Brighton and Hove City Council has been docked 25 per cent of its Capability Fund finance due to the removal of a temporary cycle lane on Old Shoreham Road. Councillors voted to remove the cycle lane and said it required better planning to make it less “contentious” with other road users.
But it seems the decision has landed the city in hot water with the Department for Transport who requested more information on why the scheme had been scrapped.
It then emerged 25 per cent less than originally planned would be given to Brighton and Hove City Council as part of the Capability Fund.
The Fund is designed to support local transport authorities outside London by financing support staffing, resources and training to encourage active travel initiatives.
In a letter from the government it was made clear that future funding would be subject to proof of delivery, and advised the council to “realise their full potential” on active travel.
> Parents set up ‘bike train’ for school run after council rips out bike lane (+ video)
Councillor Amy Heley told the Argus: “We are of course pleased that the government continues to provide funding for our active travel projects, in recognition of the dedicated efforts we’re making with council officials to improve accessible walking and cycling options in our city.
“However, it’s disappointing to see confirmation of our concerns that the committee decision to remove the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane will detrimentally affect council finances.
“The Department for Transport was committed to awarding Brighton & Hove funding as part of the Capability Fund, but has now cut the amount they will offer in response to the Old Shoreham Road removal.”
103 thoughts on “Council docked government funding over ripped out bike lane”
Thats ok. Shoreham council
Thats ok. Shoreham council will just introduce a new stealth tax or raise council tax even more to cover the shortfall.
For example. Where i live, the local authorities made it so you have to buy a parking permit to park on the street outside your house. Not being satisfied with the money they were making from that. They decided to add another tax that would rob from you another £50-100+ a year (i think its a year) if you had a car with a more powerful motor – I think it was £88 for a 2L engine but i will have to double check.
If you think about it, it is
If you think about it, it is bizarre that you can store one form of private property – cars – on government land for free. I think I’ll just put my spare boxes from the attic on the street.
alternatively, I’ll buy a horse and expect the council to provide somewhere to store it
“alternatively, I’ll buy a
“alternatively, I’ll buy a horse and expect the council to provide somewhere to store it”
If you have ‘Common Land’ near you, then you can normally keep and graze your animals there for free.
Sounds good – well done them.
Sounds good – well done them.
RoubaixCube wrote:
All councils have been cut to the bone due to unnecessary austerity the last 11 years and parking is one of the few ways they can claw some desparately needed money back.
The money saved from Austerity has been passed to friends/bribe givers of those in power (and those in power themselves as the general public have recently found out) and has done pretty much nothing else (apart from wrecking the country).
Fact check: 1 in every 5
Fact check: 1 in every 5 pound spent in council tax goes on pensions – https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/council_spending_uncovered_ii_no_3_pensions_ljfyl_rqs9kanp9hwr5igfxm7oi
Axe ridiculous council pensions and the ‘austerity’ problem you claim vanishes.
I think citing the Tax Payers
I think citing the Tax Payers ‘Alliance’, an organisation concerned with saving the pennies that billionaires actually bother to pay in tax, funded by rich overseas donors channelled through fake charities to avoid paying tax themselves claiming to exist to make tax matters transparent is not the best source when you want to whine about where your tax goes.
Is the information wrong?
Is the information wrong?
If it’s not then the source of the information is irrelevant.
Those sorts of statement are
Those sorts of statement are meaningless.
You may as well say minus 5% of council tax is spent on car parks.
It’s just a basic failure to understand how local government is funded.
I disagree.
I disagree.
If politicians in the past had made the decision to reduce the generosity of council pensions then the burden of those pensions on council budgets would be reduced.
If it’s ok to criticise so called ‘austerity’ then surely it’s ok to criticise other political decisions which have impacted council budgets?
You disagree that it is a
You disagree that it is a meaningless measure?
Why stop with pensions? Why not cut pay or other services or stop certain services
Given that pay is 75-80% of expenditure and there is a need to recruit and retain staff, why do you think cutting pensions further would achieve a good result?
Yes.
Yes.
It’s perfectly reasonable to question any aspect of public expenditure.
I can’t see any reason why public sector pensions should not be included in that.
