Maybe Labour shouldn’t have come so close to bankrupting the country then? Which bit of a 150bn deficit do you not understand?

You should expect nothing less from the tories they do this sort of thing every time they are in power.

1. Tyler

“Which bit of a 150bn deficit do you not understand?”

The bit where a short term saving that leads to higher long term costs will help to reduce it?

@ Tyler

“Maybe Labour shouldn’t have come so close to bankrupting the country then? Which bit of a 150bn deficit do you not understand?”

This comment misses the point entirely. The author is arguing that the sacking of this youth worker will ultimately cost more public money than it saves. So where is the sense in trying to press upon him the importance of saving public money? Either you need to make some sort of case for thinking that he’s wrong (and sacking this youth worker *will* ultimately save public money), or you should be supporting him *precisely because* you believe the country is close to bankruptcy and urgently needs to reduce its deficit.

Bearing in mind the likely cost of, say, just one teenage girl becoming pregnant and one teenage boy becoming addicted to heroin and turning to crime to support his habit, does it really strike you as plausible that the net effect of sacking this youth worker will be to save public money?

Would this be the same council that pays over £140k a year to the Chief Exec and 12 others get in excess of £75k a year?

How the hell can running council offices in Oxford be worth the same amount as the Prime Minister gets?

I don’t care what party they’re from I simply think that these councils need to get real and before they start cutting libraries they should lower the wage bill…

@1 Tyler: “Which bit of a 150bn deficit do you not understand?”

That argument only goes so far, Tyler. Like a lot of people at LC, I recognise that cuts are necessary and that the difference between Labour cuts and coalition cuts is about 25%.

But when cuts are to be made, it is desirable that that the cut generates a net saving. Owing to the ways that public services and tax raising are organised in the UK, the body that spends money is not the only public body that benefits from the consequences. The reverse rule applies to cuts.

The example provided by Joe McManners suggests that the county council will make a modest saving by eliminating a job that improves order and young people’s life prospects. The cost will fall on the police authority and city council initially, on crime victims, eventually on central government.

It would be nice to imagine a world in which local councils, police authorities, quangos, health trusts et al co-operated, shared costs and shared responsibility. Or we could come to terms with the idea that spending is best managed when cost is as close as possible to the beneficiary. By “best managed”, I mean in terms of efficacy and economy.

On the face of it, it does sound like a counter productive thing to cut. However, is there really no way to run this service without making this cut? If so what would the councillor cut instead to balance the budget?

On who is to blame for these hard times? Try Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England:

He laid the blame for the financial crisis, the bailout and subsequent austerity cuts directly on banks in testimony to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee
on Tuesday.

“Now is the period when the cost is being paid. I’m surprised the real anger hasn’t been greater than it has,” Mr King said, referring the harsh cuts being introduced by the government to slash the massive debts created by the financial crisis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8354727/Mervyn-King-is-surprised-anger-at-bankers-is-not-greater.html

On who is hit most by yesterday’s Budget? Try the Telegraph again:

Pensioners hit hardest by Budget
http://news.google.co.uk/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn

That’s a smart political move, of course. By the next election, many pensioners won’t be around to vote for one reason or another. So much for the Coalition and its concerns about promoting democracy in Libya.

Perhaps Mr King might like to reflect a little on his own role in keeping interest rates ludicrously low and stoking the housing/commercial property boom before blaming it *all* on the banks.

How about only halving the defecit during this parliamentary term thereby leaving another £30 billion plus to spend on the economy.. Just a thought?

@9: “Perhaps Mr King might like to reflect a little on his own role in keeping interest rates ludicrously low ”

C’mon. A couple of years back, John Redwood, a Conservative front-bencher at the time, was complaining that Mr King kept interest rates too high, which is what was causing the recession.

I’ve good reason for remembering that because when I posted about it in the Conservative Home blog, my post was censored out. So much for open debate.

Btw Mr King doesn’t personally make the decisions about interest rates. The decisions about interest rates are the outcome of a vote in the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC).

Rather than blaming the MPC, it would make more sense to blame under-regulation of the banks by the Financial Services Authority – which has already owned up to contributing errors of omission and commission (*) – and to the perceptive diagnosis of Alan Greenspan: in testimony on 24 October 2008 to the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee, he said:

“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html

Mervyn King has also warned: “Britain risks suffering another financial crisis without reform of the country’s banks, the Governor of the Bank of England warns today.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8362951/Britain-at-risk-of-another-financial-crisis-Bank-of-England-chief-warns.html

We await the interim report on 19 April of the Commission on Banking, with Sir John Vickers as chairman.

(*) Lord Turner, chairman of the FSA on: ” a wide-ranging review of global banking regulation”:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/turner_review.pdf

We’ve had a local youth club for a decade. It’s run by volunteers and funded by an ebtrance fee and a tuck shop. So what’s the problem? Why do some people believe the state or councils should run and fund these things? If you want it, then the parents should get off their lazy backsides and make it happen like we do.

Also I would support Tyler’s view. I’ve lived long enough to realise that every single Labour government has ended in financial disaster for this country because they insist on the ‘Big State’ and spending money until we are in debt. It needs fixing.

