The Tory way of governance

Meanwhile, in Scotland, squirming Ruth Davidson is left 'impaled' trying to defend the indefensible: -

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/13/ruth-davidson-challenges-nicola-sturgeon-rape-clause-row/

If only the Tories would do this.

www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/15/labour-plans-clampdown-on-sweetheart-deals-to-close-36bn-tax-gap

It would solve a lot of the UK's financial problems, and specifically the NHS.

labourlist.org/2017/04/mays-brexit-bluster-cannot-hide-the-tory-crises-in-schools-housing-and-health/

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/cuts-hardworking-families-tories-child-tax-cut-universal-credit

Nicky Morgan stood up to May and look what happened to her. Not even invited to a meeting that she should have been invited to.

Greening is talking rot. She is impaled on an promise made by the PM. I wonder if she is brave enough to face any of the teaching union conferences.
As for the "we're spending more in cash terms than ever before" this is an incredibly weak argument when teachers, governors and most informed people understand that costs have gone up much faster than funding recently.
Fortunately in Wales some of the effects of Tory austerity are mitigated by our Labour government which is doing its best to protect education, health and care despite a big cut in its grant.

Austerity was unnecessary. Tory politicians did what they wanted to do, whatewver the economists said.

mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/henry-farrell-on-economists-and.html

www.thecanary.co/2017/04/13/people-missed-major-gaffe-theresa-mays-brexit-plan-video-people-bristol-didnt-video/

The video has to be watched as well as the comments read.

So is she, whitewave. The difference is that you care, and she doesn't. She has to do what May tells her, or she'll lose the perks that go with education secretary.

With regard to the mad policy of expanding the Grammer Schools.

Justice Greening was asked to point to an educational expert that supports and argues for the Grammer School. She couldn't find a single one. Schools are facing the biggest cuts for 20 years, and yet this ridiculous policy -which everyone knows except May will not achieve what she maintains it will- will be sucking further money out of the system.

Those who will benefit she says are families on £33000 pa. and above. Can't understand why those families below that level won't qualify. Given that 53% of current places are filled by children from wealthy families, I am unclear how she is going to tackle this issue.

www.24housing.co.uk/news/council-to-buy-former-right-to-buy-properties/

Well done, Salford. I do hope it works, and other councils copy them.

Then it makes no sense at all.

I don't understand. They are not necessarily moved into private accommodation, but into B&Bs, often in a different part of the country.
It's the council which has to pick up the tab for it. Why move them to more expensive accommodation that they still can't afford?

durhamjen isn't that because private landlords tend to vote Tory?

Crisis in social housing. Can anyone see the sense in evicting families from council housing then having to pay more to house them temporarily?

www.24housing.co.uk/news/over-1000-social-housing-tenants-evicted-in-london/

Crisis in election expenses.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/10/tory-election-spending-johnny-mercer-mp-police-some-claims-were-wrong

Never thought of that, sunseeker. They have to have British citizenship first. My daughters in law have worked here for over 20 years without having applied for that so they have never been able to vote in general elections, although they can in local elections.
Of course, an asylum seeker is more likely to apply for citizenship for fear of being sent back to his or her own country.

Just a thought, but if most asylum seekers are housed in Labour controlled areas, when they are finally granted asylum and the right to vote won't they be more inclined to vote Labour?

What would London do? They will need at least 2/3rds of that.

Mind you, this will stop economic migrants, if it gets off the ground.

"A hardline pro-Brexit group backed by more than 20 Conservative MPs has called for net migration to be cut to 50,000 a year, with work visas limited to those earning at least £35,000 a year, a plan criticised by opponents as likely to damage the economy and harm the NHS.

The proposal by Leave Means Leave – whose Tory backers include Owen Paterson, Dominic Raab, John Whittingdale and Gerald Howarth – marks something of a rearguard action by strong Brexit supporters over immigration numbers."

Leave means Leave, eh?
Double entendre or what?

Didn't Gordon Brown indicate that LAs should receive a premium if they had more than their fair share of immigrants? Perhaps the Tory councils should be made to dib up?

The answer seems to be half way down the article, privatisation, as ever:

Cooper said that the problems stemmed from a change of policy in 2012 by the Conservatives, which saw the contracts for housing asylum seekers privatised and given to G4S, Serco and Clearsprings. She said these contracts, and the reduced money they were given to execute them, inevitably meant that companies sought to procure cheap housing in poor parts of the country.

Apparently it's to do with the way the system was privatised in 2012, so companies like Serco, etc., pay for the housing.
Something eelse it's time we stopped privatising.
Nearly all in Labour councils. I wonder what will happen if Labour lose councils in next month's elections. Will they be turfed out to go over the border into another Labour led council?

"While waiting for their claims to be heard, asylum seekers are entitled to basic healthcare and children are given places in local schools, but local authorities are not given any additional payment by central government to help cover these costs.

Guardian analysis of Home Office data also found that asylum seekers are sent overwhelmingly to areas with Labour-led councils. On average, local authorities with Labour-led councils house 11.6 asylum seekers per 10,000 population, whereas local authorities with Conservative-led councils have 0.7 asylum seekers per 10,000, when comparing local authorities which either had a Conservative or Labour majority or were led by a minority of councillors from one of those parties.

There are 174 local authorities – or 45% of the total – that do not house any asylum seekers. Sixty-nine per cent of all local authorities house fewer than 10 asylum seekers.

Of those local authorities that house no asylum seekers, 62.6% have Conservative-led councils and 10.9% are Labour-led. "

Yes I saw that dj . Do we know how the decision is made as to where these poor souls are housed?

Why should asylum seekers be housed in the poorer parts of the UK? Shouldn't every county take its share?

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/its-a-shambles-data-shows-most-asylum-seekers-put-in-poorest-parts-of-britain