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.

A global pandemic isn’t going to be able to be dealt with by individual councils all doing their own thing. It needs dealing with at a national level so there is consistency. Unless we’re going to shut the borders of every county to the rest of the country then we’re going to have the virus spreading from other parts of the country - such as with movement from the students this term. Unless we shut off all movement we can’t deal with it county by county.

Funding has to be on a national level too otherwise poorer areas will be hit hard - many of those areas will have your low paid key workers who provide essential services.

A council tax raise requires a public consultation.

You are essentially failing to recognise that any area in the UK that suffers mass unemployment and deprivation has an impact on the rest of the UK. There are no 'money borders' where local authorities are able to protect their income. The UK economy is interconnected between many, many local authorities. Tory ideology is to deprive Labour-run areas so that eventually they fail and are blamed for local deprivation, evidenced by Tory authorities receiving sweetheart deals. This government is ideology-driven, as are you - and it's mighty unpleasant to read. Enjoy your Monday morning Daily Mail.

Ah come on op.
You sound like you enjoy yourself 24/7

I deserve my current symptoms (waiting for results) because I chose to live in a university town? Yes? Are you serious?

[quote glitter98]@JamieLeeCurtains

So why should people in Lincs pay for people in Manchester for a problem caused by their own behaviour, whilst people in Lincs have not enjoyed themselves so much nor the usual benefits of living in a city?[/quote]
Sorry that didnt quote effectively.

My actual point is, how would the police police this? Different laws made up by council leaders?

Why should others pay for transmission completely caused by people in the area

Erm....some of us live in tourist areas where daytrippers have flocked together during the summer months and not given a shiny shit about the impact of that on local people. Tourism is now dead. Our hotels and the jobs that go with them are all but finished. The big chains may survive but the local hotels run by local people pumping their profits and wages back into the local community won’t. Please find me evidence that this is our fault, that we are deliberately infecting each other as we go about our daily business.

You haven’t one fucking clue, OP.

What about those of us in Greater Manchester who have ‘behaved’ themselves, and don’t personally know anyone who has had COVID? We should be expected to fund this anymore than someone in another town? Purely because of our postcode?

Maybe it should only be those who have tested positive anywhere in the country who pay for this - let’s increase their taxes for the next 20-30 years? That would make more sense (I’m obviously not serious)

Why am I even bothering to reply. Here have this instead

I really hope this is a wind up, What total and utter nonsense. It implies that the virus is wholly caused by the local population. Does no where move into the area where the OP lives? No students coming and going? No tourists? No people returning from holidays?

People living in uni towns - "this is what you have to accept". Oh yes - those people that live in uni towns could have anticipated this pandemic???

Many parts of the UK that have been badly hit are also the very poorest already. You should see what my high street looks like now - it is soul destroying.

I think you need to go and think this one through a bit more. It's ridiculous.

The wealth of billionnaires has risen by a 1/3 during this pandemic. The worlds richest are 'smashing wealth records' so yes absolutley some poor, elderely ethnic minority in over crowded accommodation in a city should be paying the cost of this.

I don't believe that the rapid spread of the virus is totally the fault of the people living in those areas. Yes, of course they bare some responsibility, but many of those areas are coping with incredibly over crowded and over populated housing and poverty. Going to work outside the home isn't optional for many who work in low paid jobs and in areas like Knowsley they have crammed so much small new build housing into a small space that people are literally living on top of one another. The fact that that housing is the only thing available to some is not their fault.

Err, when we went into national lockdown in the spring, the numbers up north were miniscule. It was surging in London and the South at that stage yet us northerners supported the lockdown and didn't have this awful rhetoric towards the areas that had a high number of cases. Should we retrospectively tax all the southerners in those areas for the cost of that lockdown? You know, now that we're all responsible for our own areas

Err, when we went into national lockdown in the spring, the numbers up north were miniscule.

My part of NE England had some of the lowest figures in the country then at the end of the summer a load of tourists came from other areas quickly followed by all of the students and within a week or two we had some of the highest rates in the country. I'm going to go out on a limb and say these outsiders brought it with them. Maybe we should go back to the days of running them out of town with pitchforks.

