Changes in our lifetime.

[carni 10,094]

Here is a link to a bit of information about the changes in and around Nottm during the course of most of our life times. We have probably all read most of this info at other times, but if you are like me, will never tire of reading about Nottingham, When you reach the bottom of the page you can go to Previous or Next. Lots of reminders both ways. Enjoy yer sens.

http://www.nottsheritagegateway.org.uk/places/nottingham/nottinghamc20.htm

[catfan 14,793]

Dip yer bread in !

[Oztalgian 3,331]

In the early sixties Nottingham Corporation spent the following (all amounts in pounds)

Education - 8.75 million

Police and Fire - 1.75 million

Highways and Lighting - 1 million

Health - 1 Million

House refuse, Sewers and Sewage Disposal - 1 million

Children and old people - .5 million

Parks - .5 million

Other services (Libraries, Baths, Housing, etc.) - 3 million

It had a population of 310,380

The latest estimate of population is 314,400 not that much different.

I wonder what the spend on the above is today? (after adjustment)

[catfan 14,793]

Take a look here, WARNING, make sure you're seated first !

What We Spend on your Services Each Year

(Figures for 2015/16)

• £89 million: Services to elderly and vulnerable people
• £44 million: Protecting children
• £16 million: Public Transport
• £9 million: Tackling crime and anti-social behaviour
• £7 million: Street Cleaning
• £5 million: Street Lighting
• £4 million: Refuse collection
• £4 million: Job creation
• £3 million: Parks and open spaces

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/consultation-engagement-and-surveys/your-city-your-services/

[Guest]

£44 large on protecting children!!!!

Castrate and newt these pyjama wearing kyle scum!!

[Oztalgian 3,331]

Good one Catfan

Because of classification changes it is always difficult to do comparisons, however, a couple of references can be made. Using a purchasing power calculation the following occurs.

1964 Parks half a million 2015 adjusted figure should be around 9 million actual 3 million

1964 Children and Old people half a million 2015 adjusted figure again around 9 million actual 89 million, not including the 44 million spent on protecting children.

I wonder what has happened to society? It appears that the largest part of the budget is being spent on social issues.

Interestingly the average rates of a house in Nottingham in 1964 were 56 quid if we extrapolate this to today then this is equal to 1023 pounds.(sorry I can't get my computer to do a pound sign on this forum, we only have $ on our keyboards downunder.)

[Cliff Ton 10,487]

The biggest change in our lifetimes is that the internet exists and we can have this discussion at all.

It isn't so long ago that a person sitting at home wouldn't be able to have a conversation with several people in other countries (such as Bulwell) and find they had things in common to moan about.

[DJ360 6,734]

Catfan. It's all well and good posting the figures above, but you need also to reference which of those costs are effectively imposed by Central Govt. It is often overlooked that Central Govt., esp. the current bunch, are very fond of offloading 'difficult' expenditure to Local Authorities.

The latest tactic is to cut the overall grant to Local Govt at the same time as loading it with more responsibilities for 'unsexy' stuff like Social Care. Then the Govt. can claim that 'We give them plenty of money, it's up to them how they spend it'. (Or IOW 'blame them, not us') But the reality is that there simply isn't enough cash for everything, so services suffer all round.

It's a dirty dishonest tactic and it's a pity more people don't see through it.

From the same Council site you quote:

We've reached a critical point for the Council's finances

By next year, the amount of Government grant funding we get for our day-to-day spending will have more than halved since 2013 according to our latest estimates. That's a reduction of nearly £70 million.

Our funding has been reduced sharply in previous years but next year our budget challenge is even harder and deeper.

And while the Government pays less in grant towards council services, we are seeing the demand for some of our most vital services such as child protection and care for the elderly continue to grow.

More:

Nottingham City Council's Deputy Leader, Councillor Graham Chapman, said:

"Every year since 2010 we have faced huge cuts in Government funding which pays for local services - forcing us to make difficult decisions about if and how services can continue to be provided.

"By next year the Government's grant to the City Council will have more than halved since 2013, which is harsher than for many more affluent places whose citizens don't rely so heavily on council services.

"The Government's intention is that support for local services, which were previously funded from national taxation, will have to be paid for by local taxpayers out of Council Tax and Business Rates. The Government is also assuming that councils raise Council Tax over the next three years as well as levying a 2% social care precept on the Council Tax.

"This is a fundamental shift in how public services are funded which not only threatens vital services, but undermines our ability to help create the right conditions to grow our local economy and ensure there are jobs and other opportunities for local people. Services will deteriorate and opportunities will be lost. In particular the care for the elderly is being undermined, as is investment in economic development and jobs.

"It is yet another case of moving funds from the North and Midlands to the South, from the worst off to the better off, and from the national tax payer which includes the City of London and large corporations, to the local tax payer many of whose incomes are so low they are below the tax threshold."

The Department for Communities and Local Government has published information online here explaining the financial settlement for local councils from the Government's perspective:

Col

[catfan 14,793]

I never said anything about central govt Col.

The question asked was ",

"I wonder what the spend on the above is today? (after adjustment)" so I answered that question, not gettin in to a Tory bashing frenzy, although I despise the Tories !

Don't forget though some looney labour councils just love to spend council tax payers money. Like this lot in charge of Nottm.

[DJBrenton 738]

The first figure, i.e. spending on the elderly can't be compared to years ago as central government devolved £5 billion Attendance Allowance from the DWP to local governments last year. The 1989 and 2004 Children's Acts also moved responsibility for safeguarding children onto the LA's, so it's not necessarily more being spent ( on an inflation adjusted basis) but that it's now down to Local Authorities rather than central government.

[DJ360 6,734]

^^^

Precisely my point DJB.

Col

[DJ360 6,734]

I never said anything about central govt Col.

The question asked was ",

"I wonder what the spend on the above is today? (after adjustment)" so I answered that question, not gettin in to a Tory bashing frenzy, although I despise the Tories !

Don't forget though some looney labour councils just love to spend council tax payers money. Like this lot in charge of Nottm.

But Catfan, the point I was making was that whatever the rise in spending, or whatever your view of it, it can't be divorced from the actions of Central Govt. They are the ones who have devolved spending as I said, from the Centre, to Local, at the same time as cutting grants. DJB gives more detail on this above. And whilst Local may appear to be spending more, you can bet the total spend (Local + Central) is less.

And when it comes to profligacy by Local Govt of any colour the accusation is pretty difficult to sustain, when cuts of 50% or more in Govt. Grant have been made.

Not accusing you of this one Catfan, but I always got sick of complaints to my local press up here in which people basically objected to money being spent on anything not of direct benefit to themselves. So, if they were sports fans, they wanted more pitches, if they didn't bother reading, they couldn't see the point of Libraries, the elderly resented spending on the young, and vice versa.

Everyone complained about Council Tax levels, but everyone wanted the services that suited them and sod everyone else.

I recall one moaner writing about how we (The Careers Service) were 'sitting about' in our 'palatial' offices, whilst their youngsters languished on the dole. It didn't occur to them that the pleasant enough, but far from palatial offices were equipped for the youngsters, not for us, and that we were actively seeking posiitive results for all the youngsters in the borough, rather than moaning to the press.

Col