I can’t say I support the Tory policies either; they’re just tinkering. They are relying on closing the deficit through tax and deflation of the £ – three-quarters of the effort is this. Only a quarter is cuts and they are not really cutting so much as cutting the rate of increase. After five years they will still be spending more than Labour – so just as ‘Big State’.

Oh it was joint responsibility – but don’t get me started on Greenspan!

(Joint with the banks I mean.)

“The cut would be round about £30k. ”

So go raise £30 k to pay his wages then.

Not one of those things that’s beyond the wit of a man who’s managed to get himself elected, surely?

“So go raise £30 k to pay his wages then.

Not one of those things that’s beyond the wit of a man who’s managed to get himself elected, surely?”

This is a difficult time to fundraise. Charitable trust funds are indundated with applications, local authorities are cutting their grants budgets, youth workers on council estates isn’t really the sort of thing that corporates fund, and raising £30k per year from local donations in a deprived area is not feasible.

Those are the main alternative sources of funding. In an ideal world, projects which save money overall through would be able to get funding through social impact bonds or other kinds of social finance, but these kinds of products aren’t available at the moment. Did you have any other suggestions?

Great article Joe.

Its a pity some people like Tyler didn’t even bother reading the last paragraph, which explicitly points out that trying to ‘save money’ in such cases only drives up costs over the medium and long term. Typical Tory mentality.

“It’s run by volunteers and funded by an ebtrance fee and a tuck shop. So what’s the problem? Why do some people believe the state or councils should run and fund these things?”

Because if the state and councils don’t fund these things, then the only places with youth clubs will be areas where there aren’t many social problems and where the kids (or their parents) can afford the entry fees and have the time and skills to run a centre without paid support.

Then what happens, as a direct consequence of these half-witted attempts to save money, is that we all end having to pay many times more to pick up the pieces of all the problems that result, and people like you start whining.

@12: “I’ve lived long enough to realise that every single Labour government has ended in financial disaster for this country because they insist on the ‘Big State’ and spending money until we are in debt. It needs fixing.”

That is historically untrue. In the run-up to the general election in June 1970, the big complaint about Wilson’s Labour government of 1964-70 by the Conservative opposition was that Roy Jenkins, the incumbent Labour chancellor, had budgeted for a surplus and that was depressing the economy – I was around at the time and recall that election well from all the stuff about Selsdon man.

To boost the economy, the incoming Heath government introduced cheap money by increasing the money supply. There are precious few accessible online histories of this period but check the obituary of Anthony Barber, Heath’s chancellor:

“But Barber also presided over a huge increase in the money supply, following the removal in November 1971 of controls over bank advances. In the quest for economic growth he was prepared to let the exchange rate go and the pound was floated in 1972.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/lord-barber-520040.html

I think many economists now agree that the increase in the money supply by the Heath government of 1970-74 was one of the factors contributing to the later high inflation of the 1970s – along with supply-side factors from the surge in international commodity prices and the oil price hikes of 1973/4 and 1978/9.

I don’t dispute the contribution to inflation from the public spending spree of the Labour government of 1974-79 to the point where it became necessary to raise a loan from the IMF in 1976. The course of public spending in those times is shown in the IFS study: A Survey of Public Spending:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43

“Did you have any other suggestions?”

Yes.

Councillor Joe McManners currently gets £10k a year off the council.

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/Direct/MembersAllowances200910.pdf

So he’s one third of the way there already.

Or is paying local politicians more important than front line services?

Looks like he’s a GP:

http://www.nhs.uk/ServiceDirectories/Pages/GP.aspx?Pid=4fe66d53-b7f2-4589-8269-080b2d4c7add&TopicId=9&Sid1

So on £100 k plus already.

Yeah, he can chip in, can’t he?

And there’s 2,000 odd dwellings in the ward:

http://openlylocal.com/wards/7879-Churchill

£10 each for something that brings such huge local benefits?

Your’re done then, aren’t you, easy peasy.

Recall, someone, somewhere, has to pay that £30k. There is no magic money tree. Why shouldn’t it be a) a rich politician screaming about the money and b) the locals who benefit who pay for it?

Excellent – another subject which you don’t know anything about.

Let’s agree to disagree about your fascinating idea that “if you are elected as a councillor, it is your duty to personally fund local services.”

What do you think would be the time and costs involved in collecting £10 each from 2,000 households? Why do you think this would be “easy peasy”?

A former employer of mine, who personally built up a £30m company, used to fund and run a youth club in one of the most deprived local areas. The fact that such practical philanthropy is rare these days is entirely due to the fact that the state has taken to itself the responsibility for providing such facilities.

A pity, in my view, however I do agree with the argument that this should not have been among the first jobs to be cut.

Much better to close a couple of libraries or make one chief executive redundant!!!!

“Let’s agree to disagree about your fascinating idea that “if you are elected as a councillor, it is your duty to personally fund local services.””

But you do say that the rich should pay more don’t you? And someone on £100 k is in the top 1% or so: so sure, he should pay.

And don’t you think that perhaps someone on £100 k shouldn’t be taking scarce council funds on top in these hard times? Mebbe?

“The fact that such practical philanthropy is rare these days is entirely due to the fact that the state has taken to itself the responsibility for providing such facilities. ”

Were there as many youth clubs in deprived areas before the state took responsibility?