Question things by all means
Question things by all means but don’t come up with spurious % that are reached by a failure to understand local government financing.
Any policy that affects a pay package needs to be carefully evaluated as to the consequences.
Don’t forget that pensions have already been reduced by changes to schemes and changes to employee contributions.
By stating the figure as a
By stating the figure as a percentage of council tax income rather than total income it will appear larger but regardless of what denominator you use the numerator is still very large and needs to be included in any conversation about council financing.
But it’s clearly a way to get
But it’s clearly a way to get casual readers to falsely think that 20% of spending is on pensions, so should be challenged.
You can debate pensions but you need to consider the impact on recruitment and retention.
You may as well say 1 in 6 £ is spent on NI – let’s reduce those payments and benefits.
Alternatively it’s a way to
Alternatively it’s an effective way to communicate the scale of spending on pensions to those who pay council tax.
There will be an effect on recruitment and retention, personally I’d like to see pay rises for public sector workers in areas with many unfilled vacancies and pay cuts for those in heavily oversubscribed jobs.
No it isn’t an effective way
No it isn’t an effective way as it fails to understand (deliberately) how local councils are funded.
It’s way to stir people up though, which is why the figures are dishonest.
Take Ipswich https://www.ipswich.gov.uk/sites/www.ipswich.gov.uk/files/ibc_council_tax_financial_information_2021-22_0.pdf
149M income 149M spend of which 14.5M is council tax. Using council tax as your base is dishonest.
If people want to pay less
If people want to pay less council tax, as I imagine many TPA supporters do, then knowing how each area of council spending relates to council tax contributions is useful.
I think “dishonest” is too much of a stretch, disingenuous perhaps but even that is arguable.
Pretty sure using a base
Pretty sure using a base which is 10% of your revenue to base your spend on is dishonest.
Again you are ignoring the point that you need to understand how local government is financed not cherry pick an income stream to suit your agenda.
I’m not ignoring the point, I
I’m not ignoring the point, I’ve acknowledged it multiple times on this thread.
I just happen to disagree about the appropriateness of using council tax revenue as a denominator.
Should councils break their
Should councils break their contractual obligations to pay pensions? What about Scottish Widows, should they just decide not to pay out pensions? Should retired people go without food?
Instead of trying to be a barrack room lawyer, maybe just think for 3 seconds before tapping out something daft with your keyboard.
Not sure where you got any of
Not sure where you got any of that from?
Maybe just think for 3 seconds before you tap out something daft?
Think? Think before spouting?
Think? Think before spouting?
A leftie clycling fascist on Road.cc?
How DARE you, Sir?!
.
.
If information is correct and
If information is correct and worth sharing, then surely it’s easy to source it from an organisation that’s not completely discredited, not a front for other interests, not shadily funded, not engaged in an organised smear campaign and illegal sacking of a whistleblower, and especially – given the current climate of sleaze – not a private company inexplicably given free rein inside Downing Street.
Citing another source should be easy; and preferable; and won’t look like you (or ‘Garage at Large’) endorse corruption.
Might also be more supportive
Might also be more supportive of an argument to use a source that, even if it didn’t have the other drawbacks you cite, was less than fourteen years old.
Facts are facts regardless of
Facts are facts regardless of who says them.
Attacking the source of a an uncomfortable fact is usually just a tactic to avoid acknowledging said fact.
Rich_cb wrote:
The source is totally disingenuous though, because it says one pound in five of council tax is spent on pensions, but in fact councils have three streams of revenue, council tax (52%), government grant (31%) and business rates (17%), so in fact only one pound in ten of total council income is spent on pensions, a figure roughly comparable with what central government spends (12%). Focussing solely on a revenue stream that comprises just over half of income is a dishonest way of making things seem more significant than they are; might as well say “50% of business rates are spent on pensions”, it would be as true and as deliberately misleading as the TPA claims.
I’ve already acknowledged
I’ve already acknowledged that.
The numerator is still large enough to warrant debate regardless of the denominator chosen.
Rich_cb wrote:
So to be clear, you do acknowledge that the statement used by Nigel to support his argument for removing council pensions that one pound in five of council tax goes on pensions is, in fact, a lie?
