitter98]

In the early virus stages where everything was unknown we needed a national lockdown, but a lot has now been learned. Only a national measures should be funded centrally.

I'm not sure why we need national vs local politicians arguing about funding. National politicians should set the framework to indicate when areas go into restrictions, and local politicians should implement the framework, take localised measures and fund them.

If people in an area do not take actions together to suppress the virus, then they should pay for the necessary restrictions because of their actions - it doesn't matter if legal or not. People in Cornwall or Norfolk should not be paying for people in Manchester behaving irresponsibly or deciding to live in a way that encourages transmission.

There should be no need to negotiate with Boris, he should just enforce the policy - Manchester should then implement the minimum measures (and go beyond if needed) and pay for any support they decide they should provide between themselves. If council tax and business rates need to rise, then that's the impact of local people's actions.

This would cause communities to self police.

I don't want communities to 'self police'

Way too much aggression being directed at people who can't wear face coverings

How? Local communities can't collect income tax, vat or tax companies. They can only tax land.

Not to mention that the national lockdown was timed for the SE...

Complicated.

Council money was cut to the bone by Central govt before all this- remember all the stuff with libraries closing etc?

Many are struggling with providing basic statutory services eg homeless families in dodgy accommodation too long, children in care not been cared for properly.

A whole load of other stuff.

In areas which have more deprivation, increasing taxes is not realistic.

Essentially many areas were under the cosh before all this and, well are fucked with covid tbh with the things that were working having to close and so on.

It's really difficult.

How about the ones who kept going on ski trips after the fact pay for it OP.

I havent been abroad since 1986 Havent been on a plane since 1983.

So why should i pay for a virus that i had no control over entering the country.

'This would cause communities to self police.'

What does this actually mean in practice, op?

And when the policing of others goes too far...............what then?

Had this been the way it was fine every city with a uni would have told the kids not to come. Why would local people pay for a lockdown when most of the positive tests are among students from other places?

Great way to penalise poor areas. Isnt there a link between poverty and virus? And this is because people working low wage jobs cant afford to self isolate or take time off or survive on ssp.

@NiceGerbil

It means that local people will report dangerous activities and local politicians will be under pressure to ensure that both measures and economic support are balanced against the people who will have to pay it back.

Local people and their representatives feeling the pressure will police the measures in place and introduce new ones much more effectively if the cost of doing so is considerably higher local taxes for everyone in the local community.

I would have thought this was self-evident - if not, what is the point of local mayors?

@nancy75

By living in a university town this is what you accept. Students have moved home - they are now part of the local community. As any parent knows, they have left home for good.

Wow really
Here have a for your trouble

It's Greater Manchester not Manchester. 10 Local Authorities not 1 city and all the local politicians and council leaders spoke as one because they know the damage what was being offered would do. This was regardless of their political colours which is probably the only time this has happened in recent memory. Destroying local business would make it impossible for areas to recover and is a total false economy as there would be a much bigger tab to pick up later on. Also we have been in lockdown here for months , the area where growth was high is a massive student area and the numbers shot up when the students arrived for term from outside Greater Manchester. It is a much more complex picture and we're being taken for fools if we fall for false division

You're being ridiculous.

You'd be punishing the places with higher population density, & greater levels of poverty.

Fine people not obeying the law definitely.

Ah so Greater Manchester which already had very high levels of deprivation can raise money with raising council tax...when huge numbers of households are either exempt because they are students, pay a very small proportion because of low incomes or are in the lowest band. Yeah that's going to raise loads. Increase business rates...what on the businesses that will fight to stay open because they've been shut down. As for people choosing to live in a certain way, does that mean sending their kids to school, going to work and going to the shops. Because that's pretty much what the majority have been doing here for months. Collective punishment isn't legal under the Geneva Convention.

Are you one of the Tory MPs who signed that absolutely in no way drafted by Number 10 letter saying they should be let off and asking Andy Burnham to talk to Boris and agree Tier 3

@glitter98

Local responsibility - don't demand local democracy and expect other areas to pay for it. I also believe the govt paying to bail out transport for London is wrong. I don't see how myself in Lincs benefit from the tube being subsidised nationally - when we have next to no public transport.

BTW in 2019, Manchester was above median salary. 30.7k in Manchester against UK median salary 30.4k.

Why have students left home for good?

What help does shopping your neighbours give when police have been decimated by previous cuts from central govt?

How exactly are you going to do that bearing in mind all taxes are paid direct to the Government , with the exception of Council tax

The Government doesn’t re distribute the taxes based on what happens in local areas, ie some areas have higher numbers on benefits, paid for by taxes from those in more affluent areas, so in your school of thought maybe those in more affluent areas should keep their money in the local area, pay for local schools, local nhs hospitals and therefore get possible better treatment, better nurseries for kids, etc etc , and let everyone in poorer areas go hang?

I haven’t heard such a stupid idea for a long time

OP you clealry don’t have a basic understanding of how taxes work in the UK, or of devolution/local government structures.

Local control is fine, but local funding is impossible:

Councils can't impose a local income tax or VAT or IHT; only central government can do that
About all they can do is raise Council tax, which would take time and cause hardship atm.

So hand over to local control, but central government must hand over the extra budget they will need for the extra work, e.g. local track& trace,
and especially for the 80% pay for those forced to isolate, or whose places of work are closed down by the new regulations,
the extra money to keep businesses from bankruptcy, so they can resume after the crisis is over

@glitter98

Oh I forgot Liverpool and Manchester are University towns, rather than a couple of the biggest cities in the UK.
Congratulations OP you have my first ever

What a load of ignorant bollocks.

Devolution to council level is fine in theory, but the middle of a pandemic is maybe not the time to try doing it

@glitter98

In the early virus stages where everything was unknown we needed a national lockdown, but a lot has now been learned. Only a national measures should be funded centrally.

I'm not sure why we need national vs local politicians arguing about funding. National politicians should set the framework to indicate when areas go into restrictions, and local politicians should implement the framework, take localised measures and fund them.

If people in an area do not take actions together to suppress the virus, then they should pay for the necessary restrictions because of their actions - it doesn't matter if legal or not. People in Cornwall or Norfolk should not be paying for people in Manchester behaving irresponsibly or deciding to live in a way that encourages transmission.

There should be no need to negotiate with Boris, he should just enforce the policy - Manchester should then implement the minimum measures (and go beyond if needed) and pay for any support they decide they should provide between themselves. If council tax and business rates need to rise, then that's the impact of local people's actions.

This would cause communities to self police.

It’s way too late at night to fully explain to OP what the Treasury does vs which taxes can be controlled locally, or how local authority borrowing is curtailed by central government. however I would recommend googling words like devolution, treasury, council tax etc and reading some articles.

This is ludicrous and shows your utter ignorance regarding economics and politics.

@BigChocFrenzy

I'm suggesting that local tax be changed to implement much higher local taxes if necessary. Might need significant increases in local council taxes, local sales tax and local income tax. Maybe a local corona level per person based on the number of cases per month, so everyone in the area might get a money charge of £5 if low transmission or £5,000 if high transmission.

Loans could could come from central government for cash flow, but the people locally should bear the costs of the measures needed to control in their area caused by them.