“A former employer of mine, who personally built up a £30m company, used to fund and run a youth club in one of the most deprived local areas. The fact that such practical philanthropy is rare these days is entirely due to the fact that the state has taken to itself the responsibility for providing such facilities.”

Sadly, it has to be accepted IMO that another emerging factor inhibiting personal initiatives in running youth clubs are increased public concerns about the abuse of young people and the extensive – and costly – vetting of anyone with access to “vulnerable people”,

Remember the epidemic of Satanic Abuse that swept the country in the early 1990s? There was also a succession of cases of real and pervasive abuse of young people resident in local government care homes – starting with the revelations about Islington:
http://www.eileenfairweather.co.uk/article_images/articles/stalinist_reluctance.pdf

Youth clubs without state respionsibility were known of, yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting

Remember the alleged epidemic of Satanic Abuse …

I’ve corrected your post.

“The fact that such practical philanthropy is rare these days is entirely due to the fact that the state has taken to itself the responsibility for providing such facilities. “

HA HA HA Not that old clapped out chestnut. People don’t give to charity because of the welfare state ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz See comic relief last week?

Rich people don’t do things because they are fucking selfish. End off story. Nothing is stopping your pretend friend from running a youth club. Nothing worse than the whining rich.

For whatever reasons, the attraction of youth to Scouting and other uniformed youth activities has definitely waned. I can recall from when my son was of that age taking him along to experience what went on and join up but he didn’t want any of it.

Without trolling (for a nice change the OP says “‘the big society’ will take on the role of Youth Centres!” – the exclamation mark presumably expressing incredulity.

But why is it impossible for the big society – in this case, let’s say ten or so local parents coming forward to volunteer – to compensate for the loss of the professional youth worker through their own volunteering efforts? Or (as happens in my own area – the East End, so OK we have the City and Canary Wharf’s philanthropy on a scale unimaginable in Oxford) why can’t local companies be badgered to sponsor a worker, even if only part time?

The whole thing has a attitude that it simply beyond the wit of man to run a youth club in Headington without the county council doing it. It’s merely difficult.

So why do Gideon and Call me Dave draw salaries when they are independently wealthy, if public officials should fund the public purse personally?

Let’s agree to disagree about your fascinating idea that “if you are elected as a councillor, it is your duty to personally fund local services.”

No really, I find it intensely hilarious that Tim Worstall actually spent ages trying to find figures so he could try and advance that argument.

And think-tanks pay him money to write reports? Desperate times I guess.

@27: “I’ve corrected your post.”

Thank you for that. What was “alleged” by way of Satanic Abuse c. 1990 was, of course, criminal but when the police investigated the claims up and own Britain they couldn’t find any evidence sufficiently robust to stand up in criminal prosecutions of the alleged perpetrators and the reported epidemic fizzled out. However, a recent trial has led to a raft of convictions relating to an abusive cult in South Wales:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12694115

“And think-tanks pay him money to write reports? Desperate times I guess.”

And who funds the think tanks?

Billionaires and millionaires that’s who. They then employ Timmy to come up with policies that will benefit said Billionaire and millionaires.

And speaking of think tanks did you see Newsnights biased panel last night? Why was Norman Lamont, and Irwin Stelzer from the right wing Hudson institute on together in a tag team from hell?. Why does the BBC have Irwin on?

Paxman in particular seems mesmerised by him. The fact that he has been wrong about just about everything over the last 10 years is extraordinary. He was wrong about the Iraq war, and 2 years ago just as the world was heading into a global meltdown he was on Newsnight telling us that we should not cut interest rates too much because there was no real alarm at a recession.

Earth to Paxman…Earth to Paxman… Do you ever play back what this joker says? He talks twaddle.

This thread is just wonderful! More than any I’ve ever read it highlights the differences. There are those who, if they want to do something, just get it done, and then there are those who think the state should provide everything by taxing us and borrowing money we’ll still be paying back in my grandson’s lifetime.

My point of view – if you want a youth club do it yourself as we have – seems to have been thoroughly slagged off by those who think the state should run everything and provide everything. I just don’t get that. We don’t live in a well off area. We had social problems with the teenagers. We started a youth club at our own expense, run it voluntarily with small cover charges to meet overheads – and we don’t have any problems now. Not once did we think the children in our area are the state’s responsibility. Why must the state provide it?

Pagar @ 22

The fact that such practical philanthropy is rare these days is entirely due to the fact that the state has taken to itself the responsibility for providing such facilities.

Can you find a single piece o Government policy that actually precludes anyone wit a fortune from starting up a youth club? For the life of me, I cannot. Sure CRB checks exist, but can anyone really complain about that?

Can you explain why the Government run youth club stops the philanthropy that ou talk about? I am scratching my head here, but for the life of me, I cannot see what you are on about.

Chris @ 35

I don’t see anyone stopping you from starting up a youth club anywhere in the Country.

I wonder how long the queue of volunteers there will be to look after the residents of those council care homes for the aged as these get closed down because of the government’s spending cuts.

Can you explain why the Government run youth club stops the philanthropy that you talk about?