I would not say a lie, just
I would not say a lie, just that it is meaningless. A bit like saying the average household pays X vat a year. A valid piece of arithmetic but also meaningless.
Not at all Rendel.
Not at all Rendel.
It is entirely true.
The equivalent of 20% of all council tax collected (many years ago) was spent on employer pension contributions.
Whether council tax receipts are an appropriate denominator is a matter for debate but it doesn’t make the figures inaccurate or dishonest.
Rich_cb wrote:
It would, and could, only be true if a council sequestered all council tax revenues in a separate account and only paid pensions out of said account. If all revenues (council tax, direct grant and business rates) go into the same account/system out of which pensions are paid then whilst it would be true to say that 10% of all council revenue goes on pensions, it’s not true to say that 20% of all council tax does, that’s the TPA creating a false metric in order to make the figure look at first glance, and as it would be reported in the Mail etc, twice as large as it actually is.
It is true to say that it is
It is true to say that it is “equivalent to” 20% of council tax revenue.
The “equivalent to” is the crucial bit.
That’s the exact phrase used in the report linked to by your good chum Nige.
Which is meaningless.
Which is meaningless.
Although you say you have ‘acknowledged it multiple times on this thread’ you then go on to repeat this as though it is legitimate. Doesn’t sound much of an acknowledgement and as per the Ipswich council example it is dishonest.
And with Ipswch spend at 149 M, then their salaries are going to be going on for 100M and certainly way above the 14.5 M council tax. 300% of your council tax goes on salaries. Doesn’t make any sense at all.
Also ignores the tax base and hence the actual council tax at band D. Just focusing on council tax raised without the base is another level of distortion.
Anyway this is all repetiton now, so unless something new comes up, I doubt I will make any more posts.
It’s not dishonest at all.
It’s not dishonest at all.
It’s perfectly legitimate to say that council pension contributions are “equivalent to” a fifth of all council tax revenues.
You may prefer the data presented in a different way but that is merely your opinion.
The figures are accurate and the comparison is accurate. It cannot therefore be dishonest.
Not it’s not perfectly
Not it’s not perfectly legitimate for all the reasons given.
Do you seriously think ‘salaries are 500% of council tax’ is in anyway meaningful, legitimate, equivalent.
Is is mere arthimetic – it conveys no meaning and ignores all the other points I have raised which you continue to ignore despite your claims of acknowledgement.
I think we’re in agreement
I think we’re in agreement that the figures themselves are accurate we just disagree about the way in which they are presented.
I’ve acknowledged your points regarding this, I just don’t happen to agree with them.
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
Rich_cb wrote:
A “fact” is not an argument though is it?
Making an argument involves marshalling several facts. Some of which may be uncontested by both parties, some which may. It’s also possible that something is true but not really relevant to what you’re arguing about.
So we have:
“All councils have been cut to the bone due to unnecessary austerity the last 11 years”
and
“1 in every 5 pound spent in council tax goes on pensions”
These can both be true. It may be that councils could find some extra savings or reprioritise. It may be that they have little or no control over their contributions to current pensions. It may be that what the councils do is ultimately reliant on the level of funding from government. After all there are restrictions on them around borrowing and minimum levels of service.
As for the source – this is clearly an argument about policies and where resources are spend or provided. I’d say it was entirely relevant as to who is making the argument (“fact”).
In this case markieteeee is merely pointing out that the organisation quoted has as its raison d’etre the ideological point that people should be paying much less tax. That sounds like a reasonable aim, agree or disagree. However this organisation have been accused of various tax / financial shenanigans (special pleading on their own behalf essentially – using public money for political purposes), have admitted lying to discredit their opponents (in court) and may be funded by – and principally for the benefit of – people with lots of money who don’t want to pay the tax they’re due. (Plenty of articles on that but of course that depends on your degree of trust in the BBC / the Guardian – you might question their credibility of course!) I think it’s not unreasonable to question their motivations and general credibility. Unfortunately the “whofundsyou.org” website has now gone otherwise we could look there.
If anyone is still reading (unlikely) there are some graphs available!
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/local-government-funding-england
https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/cities-outlook-2019/a-decade-of-austerity/
I read to the end,
I read to the end, chrisonatrike so don’t despair. It’s the perfect summation too. Enjoy your Sunday.
