Whatthefuckdidido Thu 10-Nov-16 17:45:12
Mango, your point about people sitting twiddling their thumbs in leafy suburbs is interesting.
The areas that suffer economic depression are almost all Labour areas, labour have actively opposed benefit cuts, austerity policies and have been championing increased spending on infrastructure and education etc.
I find this desperately frustrating.
Our town is one of the most unequal in the country. It is split between north and south. The North is Labour and has a Labour MP. The South is Liberal Democrat and has a Tory MP.
The Tory MP has done a lot trying to get infrastructure into the town. Most of what he has done has been in the North. This is actually not his constituency, but he sees it as benefiting the whole town. I have to say I think this is good and admirable and recognises that benefiting the poorer areas has benefit to everyone in the town. (I do not agree with him on a lot of other things I have to say. He does not live in the town. He does not even live in the leafy suburbs).
Labour dominate the town council. They hold a majority and as such can do what they like. They have been making decisions outside town meetings then presenting them as decision at the local council although the decision has been already made.
Recently there has been a decision to close local library services in the town. They have decided to cut them only in Liberal Democrat areas. These are wealthier areas.
It protects more urban Labour voting areas.
There is a problem here though.
Its based on an assumption that only rich people live in the suburbs and they need public services less. The reality is that there is also a lot of people, who don't fall into that category. There are a lot of council house, people with mobility issues and the elderly that still live in the leafy suburbs. They are less able to use centralised services, as transport has been cut, to the richer areas due to falling demand (whilst the poorer areas have retained their transport and been protected). This means they end up more vulnerable and isolated. They are also no more economically better off than those in the urban areas. They don't have disposal income. They might have property which is worth more, but should they have to sell their houses, to access basic services which are available elsewhere?
In the 'leafy suburbs' the libraries are much more used, than in the poorer areas. But they are not used by the rich people. The rich people just buy everything from bloody amazon. For local people who do use the libraries this is just about the only thing that they have got.
The local newspaper has been full of comments about how the leafy suburbs deserve it.
In trying to defend these services for the vulnerable in the area, the lib dems have faced a backlash.
Its frustrating. I have sympathy for the council in having to make cuts and I do understand that the poor urban areas should get more as such, but it has been an ongoing process where the leafy suburbs now are places where poorer people are less able to live, further magnifying the problem and almost 'ghettoising' and people are being demonised for living in certain places. Decisions are not being made on the basis of usage or need either, for the town as a whole. Its purely been along political lines. It is not recognising that there are vulnerable people across the town.
Its now getting to the point where there are virtually no services paid for out of council tax in the leafy suburbs. Everything has gone. The urban areas, have retained things at their expense (and this goes beyond simply centralising things). This includes putting charges on parking in the leafy suburbs only and pushing the cost of emptying bins onto parish councils.
There is a certain growing sense of unfairness and resentment going on as a result. The leafy suburbs are starting to feel like they are getting taxed twice for less services at the end of it, and don't like the principle of this rather than disliking taxation. They feel they are getting no say or influence in the decision making process. They feel that they are being demonising for having the nerve to oppose this and try and retain something.
Most can afford it, and I get the impression that most don't mind paying more, providing they get something to show for it in the end and services are there for those who do use and need them.
The Lib Dems that represent the area have therefore spent time defending these issues (which they should do as they are representing the interests of those who elect them) against the Labour council rather than having a town wide policy on poverty and the vulnerable as a uniting issue. It rather pits one area against another in competition for what little there is.
I don't know what the answer is. It strike me that there is an underlying problem with taxation and distribution of how it is spent. Which is often, as I say, along political lines rather than based on need and usage.
My point is that, 'the leafy suburbs' are not simply full of selfish people who are only interested in themselves. Its much more complicated than that, and doesn't reflect that poor people live there too, and being out in the suburbs brings its own additional issues relating to transport. There just seems to be a lack of understanding and acknowledging problems beyond your own particular bubble.
Simply blaming the leafy suburbs as somehow being selfish and not understanding doesn't cut it. I do think there is more awareness than people realise, but I also think the politics of cuts have helped to drive a huge wedge in that relationship too. Its much more complex than that. Society is becoming much more tribal as a result of it all.
All three parties do offer something to the town in their own way. Its just that they don't seem to be working together and don't work for everyone because its becoming increasingly down to localised thinking and certain wider themes and generalisations.
As I say, I don't know what the solution is to this, but problems with communication - which is universal and goes both ways - and tribalism that this creates seem to be a huge part of the overall problem. People have stopped listened to each other.
(Sorry, that was a long post)