Because it implies that the citizen is incapable of acting in any way than selfishly absolves him of all duty and responsibility to others.

By enforcing a unilateral contract to take his money and use it to cater for the needs of the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the kid in need of a youth club, it denies the possibility of the individual acting altruistically and removes the motivation for doing so.

Fabian statism is based on a philosophy that sees humanity as wholly greedy and self serving and, pared down its essential ingredients, it is fundamentally misanthropic.

Sometimes, on a good day, I think we’re better than that.

Jim @ 37

I did start a youth club ten years ago with a few hundred pounds raised from people who then helped – voluntarily – to run it. It never crossed our minds to go to our local council and moan and complain until they provided everything including full-time employees, etc. Ten years later it still there and we have no problems with local kids. Governments and councils should confine themselves to the minimum required of governments and councils. If people want more they should do it themselves. The more you do for people the more helpless and hopeless they become. You cannot solves problems by pandering to people, only by helping them to help themselves.

“Fabian statism is based on a philosophy that sees humanity as wholly greedy and self serving”

Seems true to me.

The rich like charity “with strings attached” They then can determine who is deserving and who is not. The so called undeserving poor. The rich love to control everything.

Because of increasing life expectancy – which brings population ageing with it – caring for the aged is the increasingly challenging public policy issue, not providing youth clubs.

“Average life expectancy has soared to 80 years old – eight years higher than in the 1970s.”
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/03March/Pages/uk-life-expectancy-still-rising.aspx

There are already more over 65s than under 16s in the UK population. The number of people aged over 65 is projected to increase by 64% by 2032, when they will make up almost a quarter of the UK population.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/09/ageing-britain-population

There are 21,660,475 households in England and Wales according to Census 2001, and 30.0 per cent of these (6.5 million) are one-person households – up from 26.3 per cent in 1991.

Nearly half of the one-person households (3.1 million) are one-pensioner only households and three-quarters of these (2,366,000) are occupied by a woman living on her own. However, in the remaining 3,376,000 one-person households, male occupants outnumber women by three to two.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=350

@33 What I like most about that report is that after an occult sex cult is finally uncovered, which took over 32 years to find, our intrepid expert on such matters declared that there are over 500-1000 cults operating in Britain today.

I think he might have this hobby: http://xkcd.com/605/

sally – Grow up man, lose the infantile remarks and leave the politics of envy where they belong – in the past.

Labour doesn’t need your type anymore – go away and join the Socialist Workers Party…

Pagar @ 39

Yeah, I guessed that you would have a couple of stock Right Wing platitudes along those lines, but you haven’t explained why anyone who was minded to couldn’t just set up a youth club in spite of all that?

Are you saying that there are people who would like to start up a youth club but feel ‘denied the opportunity to act altruistically’ for example? Are you convinced that people are denied such opportunity? How exactly? In what way does the State deny anyone the possibility to act in an altruistic fashion? Children in need, red nose day, the poppy appeal, how many examples do you need, Pagar?

So, I will ask again, but let us take the anti State diatribe as read this time. In what ways does the State actively prevent philanthropy? Why is this such a big deal to you, yet you feel unable to give us a concrete example of what you mean?

44 Too funny.

Right wing freedom in all its idiocy.

@ 42. Bob B

” Because of increasing life expectancy – which brings population ageing with it – caring for the aged is the increasingly challenging public policy issue, not providing youth clubs. ”

Err, any society that thinks the elderly are more important than our kids is heading for oblivion. The elderly are self-evidently the past and by definition unproductive. Whereas children are our future. That does not mean we should not care for the elderly and it would be inhumane to euthanise the retired. Although, it would wipe out the deficit at a stroke which rather explains who is actually costing us resources. The notion that the elderly are not enjoying benefits from the currently young who will not get the same when they are elderly does not pass the laugh test. Especially the looting baby boomers who are just now retiring.

@ Sally 41: “The rich love to control everything.”

Erm … and the state doesn’t? Motes and beams spring to mind.

On the deserving / underserving poor, do you believe that there are never any such distinctions to be made?

Glad someone mentioned the Scouts, top of which is: The Royal charter.

Are you saying that there are people who would like to start up a youth club but feel ‘denied the opportunity to act altruistically’ for example?

Why should I start a youth club?

It’s the state’s responsibility to ensure the local kids don’t turn feral.

Why should I serve tea at the local hospice?

The NHS looks after the ill and I pay my National Insurance.

Give blood?

Ha ha ha.

Just take whatever money you want every month and I’ll look after myself with what’s left.

* Please note, Jim, the above is intended to be parodical

I don’t want the rich…. ALONE, poking their long pointy noses into social affairs, and deciding who is undeserving. That is what you get with philanthropy.

I prefer the state doing it because we have some control over who the state is.

@51: “I prefer the state doing it because we have some control over who the state is.”

Only to about the same extent that we have control over who the rich are.

@47: “Err, any society that thinks the elderly are more important than our kids is heading for oblivion. . . ”

Bring on those Harold Shipman Centres to deal with population ageing then . . .

“The elderly are self-evidently the past and by definition unproductive. Whereas children are our future.”

