Remix.run Logo
gchadwick 14 days ago

I think a key part of the 'poor' feeling in day to day experience comes from councils' inability to do maintenance, things like pot holes, children's play equipment, public toilet, general upkeep on public spaces and services like libraries. In the grand scheme of things this isn't too expensive but it's been cut to the bone due to way local government funding works. This is explored in the article:

> in large part because they’re mandated to write blank cheques for social care with no support or strategy from central government. Individual cases in Central Bedfordshire are now costing up to £750,000 per year, a quarter of the entire libraries and leisure budget and an amount that is rising rapidly with no apparent ceiling. As I wrote previously, “In a single year, residential care costs for children have increased by £2,000 per child… per week,” taking the average cost for a single case from ~£200,000 to ~£300,000 per child per year, again with little explanation as to where the money is going or how this is even possible.

> Similarly, “school transport costs have increased by over 100% - from £9m to £20m - in just 4 years” - that’s driven by an unexplained rise in the number of SEND pupils eligible for support and it amounts to roughly the same as - deep breath - the transport, roads, parking, libraries, leisure, housing benefit, public protection and safety budgets combined. Central Bedfordshire Council is not an outlier here - collectively, council overspends on SEND services are set to hit £2bn in the next year, risking further bankruptcies. Again this is not about pitting children against libraries, but asking if we seriously believe we’re addressing either of these things well?

Local councils have to pay the very large bills for social care and supporting SEND children but have basically little control over how it's spent or levers to help control the bills.

Fixing this so councils can once again spend relative minor amounts of money improving the public realm could go a long way to improving day to day experience. Definitely some other large structural problems (see the huge costs of HS2) but it would provide a noticeable improvement in people's lives and potentially isn't too hard for a government willing to make some bold changes around taxation, local government funding and providing proper national strategy and funding on social care.

pjc50 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

The unfunded mandate system for councils is extremely stupid. Local democracy has long been bad in the UK, but mandating policy centrally and then letting that destroy any connection between local taxation and local budgeting is even worse.

gchadwick 14 days ago | parent [-]

It's even worse when paired with the ability for a local authority to go bankrupt when it can't cover the bills and be forced to sell off major capital assets (e.g. buildings, sometimes of significant public interest like concerts halls, leisure centres and other community venues).

Of course the actual place continues to exist so the local authority will continue to exist in another form, this time with fewer major capital assets and they're paying rents to the people who now own them instead.

As pointed out in the article you could see this happen when something entirely out of the authorities control (e.g. spending on SEND children due to the massive increase in eligible children in Central Bedfordshire's case) causes it too.

Muromec 14 days ago | parent [-]

>It's even worse when paired with the ability for a local authority to go bankrupt when it can't cover the bills and be forced to sell off major capital assets (e.g. buildings, sometimes of significant public interest like concerts halls, leisure centres and other community venues).

Which may be perceived as a actual goal of this mandate if you have enough of tinfoil in your hat.

TheOtherHobbes 14 days ago | parent [-]

Given that the UK is promoting corporate-owned no-democracy "enterprise zones" it's not tinfoil hat at all.

It's the standard neoliberal playbook - defund and cripple public services, complain they're not working, then insist the only solution is for-profit privatisation because it's "more efficient".

The result is that all utilities and much of the infrastructure are being run down for profit, and have to be regularly bailed out by central government at vast expense.

Which is fine, because this creates a transfer of wealth from tax payers to the already wealthy.

The aristocracy literally cannot imagine a country which isn't run for their personal benefit. And the consequence is that many of the areas in the UK are now poorer than anywhere in Europe, or even the US deep south.

sarchertech 14 days ago | parent [-]

> poorer than anywhere in Europe, or even the US deep south.

By far the poorest state in the US, Mississippi (the deepest south you can get) has a GDP per capita just $1,500 less than Germany.

The 2nd and 3rd and 4th poorest states (all southern), West Virginia, Arkansas, and Alabama, have GDPs per capita $6k higher than Germany.