NB lower down the thread you
NB lower down the thread you scoff at an astute comedic summary of the effects of austerity. You did so because the comedian self-identifies as a Maoist and therefore is ‘stupid’. “Attacking the source of a (sic) an uncomfortable fact is usually just a tactic to avoid acknowledging said fact.”
However, in my reply to ‘Garage at Large’ I didn’t say whether the ‘fact’ was true or not, as I haven’t looked into it. I merely pointed out that citing from a discredited source is not the way to persuade people. Splitting hairs when defending a corrupt organisation is usually a tactic to avoid acknowledging your support for them.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
The summary of austerity is not astute.
It is completely flawed. It is stupid.
Adherents of Maosim have killed millions of people in attempting to implement it.
Anyone stupid enough to be a Maoist despite this is also likely to make statements on other topics that are stupid.
As they did in this situation.
I haven’t defended the TPA as an entity. I’ve defended the validity of this particular set of figures. This may simply be an example of the ‘stopped clock’ principle but from my reading of the report it appears their figures are sound on this occasion.
You have dismissed the figures based on your distrust of the organisation stating them, this is a common logical fallacy and is frequently deployed by people on all parts of the political spectrum.
Rich_cb wrote:
I quoted this because I found it funny. Like most funny things that’s because of the element of truth in it.
Think this is a bit of a dead cat here.
I’m not aware that Alexei Sayle has killed anyone – although he may have caused some to corpse. Nor has he (much as he may wish) unseated or even influenced any government that I’m aware of.
The TPA have done illegal things – that’s a matter of legal record. To me it looks more like they’re trying to liberate “some people” than “the people” from “excessive tax”.
Maoists, communists, right-wing governments and indeed dictators of all the dimensions of the political spectrum (not sure what the term is for a multi-dimensional spectrum?) have killed millions – either through targetted action or more or less directly by their policies. Non-governmental organisations and companies large and small have also been responsible for plenty of death andinjury and theft of resources in the pursuit of wealth or influence.
Anyway, back to where we started. As you say, our original fact may be true. It may be not. It’s just one point though and I’m not sure it’s entirely relevant to the “councils have had their funding reduced” point at the start of this interesting digression.
I’m sure there’s waste in councils and that they could spend their money better, just as I’m sure that the last few governments have substantially cut their funding, and that rich people and organisations work quite hard to reduce their quota of tax or simply avoid it one way or another.
I’d like people to pay a fair amount for things – like cars, or profits made – that affect or benefit from the “common” resources which we all pay for via tax. I’d like the government and councils to look at their priorities when it comes to transport and prioritise private motor transport less. (I think it’s too much to hope that they would prioritise other forms of transport over cars at the moment).
chrisonatrike wrote:
The political palette?
(Although some of them are rather less than palatable.)
The flaw in the joke is that
The flaw in the joke is that there is no element of truth to it.
It relies on the false premise that the targets for ‘austerity’ were chosen based on their responsibility for the financial crisis.
Rich_cb wrote:
Maybe just me then – I think that’s exactly what makes it funny. I can certainly agree that the targets for austerity were nothing to do with those responsible for the crisis! We had the crisis (in no way anything to do with librarians and little to do with local councils), the banks tanked, they were backed by the governments, the taxpayer ultimately footed the bill. (Maybe the taxpayer’s alliance should be calling for stronger regulation of the financial sector too?) I do believe a banker or two might have had to hand back a gong / lost a bonus so they suffered too… As a result in 2010 the government at the time chose to cut spending on services in line with a particular ideology and that mostly ended up affecting the “man in the street”. (A paper from 2011 on the effects / responses of local authorities here)
Jokes aren’t funny if you have to explain them though!
In another example of the
In another example of the ‘stopped clock’ principle, I liked one of your posts on another thread earlier. Something where someone was seemingly defending allowing people to keep their license when they’ve killed people, as it might disrupt their lives. I enjoyed your reply.
NB just to repeat, I said “Citing another source should be easy; and preferable; and won’t look like you (or ‘Garage at Large’) endorse corruption.” It was a proposal that people choose their sources with care if they wish to persuade people. But I’m glad, even in among your determination to get one over on people/ defend the GaL, you don’t defend the TPA.