Okay OP, so Londonderry who own a car guess where there VED goes? Not to pay for London roads to goes to pay to maintain roads outside London , yupbthat right not many know that but a few years back a decision was made cos non-londoners complained of everything being London centric.

So by your logic, we'll take our money back so we can spend it on our roads.

Lets go one step further with your logic aby tax londoners pay from income should only be spent on London, same with other areas right.....let's see how you do then

Also do you have children? Why so single people pay for your kids then? Pay for them yourself.

I mean your logic is so far removed from even being plausible

Many of the places with tougher lockdowns are cities with a big manufacturing base. Should they all have stayed at home, and not made the raw materials to make all the perspex for the covid safe shops, the visors, the alcohol for the hand gel? I know very few people who have been working from home, or were furloughed. They have all been on shifts busting a gut to keep the chemicals supply chain going, with all the mixing going to work entails. Should they now be punished by paying extra when the NE already has a large proportion of the most deprived areas in England?

Lincs main source of income generation is from agriculture and as such, Lincs is very rural. So one, you’re going to have higher transmission rates in urban areas. Greater Manchester isn’t just a city and university town, it’s a highly urban area with the suburbs also being very urban. You’ll find this with other areas that are in tier 2 or tier 3. Covid is going to struggle to spread between the average 5 people and their dogs in Lincs.

Secondly, as Lincs is predominantly agriculture. This is an area that is already subsided through central government through Basic Payment Scheme and agri-environment schemes. Maybe my mum in greater Manchester shouldn’t be contributing towards Lincs supporting agriculture? When we leave the EU and farming becomes much harder, do the good people of Lincolnshire still want agriculture subsidised so their economy thrives? Even though Lincolnshire has the highest % of votes in favour of leaving the EU?

Maybe people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?

This is what the home counties Tories think. I'm all right Jack and so I don't want my taxes supporting 'them up north'.

When cases were high in the SE it was a national lockdown with 80% furlough, etc. Now it is in the Midlands and North it should be self-funded local lockdowns. This is exactly why Andy Burnam is kicking up such a fuss at the moment.

The fact you say students leave home for good says a lot about your area!

I'd like to think wiser posters than myself have educated you but I absolutely doubt it.

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

Hmmm I wonder if you, by any chance, live in the south. I think there is probably better compliance with the rules here, the case numbers are relatively low, but we also don't have universities or high density housing and there are plenty of open spaces.

I wonder if you would say this if it was eg Brighton or Bristol with the high case numbers rather than Liverpool and Manchester.

Some fantastic replies explaining why the Op's idea is both very unfair and totally ridiculous. Hope he/she reads and understands them.

If we’re going for local taxes fund locals only, most
of the country would be living with no services while London, Manchester and a handful of similar cities who are among the few net contributors to the economy are revelling in their affluence.

Cities are of course hotspots for COVID due to higher population density and their mobile populations including students fortunately for your plan they are also income generating hotspots.

You're not very bright are you OP?

🎵 how can there be so much that you don’t know... you don’t know...🎵

OP, you’re being absurd. What do you propose to do about areas where poverty is rife, meaning you simply can’t squeeze enough blood from the stone to fund your insane plan? What about the inequality of penalising people who live in areas where the nature of their jobs makes transmission more likely (e.g. factory work)? What about towns that have seen influxes of tourists from other parts of the country driving up infection rates? What about the inequality of penalising people who happen to live in densely populated areas? What about university towns experiencing high infection rates because of the movement of students?

Having lived rurally I don't really like either the old or new lockdowns. We have had zero deaths from covid in our area. Why should rules be foisted on me to pay for metropolitan lifestyles in London and university towns. Yes I can work from home so lockdown affects me less but people's decision to take the benefits of living in a city or University town should now accept these localized lockdowns as a cost. In much the same way as rural bus services and hospitals have been removed we are effectively subsidizing the cities anyway. Agriculture subsidy should be removed too. Basically nobody should be subsidizing anyone and we need to encourage more self policing of communities not expecting those that don't need lockdown to pick up the tab.

Hi OP, East Germany calling for you. They said you'd be right at home here as a statsi informant.