Georgia and Tennessee, 2 other states in the Deep South have GDPs per capita higher than all European countries except Luxembourg, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway and Iceland.

https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/03/the-poorest-us-...

justin66 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

You are not thinking clearly about the post you're responding to and you're not thinking clearly about the problems faced by the places you're describing. The person you're responding to probably thinks having a lot of deeply impoverished people makes a place "poor." You: some bullshit about GDP.

sarchertech 14 days ago | parent [-]

Look at any other objective measurement. Percent of people living below the global poverty line adjusted for PPP. Median income, 25th percentile income.

By all of those measures, the poorest states in the Deep South rank higher than many European countries.

So saying "poorer than anywhere Europe, or even the US Deep South", implies that you think the Deep South is poorer than anywhere in Europe. This is an absurd statement because the poorest places in Europe are much poorer than the poorest places in the US.

If you take the poorest zip code in the United States and look at the median income, 1st quartile income, (or even percent of people under the global poverty line adjusted for PPP), it's not even close to last place among European countries.

People have a very skewed view of the Deep South. Because parts of it are poorer than average for the rest of the country doesn't mean it's objectively poor when compared to the rest of the world.

munjak 14 days ago | parent [-]

>Look at any other objective measurement. Percent of people living below the global poverty line adjusted for PPP. Median income, 25th percentile income.

HDI and Inequality adjusted HDI are not an objective measurement?

sarchertech 14 days ago | parent [-]

If you’re looking at HDI, Mississippi (the lowest scoring state in the US), would rank 25 out of 41 European countries.

I can’t find IHDI by state, but given that the US only drops a few spots between HDI and IHDI, Mississippi isn’t likely to be anywhere near the bottom.

All southern states except Mississippi rank in the top 50% of European counties by HDI btw.

My point stands.

justin66 11 days ago | parent [-]

You ought to go on a road tour, tell all the people with nothing that on average they’re not poor.

> My point stands.

Funny stuff.

carlob 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

your point being?

sarchertech 14 days ago | parent [-]

That it’s ridiculous to say “poorer than anywhere in Europe or even the US Deep South”. The poorest parts of Europe are so much more impoverished than anywhere in the Deep South that that is an absurd statement.

It’s a skewed European attitude to look down on the southern US as the poorest place they can think of outside of Africa or Asia. When in fact the vast majority of the South is better off than economically than 90% of European countries.

I once talked to someone traveling to Atlanta ask “do you get CNN down there?” CNN is based in Atlanta.

carlob 11 days ago | parent [-]

But what you are saying is only true if your measure of poverty is GDP per capita, which is not very good when comparing different levels of inequality or different public policies. Are you sure your claim stands up when you look at things like food insecurity, access to health services and education, percentage of unhoused or under houser...

varispeed 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "In a single year, residential care costs for children have increased by £2,000 per child… per week"

and child is being looked after by barely qualified minimum wage worker (often actually paid below minimum wage if you add unpaid overtime and foreign workers not knowing the laws), meanwhile owners of care services live opulent lifestyles in places like Dubai. UK services market is not free, which is part of the problem.

prawn 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For anyone else unaware:

SEND = "Special educational needs and disabilities"

andybak 13 days ago | parent [-]

Thank you. I'm in the UK and I've never heard this before.

RobinL 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To make matters worse, there's also litte evidence that the increases in spending on SEND provision have led to better outcomes.

I can't help feeling like this is a vicious cycle - the lack of community facilities is causing greater isolation, causing a rise in health needs and so on.

BurningFrog 14 days ago | parent [-]

Sounds like whoever receives the SEND money has a lot of political power.

mike_hearn 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's bad policy in other areas. Councils are going bankrupt due to court cases and equity laws that say any gender pay gap is the result of discrimination. Therefore they were found guilty because they are paying e.g. bin men or sewage workers more than mostly female jobs like nurses and librarians. They obviously have to do this because those jobs are dangerous and unpleasant so if you paid the same as other jobs nobody would want to do them. But the courts disagreed and now the councils have to pay huge sums out in equal pay lawsuits that they can't afford.

All this is a direct result of bad, ideological law making combined with a biased judiciary that interprets it in bad, ideological ways. Unfortunately it's the ideology Labour is in thrall too and they're in power for several years at minimum and maybe much longer if the right stays split, so the state of Britain's infrastructure will continue to sharply decline.

pseudalopex 14 days ago | parent [-]

> Councils are going bankrupt due to court cases and equity laws that say any gender pay gap is the result of discrimination.