Given that the figures in
Given that the figures in question appear to be from TPA’s own research an alternative source may not be available.
If you dismiss those figures out of hand then, in this situation, you deny yourself useful facts on which to base an opinion.
Rich_cb wrote:
The daily Mail reported from official figures (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6288693/amp/Council-workers-pensions-cost-taxpayer-500-year-cost-retirement-scheme-rocket.html) that local authority pensions have now increased to the equivalent of a THIRD of all council tax payments.
Completely unsustainable. If you’re talking about austerity the easiest way to tackle this would be to level the playing field between public and private sector pensions. If a private company had continued in the same vein as local authorities they’d have been wound up years ago.
Rich_cb wrote:
“Trains that run on time are really very useful” B Mussolini, 1938.
The factual basis of the quotation is undeniable. I’d still suggest using a more recent and less contentious source.
Sounds reasonable to me. Many
Sounds reasonable to me. Many council jobs are low paid and thankless. Why shouldn’t they have a decent retirement?
The reason defined benefit pensions got into trouble in the first place was crappy private sector companies low balling their funding. Then you had the Maxwell effect.
Actually public sector pay is
Actually public sector pay is roughly 10% better than private pay and gives a better pension at retirement too, certainly based upon a typical working week.
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
I’d be interested to know the basis of that assertion. It’s certainly not true in the fields of medicine, law or education.
I’d say it’s more like admin
I’d say it’s more like admin and non professional staff are paid more and professional staff are paid less.
There is also an absurd culture of unpaid overtime in this country which may affect the private sector more.
Well, that is true if look at
Well, that is true if you look at the general population. However, if you compare basic salaries of private and public sector jobs that require equivalent skills and education, then the private sector is over 20% better paid. The public sector pensions close about a third of the gap.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And it doesn’t take into account the higher proportion of other public sector jobs that require graduate and post graduate degrees. For any public sector role, it’s comparable private sector role is likely to be better paid.
is that the case though
is that the case though overall ? I thought most public sector workers were on the same kinds of defined contribution pensions thesedays, those already employed might not have been forced to accept the worse conditions that came along, as private sector workers were, but they are a declining workforce in size
In the main, they ate still
In the main, they ate still defined benefit but based on average salary over working life.
hirsute wrote:
as it should be, someone who gets a promotion and big pay rise in thier last year of working should not see their pension fund immediately increase in size proportionally. why should they recieve a pension top up over colleagues that have paid just as much, or more in over the years.
You can’t quote that Alexei
You can’t quote that Alexei Sayle line too much: “Austerity is the idea that the 2008 financial crash was caused by Wolverhampton having too many libraries.” (I’m happy to conceed that he is not just a Maxist but indeed a Maoist as he says he still is).
If he is indeed a Maoist then
If he is indeed a Maoist then it’s not surprising he made such a stupid statement.
Pensions are part of the cost
Pensions are part of the cost of employment. The cost of employment is a significant proportion of any organisation, public or private. To isolate one particular line on the cost ledger is to misunderstand what you’re talking about. But I’d expect that of the blinkered TPA.
Cut all public sector pay by
Cut all public sector pay by 5% – sorted !
Well said…
Well said…
Lead me to the Magic Money
Lead me to the Magic Money Tree, please!
That would be the one rishi
That would be the one rishi sunak has in his back garden.
Are you so ignorant that you failed to read or understand his latest budget?
For someone who moans about people playing the man, you sure are doing a great job of illustrating it.
Which sock puppet are you again ?
RoubaixCube wrote:
how much to store a shed on the road? or a bike hanger? what about a patio table?
Just perks for car owners then? Perhaps rather than charging for it they should ban all parking and return the roads to be used solely for transportation and not personal storage.
I think it’s probably a bargain, even at £100 a year, how much would it cost to build a driveway on private property instead of buying a permit? I bet it would take over 20 years to get a return on that investment.
Not a lot of sympathy for large engines, although perhaps I missed the news on the climate crises being averted, at least ot seemed that way when I passed loads of people just burning coal for fun this afternoon. Not to keep warm, but just to drive their steam engines up and down the road for shits and giggles.