OTOH compare these two diverging trends:

“The number of people over the age of 65 still in work has increased by almost half a million in the past decade, figures revealed today. Around 412,000 over 65s were in work in 2001, rising to 870,000 at the end of last year, said the Office for National Statistics (ONS).” [2 March 2011]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/number-of-over65s-in-work-doubles-2230027.html

“Youth unemployment has risen to a record level, sparking concern about a ‘lost generation’ as the total number of people out of work increased for a second successive month. . .The number of 16 to 24-year-olds without a job jumped by 32,000 to 951,000, the highest since current records began in 1992, according to the Office for National Statistics. The total could exceed 1m in the next few months.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32a8c8c0-23b4-11e0-8bb1-00144feab49a.html#axzz1HYTbiDIK

The challenging youth problem is not a matter of insufficient youth clubs but:

“NEETs [not in education, employment ot training] are at a record high – for this time of the year. The number of 16- to 24-year-olds not in education, work or training in England reached 938,000 – quarterly statistics from the Department for Education show.” [24 February 2011]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/24/neets-statistics

“The proportion of pupils in England scoring five good GCSE passes including maths and English has risen, provisional results show. This year [2010], 53% of pupils attained the benchmark level – between A* and C – compared with 49.7% last year.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11597488

It seems pretty dismal to me when barely half the candidates for the GCSE exams can attain the benchmark of 5 good passes, including maths and English.

The Boys Brigade was founded 1883. Sure and Steadfast and Christian manliness stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Brigade

“Only to about the same extent that we have control over who the rich are.”

Sorry, I must of missed that election when we got to vote for who should be rich.

Yes Bob 20% of 16-24 year old youngsters are out of work. What is the percentage of 65+ who are out of work? Maybe considerably more than 20%. Any idea how much an out of work 16 year old costs us compared to how much a pensioners cost us? I’m not getting at the pensioners but they are the past. Most 75 year old pensioners are going to cost the country a lot of money. A twenty year old has potentially forty odd years of production and tax revenue head of them. Pretty obvious who should be our priority. However, one votes and one does not vote. Moreover, they are very good at getting politician to serve their interest by spending lots of money on them. Quite easy to vote for politicians to spend money on you and get the young to pay for it when you are retired and no longer paying any significant tax.

@50 Given how bone tired I am after a ten hour shift at work I can assure you that “It’s the state’s responsibility to ensure the local kids don’t turn feral.” is not top of the list of reasons why I don’t found my own youth club and muck in locally.

Being completely knackered and still struggling to make ends meet however…

@55 Sally,

“Sorry, I must of missed that election when we got to vote for who should be rich.”

Would you like this? It’s the free market, where every penny counts.

@41 Sally,

This is interesting, because it highlights the similarity between fabian statism and Hobbesian absolutism – the same misanthropic view pervades, and draws similar conclusions.

@56 Richard W,

“I’m not getting at the pensioners but they are the past… Pretty obvious who should be our priority.” etc

Your views may be rational, but they tend towards monstrousness.

@56: “Moreover, they [pensioners] are very good at getting politician to serve their interest by spending lots of money on them.”

Not so according to the Telegraph:

Pensioners hit hardest by Budget
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/how-budget-affect-me/8404300/Pensioners-hit-hardest-by-Budget.html

Mind you, that’s a smart political move by Osborne, of course. By the next election, many pensioners won’t be around to vote for one reason or another. So much for the Coalition and its concerns about promoting democracy in all those distant places.

“Most 75 year old pensioners are going to cost the country a lot of money.”

I’m sure a modest investment in a national network of Harold Shipman Centres for dealing with population ageing would come out of any official cost-benefit appraisal with a large affirmation. So much for all those concerns of the coalition government about humanitarian values.

Meanwhile, we might consider why the NEETs are at record levels, why barely half 16 y-os can manage the benchmark of 5 good GCSE passes, including maths and English, why Britain has the highest incidence of teen pregnancies in western Europe and why British teens come somewhere near the top in Europe for binge drinking.

@ 58. Trooper Thompson

Just to be clear I am in no way suggesting that we should abandon the elderly. I started in this thread responding to Bob when he said youth clubs were not important because we have an ageing society. Quite honestly I have no opinion one way or another about youth clubs. My point was just that a society that stops investing in its youth is quite literally sacrificing its future. Money spent on the youth has a massive discount because it is returned many times over. Spending on the elderly does not have any discount, but that does not mean I believe we should stop caring for and spending on the elderly. The Coalition government have been careful to make the elderly suffer the least in the fiscal consolidation because so many of them voted for the coalition parties. Many of them are vulnerable and many of them are prosperous receiving lots of state largesse. However, other vulnerable groups are not being spared.

@ Bob

Your argumentum ad Shipman is a fallacy of irrelevance.

@ Richard W,

Okay, fair enough.

@59 Why not suggest soylent green centres rather than Harold shipman centres, then you could combat world hunger into the bargain! Bonus! Tastes like bacon!

Also handy for reducing the prison population

59. Bob B

“Not so according to the Telegraph: ”

I wonder if the Telegraph has lots of elderly readers. You do know newspapers pander to the prejudices of their readers?