Where can I read about this?

mike_hearn 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

This summary is OK:

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_d7ff3a8f-9cf7-4ff3-837a-0bbb...

Although Grok thinks the problem lies in "deep rooted inequalities", whereas I'd say it's pretty normal for jobs like bin men to be paid more than cleaners. It's one of the most dangerous jobs you can do, due to the frequency with which they get hit by cars.

pseudalopex 14 days ago | parent [-]

Grok does not think.

The summary did not support your claim court cases and equity laws said any gender pay gap was the result of discrimination. It said the plaintiffs argued successfully they were paid less for work of equal value. It was not clear cleaning and refuse collection were determined equal value. The summary mentioned also contract clauses.

It sounds like the real issue is you disagree with the value of work calculated for some jobs.

gruez 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/02/06/british-equal-v...

paywall bypass: https://archive.is/MLC49

It only mentions councils in passing and doesn't cover them going bankrupt over it, but it covers the issue at hand, which affects the private sector as well.

pseudalopex 14 days ago | parent [-]

The claim was court cases and equity laws say any gender pay gap is the result of discrimination. Including different pay for different jobs. The article highlighted detailed consideration of value of work. The article did not support the claim. But it was informative. Thank you.

varispeed 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> general upkeep on public spaces and services like libraries

This is also a cultural issue. In large cities, people often don't feel as being part of the community and they don't take pride in their surroundings. They put rubbish everywhere, vandalise. There is little done to change that. They see neighbour has nice flowers in the garden? Instead of admiring, they will cut them off.

OtherShrezzing 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

>This is also a cultural issue. In large cities, people often don't feel as being part of the community and they don't take pride in their surroundings. They put rubbish everywhere, vandalise. There is little done to change that. They see neighbour has nice flowers in the garden? Instead of admiring, they will cut them off.

I don't think this aligns with the lived-experience of most Britons. The big cities are mostly litter-free areas, and people can have well tended gardens go unmolested by neighbours.

varispeed 14 days ago | parent [-]

Not my experience from living in South London. There is rubbish everywhere and I had my front garden vandalised many times.

deanc 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

London is not representative of the rest of the UK. It’s about 11% of the population, consisting of numerous councils and boroughs with different demographics and “upkeep”.

schnitzelstoat 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

South London is pretty extreme though. In the towns and smaller cities it's usually not as bad.

Cthulhu_ 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"In large cities" is very much a sweeping generalisation. What you're describing sounds a lot like it's caused by broken window syndrome; people put rubbish everywhere because there's no good trash collection system (I know in the UK people have to pay for it, so they just dump it in nature instead. Collect it from people's doorsteps for free and fly tipping wouldn't be nearly as big an issue anymore.

Vandalism is a difficult one. But it's likely because the people doing it don't have anything better to do, no hobbies, jobs, families, responsibilities, etc. And also, broken window syndrome.

But then you look at e.g. east or southeast asia and they have things like neat closed off bus stops with heating and you're like, "Why can't we have nice things?". We're stuck with glass booths with a beam for leaning against at best. Glass so that people in there are visible and don't use it as a public toilet, uncomfortable seating so people don't use it as a hang-out or sleeping spot. But the design adapts to a problem, one which the government has little interest in fixing - or which would infringe on people's rights.

mattmanser 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

We don't have to pay for it, it's just part of the general council tax [1], so if you're exempt from that, you get free rubbish collections.

We also have free bulky waste collection, so again, we actually already have that. You just have to arrange for it. You are very poorly informed.

There are also free council run recycling centres (previously known as tips), where you can take stuff yourself. Some have a charge for hardcore, that's about it. Businesses cannot use them though and must pay for waste disposal themselves.

Fly tipping is fairly rare in the UK, I saw an armchair fly tipped on a train journey yesterday and it was notable because you rarely see that sort of thing.

There are areas with fly tipping problems, but usually because those people are lazy, not because of cost. And the council will clear it up (at least eventually depending on the area).

We are having a problem with councils struggling to perform their usual role at the moment. Running out of money. Potholes are a hot topic.