Residents’ permits are just a
Residents’ permits are just a means of allowing residents to fight over the parking spaces rather than fighting with commuters and shoppers over the same space.
hirsute wrote:
But sure how that contradicts my view that parking on the road is a strange privilege afforded to drivers.
Ban overnight parking on the road, and a lot of problems go away as people do not buy cars they can’t store. Any roadside space is then used only by visitors and you don’t end up with the situation that roads end up single track with no passing places due to all the parked cars.
I’d love to see that docked
I’d love to see that docked money given to a council that is serious about active travel infrastructure.
Decisions have consequences.
Decisions have consequences. These people need to stop wasting taxpayer money and responding to kneejerk reactions. Well done to the DFT for getting tough on these wasteful councils.
Oh look. People with a right
Oh look. People with a right wing viewpoint complaining about the pay and conditions of public sector workers. Shocked I am.
Oh look. Person with a left
Oh look. Person with a left wing viewpoint thinking that Public Sector is perfect. Shocked, I tell you, shocked!
So Flintshire, do you agree
So Flintshire, do you agree that people should be just left to fend for themselves and die after a full life of working? Did you support the care home fiasco as it removed some of these dastardly leeches on society? I mean it seems you have jumped in defending someone complaining because pensioners get a pension after they retire.
Edit: Of course you will never reply or give your actual opinions as you just decide to trollsnipe along in nearly all your posts.
I’ll take my information
I’ll take my information raised in just the last few weeks to ensure the information is as up to date as possible.
From the BBC, that bastion of impartiality https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55089900
The report they refer to from the Institute of Fiscal Studies
https://election2019.ifs.org.uk/article/public-sector-pay-and-employment-where-are-we-now
There’s nothing right wing here, I’m an private sector employer myself who works alongside the public sector on a number of contracts, so see first hand the vagaries of employment rights on a daily basis.
Talking of the Green Party in
Talking of the Green Party in charge of the omnishambles in Brighton, from bike lanes to bin disasters, has anyone heard a peep from any of them at COP26?
You’d have thought they’d want to be front and centre of the debate rather than hiding in the back row.
As I understand it, the
As I understand it, the organisers were very picky about who actually got an invitation or was allowed to participate. Actual radical ‘greens’ were kept at arms length in case they disrupted the status quo.
brooksby wrote:
And did these “radical ‘greens'” also have their mouths stapled shut and computers confiscated? Not. A. Peep.
Probably a bit embarrassing for them given their heroes in the CCP are the main climate villains.
All I heard was a silly little girl claiming that the UK, as the country that industrialised first and therefore saved humanity from pestilence and poverty, was somehow on the hook for “reparations”. Puppet.
Garage at Large wrote:
Surely Nigel “I’m really a feminist” Garage wouldn’t be calling an 18-year-old woman a “silly little girl”? That would be sexist in the extreme.
Not at all, if she was a boy,
Not at all, if she was a boy, I’m call her a silly little boy too. In fact, if she was a boy I’d also add she needed a good smacked bum when she was younger.
I was half hoping she’d have a photo taken next to Sadiq Khan to see which one was taller, but don’t think it happened unfortunately.
Garage at Large wrote:
Ah, along with the racism, sexism, transphobia, cyclist hatred et al you also support the physical abuse of children. You really are a charmer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well, no – be fair – only the physical abuse of boys. Because they wouldn’t want to be sexist.
Wait… how does that work again?
Yeah, it’s really kind of
Yeah, it’s really kind of disturbing when someone thinks they’re being reasonable by saying they’re only in favour of hitting boys on the bottom but not girls, isn’t it? How about adults not hitting any child on the bottom, or anywhere else?
Trendy Rendy.
Trendy Rendy.
The gift that keeps on giving to the Woke Brigade.
T’anks, Rendie.
mdavidford wrote:
Ooo, is it the same as not being able to comment on womens weight, but asking if a chap is pregnant is just bants?