” Meanwhile, we might consider why the NEETs are at record levels, why barely half 16 y-os can manage the benchmark of 5 good GCSE passes, including maths and English, why Britain has the highest incidence of teen pregnancies in western Europe and why British teens come somewhere near the top in Europe for binge drinking. ”

Relevance? Maybe someone closed their youth club. That is about the 33rd time you have posted that paragraph on various threads. Only another 300 to go to catch up with the Bismarck welfare state comment, and 400 hundred to surpass the Alan Greeenspan comment.

“Relevance?”

Obvious to all but the dim IMO

The poor performance of 16 y-os at reaching the GCSE benchmark of 5 good passes tell us much about mainstream schooling standards, about the recurring business reports of skill shortages and the consequences of that as well as yielding insights into why many employers might prefer to employ 65+ y-os rather than poorly educated youth. Youth clubs go nowhere near addressing those issues – and nor does the guff about the Big Society..

As for Bismarck and the start of the notion of the Social Market Economy, that is evidently new information for many.

After Professor Lord Darzai was appointed a health minister by GB a couple of years back, he was interviewed on the BBC Today Programme by John Humphrys in the course of which Darzai came out with that old canard: the NHS is the envy of the world – probably because that was in his DH briefing note. JH immediately challenged him and rightly so – there’s no evidence that other west European countries want to adopt anything remotely like the NHS and plenty of signs that the NHS rates as very middling in terms of patient outcomes compared with healthcare systems elsewhere in W Europe. That behoves us to be a bit more modest about the NHS and to look more closely at the wider European heritage.

Much political dialogue is the simple exchange of alternative cliches and platitudes which we need to illuminate.

The point Greenspan was making is repeatedly overlooked – in pursuit of bonues, the directors, managers and traders of banks gave up on protecting their own shareholders’ interests, contrary to the orthodox models of capitalism. Something has to change.

It is a thread about a youth centre and has nothing to do with teenage pregnancies and the lack of qualifications of some kids. I am sure there are employers who prefer to employ a 65 year old who will turn up every day on time rather that a 16 year old with a bad attitude. However, it has nothing to do with the thread.

” New information ” you repeat to almost every day whether it relevant to the thread or not.

More irrelevance about the NHS on a youth centre thread.

@66 Any proposals to what that change might be then old chap?

I’m left scratching my head by all these comments saying ‘people could/should set up their own youth centre with their own money, so why ask the state to do it?’ – and then suggesting mechanisms by which people could establish a pseudodemocratic pseudocouncil to collect pseudotaxes from local residents in order to fund said youth centre. Why is a youth centre funded via pseudotaxes and run by a pseudodemocratic pseudocouncil preferrable to a youth centre funded via actual taxes and run by an actual democratic council? Why waste time and money replicating something that already exists?

“The point Greenspan was making is repeatedly overlooked – in pursuit of bonues, the directors, managers and traders of banks gave up on protecting their own shareholders’ interests, contrary to the orthodox models of capitalism. Something has to change.”

Well the biggest shareholders in Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns were…Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns management and traders.

Meanwhile as you know the evil short sellers, notably the famous Jim Chanos, put his own interests aside (he was after all betting on a collapse) and warned the G7 at a formal meeting in April 2007 that a collapse was coming. Needless to say he was ignored.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-johnson/jim-chanos-warned-brown-g_b_274527.html

It’s not clear why a youth club funded and run by the close local neigbourhood would be “pseudo” in any way. Surely the reverse?

@69 It’s a very odd person who suggests that people simply aren’t volunteering because local/central government help people so the chance to assist someone is taken away from them, and not because they couldn’t give a stuff and wouldn’t volunteer anyway. That’s my explanation for em anyway.

“Why is a youth centre funded via pseudotaxes and run by a pseudodemocratic pseudocouncil preferrable to a youth centre funded via actual taxes and run by an actual democratic council?”

Ever heard of “localism”?

You know, let’s be more like the Nordics? Denmark for example. The national income tax rate is 3.76%. The top one 15%.

All other taxes are collected and spent at the local level, that of the commune (and communes are often as small as 10,000 people, not far away from the 6,000 or so in Churchill Ward in Oxford).

Local people running local communities. Sounds pretty good to me…..

“Local people running local communities. Sounds pretty good to me”

Sounds like a good idea to me, too – if only because you might learn what happens when you try to use that haughty tone of yours face-to-face.

Pagar @ 50

But you still have not explained what is doing to stop you or any other ‘small state’ supporter from doing any of these things you mentioned. What is stopping YOU sarting a youth club? What is stopping YOU from trotting down to the hospice with hot tea? You do not believe in the value of the State and you feel that it is up to indivuals to take up the slack. Fair enough, but if you want that to happen, perhaps you could show us the way? Instead of complaining about what you ‘think’ the government does that gets in the way of you doing these wonderfull things, why not simply go and do them?

For the life of me, I cannot see what your beef is here.

Why are you posting on this board, Pagar? Surely there is a puddle of vomit with your name on it down the local hospice?

What Jim just said.

“First, we should get rid of the state” is surely the mother, father, grandma and granddad of all the excuses for procrastination.

@ Jim

Lets go back to where this started.

The council run youth club is under threat from closure because there is no money left to pay the member of staff. We have been living beyond our means and there is “no money left”.