This is actually because our councils are mandated to provide care for old people, and the cost has sky rocketed in the last 2 decades, while they've been capped on how much they can raise their tax. So now almost 90% of my council tax gets spent on old person care instead of what most people might think it was for, bins, schools, parks, etc..

[1] It's not worth going into different taxes here, think of it as a state tax instead of a federal tax. In fact the UK government have a large degree of control in that they force the councils to spend most of it on mandated services and can dictate how much the councils are allowed to raise it by

philipallstar 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> I know in the UK people have to pay for it, so they just dump it in nature instead. Collect it from people's doorsteps for free and fly tipping wouldn't be nearly as big an issue anymore.

This just isn't true. The council takes taxes at pain of going to jail to eventually pay for this service. Saying "make it free and the behaviour will change" is just nonsense. Things can't all be free. People need to make an effort to keep their neighbourhoods nice.

If they don't feel that a neighbourhood is "theirs" - that's more likely to be a problem.

pastage 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In the cities I have been to this is not my experience, at least in South America and the Nordics. The wear and tear of lots of people means you need to design things differently in well visisted areas, but there a square meter sees more people in a day than you get in a year in small villages.

Muromec 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, look, the usual dogwhistle of "not throwing pataat op de straat".

tiahura 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

sofixa 14 days ago | parent [-]

That's a dumb racist dogwhistle, Marrakesh and Kandy are very homogenous yet quite filthy.

The common denominator is education and poverty, not skin colour or religion or whatever you imagine it to be.

0_____0 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

Conversely New Zealand cities ime are extremely clean (kids running around barefoot?) despite having sizable minority populations.

Der_Einzige 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you’re trying to make a point against racism, don’t bring up Morocco. It’s a “no go” zone for anyone who pays attention.

sofixa 14 days ago | parent [-]

Nonsense. I was there around a year ago, and while I didn't like it (locals were very pushy and scammy with tourists), there is nothing dangerous other than the classic potential theft/getting bitten by a monkey/snake stufd.

billy99k 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"The common denominator is education and poverty"

Is everyone in Japan wealthy and educated?

HPsquared 14 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Somehow, this isn't called corruption.

pjc50 14 days ago | parent [-]

It would be nice to have someone to point the finger at; SERCO? What evidence do we have?

anon291 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For some reason Britain's migrant population is disproportionately reliant on government services. This is a common talking point in American politics, but doesn't seem a common one in English politics, but in England the data is pretty incontrivertible, whereas in America it's a bit harder to ascertain.

This is because America's alleged welfare queens are undocumented, whereas Britain's are there legally and the government actually has very good data on which groups are a net boon and which are a net draw on the economy.

I'm not a Brit and I could care less at the end of the day, but it does seem kind of bonkers to me to be importing people while your own country suffers.

deanc 14 days ago | parent [-]

It is absolutely untrue that this isn’t a talking point. It’s all the far right and tabloid newspapers talk about.

anon291 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

Fair enough. I don't see it on BBC or any of the british sources I read, and you'd think it'd be a pretty neutral topic, since the data is published by the central govt.

nvarsj 14 days ago | parent | next [-]

It’s probably the main reason Tories got obliterated the last election. After it came out we had 1m net immigration (up from prior 500k which had already 2x’d the normal 250k net).

deanc 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well the BBC mostly are reporting and have to be very careful what they say due to neutrality laws governing them. However, tune in to Question Time and you will hear these voices.

xhkkffbf 14 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is part of the problem. The venues that mention this are labeled "far right". The other ones try to ignore the issue because they want to pretend it isn't happening. But it shouldn't be a "far right" discussion. Everyone should be in on it because the consequences are so significant.

deanc 14 days ago | parent [-]

Venues claiming immigrants in the UK disproportionately consume resources often exhibit far-right traits. They rely on nationalist framing, selectively citing NHS or welfare burdens while omitting immigrant tax contributions and economic value (e.g., ONS data shows net fiscal positivity). The pattern: exaggeration, scapegoating, and "us vs. them" rhetoric—mirrors far-right strategies, prioritizing ideology over evidence. It’s less about resource analysis, more about exclusionary politics.