Is is a surprise as well
Is is a surprise as well being as boo is a big supporter of a leader that claims Climate change is one of the seven biggest hoaxes of all time (releasing offiicial statements to that fact in the last week), pulled out of the Paris Accords AND also removed lots of climate and enviromental controls in his country. And of course boasted about grabbing women by their pussies and having sex with a porn star because his wife wasn’t giving him any because (checks notes) she had just given birth to his son.
Of course the greens “heroes” are main climate villains…..
Rendel Harris wrote:
Surely Nigel “I’m really a feminist” Garage wouldn’t be calling an 18-year-old woman a “silly little girl”? That would be sexist in the extreme.— Garage at Large
Surely not being able to insult her because she’s a girl is actually sexist. No one is saying men are immune to criticism, so women aren’t either. Furthermore public figures are fair game. Greta should go back to school and leave the politics to the adults, and the science to the scientists.
All she ever does is go on the microphone and insult the hosts of whatever she’s been invited to. The audience claps at her, then she leaves.
Jenova20 wrote:
Think you’ve missed the point there, Ms.Thunberg is eighteen years old, nineteen in January, so she is a woman, not a girl. Calling women “silly little girls” is sexist and patronising, as is telling them to “go back to school and leave politics to the adults” – she’s past school age and is an adult.
Rendel Harris wrote:
If people weren’t able to call men boys you might have a point…But they are, so you don’t. Again, women aren’t immune to criticism as THAT would be sexist. Besides, i’m not saying people should go and insult or attack each other, i’m just correcting your misunderstanding of what sexism is.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.
If a man behaved childlike,
If a man behaved childlike, maybe they get called a silly little boy. If a woman behaves childlike, maybe they might get called a silly little girl. If you point out where some man who is an activist in some way has been called a silly little boy because they have dared to raise serious issues with politicians then you might have a point.
I would actually argue that people like Greta and honoury Brummie Malala Yousafzai are actually mature for their ages anyway, especially being involved in worldwide political issues whilst actually still being at school at the time.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Owen Jones. Oh sorry you said “serious issues”, I take it back.
Using logic with Trendy Rendy
Using logic with Trendy Rendy?
How DARE you, Sir?!!
The Greens are taking COP26
The Greens are taking COP26 very seriously.
I believe the leader of Brighton Council flew to Glasgow especially.
Rich_cb wrote:
Indeed. And subsequently apologised for it as it undermined his credibility somewhat. The party leader didn’t fly. Make of that what you will.
I wonder if anyone else from other groups going to this “conference on climate change” has apologised for chosing to fly? Pick your favourite colour: Blue, Red (this was actually before COP) – apologies, I can’t find much on the two shades of Yellow but the SNP would certainly get some stick if they flew…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Indeed. And subsequently apologised for it as it undermined his credibility somewhat. The party leader didn’t fly. Make of that what you will.
I wonder if anyone else from other groups going to this “conference on climate change” has apologised for chosing to fly? Pick your favourite colour: Blue, Red (this was actually before COP) – apologies, I can’t find much on the two shades of Yellow but the SNP would certainly get some stick if they flew…— Rich_cb
Not sure if Boris apologised, but he did get a train afterwards.
Please don’t bring that to
Please don’t bring that to the attention of Trendy Rendy.
He copes very poorly with anything that questions his certainties.
.
.
Garage at Large wrote:
They’ve said plenty – just because the Telegraph or the Mail or whatever other rag you favour doesn’t report it doesn’t mean they haven’t been speaking up.
Trendy Rendy again – only
Trendy Rendy again – only ‘facts’ which support his certainties will be entertained.
Anything that might cause him to think for a moment …. well, they are clearly lies, aren’t they?!
.
.
Garage at Large wrote:
I think they may have been crowded out by representatives of the fossil fuel industries! Who were obviously there to discuss “phasing down” their businesses out of course.
Council A
Council A
Total Spend 100M
Pension Costs 10M
Council Tax raised 50M
Council Tax at Band D £150
Council B
Total Spend 100M
Pension Costs 10M
Council Tax raised 25M
Council Tax at Band D £150
Council A has pension costs of 20% of Council Tax
Council B has pension costs of 40% of Council Tax
Therefore despite the Band D council tax being the same and the pension costs being the same, Council B is far worse than Council A on the basis of the % of pension costs / council tax raised.