There’s a good reason for the state to stop wasting our money though, as I said above, there are money more worthless projects than this they could have cut.

Pagar @ 76

But that is a different argument. You are saying that ‘other people’ could run this and other projects out of a sense of altruism, ‘civic duty’ or whatever tag you want to put onto it, citing a former employer as an example of such acts. You have stated that action via ‘The State’ prevents such charitable acts (stated in your post #22).

When questioned on what these barriers were, you trot out the typical, patented, Libertarian bit on ‘State knocking’ (posts #39 and 50). You were pressed further to explain what measures the State takes to prevent you from undertaking any of the very charitable acts you ‘helpfully’ suggested.

You then blurt out the truth. This nothing to do with Pagar’s ‘civic responsibility’ or his sense of altruism or even his burning frustration of how to use up his spare time in a productive manner. This is about his hatred of the State. You see this ‘youth club’ as a waste of money; you think this and plenty other community projects are ‘worthless’.

You hate the State and you despise community projects, fair enough, but why do you need to dress it all up in a fancy bow and piously claim that you are being prevented from volunteering for a cause that you have absolutely no intention of ever going anyway near in the first place?

Of course, when you say ‘We could all volunteer, if only there was less State’, you mean other people would have to volunteer if the State withdraws from society and if the they do not, fuck ‘em.

Fabian statism is based on a philosophy that sees humanity as wholly greedy and self serving and, pared down its essential ingredients, it is fundamentally misanthropic

Yeah, right. Perhaps we find the REAL reason you feel unable to do ‘charity’ work?

@ Tim W 72

“Ever heard of “localism”?

You know, let’s be more like the Nordics? Denmark for example. The national income tax rate is 3.76%. The top one 15%.

All other taxes are collected and spent at the local level, that of the commune (and communes are often as small as 10,000 people, not far away from the 6,000 or so in Churchill Ward in Oxford).

Local people running local communities. Sounds pretty good to me…..”

What a fascinating digression. To return to my question, though: Why is a youth centre funded via *pseudo*taxes and run by a *pseudo*democratic *pseudo*council preferrable to a youth centre funded via actual taxes and run by an actual democratic council?

Just to make this explicit: all taxes and institutions, pseudo or otherwise, referred to in this question are local taxes and institutions, and all decisions about the provision and funding of youth centres are being made collectively by local people. It’s just that on one model, it is an already-established representative body – the local council – that is raising revenue and providing services; while on the other model, it is a newly-established representative body – a community group of some sort – that is raising revenue and providing services. My question is: why should we prefer the latter?

You see this ‘youth club’ as a waste of money; you think this and plenty other community projects are ‘worthless’.

Not at all.

On balance it seems to be one of the more worthwhile uses of taxpayers money- certainly superior to funding George Osborne’s ticket to Covent Garden.

Perhaps we find the REAL reason you feel unable to do ‘charity’ work?

As it happens I do unpaid work which helps people in my community, but that is not really the point.

Surely there is a puddle of vomit with your name on it down the local hospice?

Why can’t you just discuss issues rather then making personal comments, Jim?

I have never been personally offensive to you or anyone else on this site so far as I’m aware (with the possible exception of Daniel Hoffman Gill who was a much greater tosser than you).

“Just to make this explicit: all taxes and institutions, pseudo or otherwise, referred to in this question are local taxes and institutions, and all decisions about the provision and funding of youth centres are being made collectively by local people.”

No, actually, it isn’t.

It’s as a result of the cut in the central grant (that is, the taxation of all in the country), the County Council has decided to cut Youth Services.

There are a number of options here. The County Council could cut something else, they could raise the taxes they collect. Or the City council could decide to pick up this adventure and pay for it. Cut something else, or raise local taxes. Or the people in the Ward could.

But the whole point of this localism thing is that instead of money being funnelled down from on high, local peeps tax themselves in order to pay for what local peeps think is worth taxing themselves to provide.

Localism, let’s actually try it, eh?

“My question is: why should we prefer the latter?”

Because in the latter case it’s called a ‘management fee’ and magically becomes clean money and, even better, part of the GDP figures. Trebles all round!

Seems like a simple question of distribution of resources – and the council apparently getting it wrong (I could be wrong here, but any plan to rearrange resources into hubs suggests centralisation and a lack of on-the-ground efficiency).

But to be fair, no-one has really explained why if the County Council is not funding this one of the City Council, the local parish, local charity or even local business cannot fund this – the tenor of the original post and its defenders is simply that this service should be provided by the people who provide it.

I also have to question the £30 000 a year cost for the Youth Worker- this was for a council employee, who would therefore have other obligations and (unless Oxford is particularly unusual) would probably spend a lot more time form-filling and the like than they would need to. Perhaps Councillor McManners could volunteer to handle the paperwork to allow the Youth Worker to focus on the other aspects of the job – and make the cost to the Youth Centre less.

Also, this entire discussion has been of one Youth Worker in isolation. Councillor McManners fails to indicate the Youth Worker in question is exclusively associated with the Youth Centre, which suggest the full cost would not need to be borne by one institution.

And above all, you have to ask about a key assumption in all of this: “The YC is managed totally by community activists who need support from professional organisations.” Volunteers apparently need to be organised by professionals. Perhaps, if this is the case, we need to ask why?

