Friday, January 20, 2023
Those pre-election 'bribes'
Following on from yesterday's post about the Prime Minister's wealthy constituency being awarded £19 million of levelling up funds, the Guardian reports that an analysis of the way the £4 billion fund has been distributed has found that Tory seats have been awarded significantly more money per person than areas with similar levels of deprivation.
The paper says that the disclosure is bound to provoke further fury from some regional leaders, who on Thursday accused Rishi Sunak of offering “pre election bribes”:
Research by the Guardian found that the money allocated so far would disproportionately benefit people in Conservative seats. Voters in Tory seats got £19.47 more a head than those in similarly deprived non-Conservative constituencies in the latest round of funding.
Sunak was forced to defend the government’s allocation of levelling up funds after announcing the 111 projects that will benefit a share of the £2.1bn on offer before the next general election. The winners included £50m for Eden Project North in Morecambe and £50m for a new rail line in Cardiff. However, the awards were met with anger and dismay from across the political spectrum after a number of deprived areas missed out.
Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, decried the government’s “begging bowl culture” and said he had pressed ministers for answers on why some of the region’s poorest areas had lost out.
He added: “The centralised system of London civil servants making local decisions is flawed and I cannot understand why the levelling up funding money was not devolved for local decision-makers to decide on what is best for their areas.”
A Guardian analysis found that Conservative marginal seats, those with majorities of fewer than 8,000 votes, have received 1.5 times the amount of funding per person than all other constituencies under the £4bn budget – £76 a head compared with £53 a head.
Constituencies that won under the Conservative landslide in 2019 – many of which will be vulnerable at the next general election – have been awarded almost twice as much per person as other seats.
Those constituencies, which include “red wall” areas such as Burnley, Workington and Blyth Valley, have received £90 a head under the levelling up fund compared with an average of £53 a head in all other seats.
When deprivation is taken into account there was no statistically significant difference in the per capita awards between marginal seats and others, or between 2019 gains and others. However, voters in Tory seats as a whole benefited from almost £20 more a head, after taking deprivation into account.
Instead of awarding money to areas based on levels of deprivation, the government says it takes into account other factors including value for money, deliverability, and whether the project fits with the priorities of the levelling up fund. That choice has had major implications for funding allocations.
Labour and SNP MPs who lost out voiced frustration at an urgent question in parliament on Thursday, saying Tory areas were having “mouths stuffed with gold” and saying the process “stinks” and was “grubby pork-barrel politics”.
Council leaders questioned the government’s approach after areas like Sefton in Merseyside, which includes some of the most deprived streets in the country, were not deemed to be of high need and had bids rejected.
At least the EU structure funds had a clear and transparent rationale and were based on need. There is nothing like that involved in this process.
The paper says that the disclosure is bound to provoke further fury from some regional leaders, who on Thursday accused Rishi Sunak of offering “pre election bribes”:
Research by the Guardian found that the money allocated so far would disproportionately benefit people in Conservative seats. Voters in Tory seats got £19.47 more a head than those in similarly deprived non-Conservative constituencies in the latest round of funding.
Sunak was forced to defend the government’s allocation of levelling up funds after announcing the 111 projects that will benefit a share of the £2.1bn on offer before the next general election. The winners included £50m for Eden Project North in Morecambe and £50m for a new rail line in Cardiff. However, the awards were met with anger and dismay from across the political spectrum after a number of deprived areas missed out.
Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, decried the government’s “begging bowl culture” and said he had pressed ministers for answers on why some of the region’s poorest areas had lost out.
He added: “The centralised system of London civil servants making local decisions is flawed and I cannot understand why the levelling up funding money was not devolved for local decision-makers to decide on what is best for their areas.”
A Guardian analysis found that Conservative marginal seats, those with majorities of fewer than 8,000 votes, have received 1.5 times the amount of funding per person than all other constituencies under the £4bn budget – £76 a head compared with £53 a head.
Constituencies that won under the Conservative landslide in 2019 – many of which will be vulnerable at the next general election – have been awarded almost twice as much per person as other seats.
Those constituencies, which include “red wall” areas such as Burnley, Workington and Blyth Valley, have received £90 a head under the levelling up fund compared with an average of £53 a head in all other seats.
When deprivation is taken into account there was no statistically significant difference in the per capita awards between marginal seats and others, or between 2019 gains and others. However, voters in Tory seats as a whole benefited from almost £20 more a head, after taking deprivation into account.
Instead of awarding money to areas based on levels of deprivation, the government says it takes into account other factors including value for money, deliverability, and whether the project fits with the priorities of the levelling up fund. That choice has had major implications for funding allocations.
Labour and SNP MPs who lost out voiced frustration at an urgent question in parliament on Thursday, saying Tory areas were having “mouths stuffed with gold” and saying the process “stinks” and was “grubby pork-barrel politics”.
Council leaders questioned the government’s approach after areas like Sefton in Merseyside, which includes some of the most deprived streets in the country, were not deemed to be of high need and had bids rejected.
At least the EU structure funds had a clear and transparent rationale and were based on need. There is nothing like that involved in this process.
Comments:
<< Home
Catterick.A huge semi military town that has been taken for granted. If this needs the money it implies it has been neglected by past Conservative MPs (Hague comes to mind) before Sunak.Now Sunak is PM it would be 'unwise' not to bring it up to scratch.Bad vibes for Conservative image.
You could also argue that since the military are unable to go on strike their needs are not important enough unless it is expediant to bring it up to modern standards.Political motives to bring in improvements
Post a Comment
You could also argue that since the military are unable to go on strike their needs are not important enough unless it is expediant to bring it up to modern standards.Political motives to bring in improvements
<< Home