But the whole point of this localism thing is that instead of money being funnelled down from on high, local peeps tax themselves in order to pay for what local peeps think is worth taxing themselves to provide

well, we need “funnelling from on high” otherwise rich councils can afford to pay for good things and poor councils can only afford poor things. You can have localism at various levels, it doesn’t necessitate local budget constraints set by local revenue raising powers.

@67: “It is a thread about a youth centre and has nothing to do with teenage pregnancies and the lack of qualifications of some kids.”

Pardon me for daring to think that these issues are not unconnected and for saying so.

A local, deprived council housing estate within walking distance features a “football academy” for those aged 6 (really) and upwards from a private initiative.

We seldom.if ever, debate whether this nurturing of professional footballing ambitions seriously distorts the personal aims of working class boy teens – the vast majority of whom will never make the professional leagues paying £10,000 and more a week to their players:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/4241877/The-Debate-Should-any-football-player-be-paid-500000-per-week.html

“Though white children in general do better than most minorities at school, poor ones come bottom of the league (see chart). Even black Caribbean boys, the subject of any number of initiatives, do better at GCSEs”
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14700670

The football ambitions provide a convincing rationale for some boys to evade school studies, which is perhaps why girls now outperform boys in the school leaving exams and outnumber boys as undergraduate students at our universities. Sadly, it wasn’t like that in my years as a student.

The Big Society is a completely vacuous notion intended to fudge debates about the foreseeable consequences of public spending cuts.

Pagar @79

I have never been personally offensive to you or anyone else on this site so far as I’m aware (with the possible exception of Daniel Hoffman Gill who was a much greater tosser than you).

I think we have a genuine mis-understanding here. My original statement:

‘Surely there is a puddle of vomit with your name on it down the local hospice?’

I was attempting to imply that you could ‘volunteer’ to clean up the local hospice in your spare time. The ‘with your name on it’ was supposed to mean that the task of cleaning up the sick would be allocated to you, not that you are a puddle of sick.

Just an expression I use. As in, there is a box of clothes there with your name on it, or that scratch on the car? Yeah that has your name on it! Type of thing.

So, on this occasion at least, I genuinely did not mean any offence. To be honest, Pagar, although we are diffrent ends of the political spectrum and I find some of your positions ‘wrong’ or misguided and I find some of your ideology pretty poor, you never come across as a foam mouthed cunt like many of the people you share a platform with.

Anyway, back o the show.

As it happens I do unpaid work which helps people in my community, but that is not really the point.

So the State does not put you off from doing this? Then what is the problem?

@ Jim

I think we have a genuine mis-understanding here

OK Jim, accepted.

@83 Luis Enrique: “well, we need “funnelling from on high” otherwise rich councils can afford to pay for good things and poor councils can only afford poor things. You can have localism at various levels, it doesn’t necessitate local budget constraints set by local revenue raising powers.”

As I said, way back at point 6, “Or we could come to terms with the idea that spending is best managed when cost is as close as possible to the beneficiary.”

I do not deny the necessity for cash funnelling. I love the idea that councils have discretionary money to spend.

The problem is that local government finance and responsibilities overlap so much, that social problems have so many disparate effects, that local government no longer manages local problems.

In Joe’s example, a cut by the county council generates future costs for the city council and national government. The funding cut is a problem but its effects are made worse by the structure of governance.

In this case, youth leading is a service provided by the county council, policing is managed by a police authority, social housing is provided by the city council and other agencies, social services by the city council, probation services by a national agent, health services by multiple local agents.

These service providers operate across council boundaries; quangos such as Enterprise Zones engulf multiple councils. To understand how these bodies work becomes a geography lesson with some history tossed in.

Cuts are bad; incoherent government makes their effects worse.

@ 20 Tim W

“Councillor Joe McManners currently gets £10k a year off the council [...]

So he’s one third of the way there already.

Or is paying local politicians more important than front line services?

Looks like he’s a GP [...]

So on £100 k plus already.

Yeah, he can chip in, can’t he”

So next time around, the person elected will be the person rich enough to bribe the electorate by promising to boost spending out of their own pocket. Great.

“So next time around, the person elected will be the person rich enough to bribe the electorate by promising to boost spending out of their own pocket. Great.”

Better than the current system of promising bribes from other peoples’ money….

Where are the parents in all of this? To be honest i’m sick of my taxes funding this kind of crap while the parents do sweet FA for theire kids.. i’m 28 work 3 jobs doing an average of 80 hours a week to get what i want in life, ive been brought up to respect others, work hard, and pay my way.. in my view these kids say they have nothing to do? how about study for their future and get a part time job somewhere? failing that if they leave school and fail to find employment within 6 months they should be forced into the armed forces… at least they’ll learn a trade and some manners and respect there.. bring back national service!
Why shold i work damn hard every week to fund these projects? the money should be put into army cadet schools, to give an education to the age of 16 then put into the armed forces.. if the parents cant look after their kids. it’ll take these drop outs off the streets, free up police time, stop the anti social behaviour and breed a generation of young respectiable men and women who have disiplin and have learnt a trade they can use in civi street.