999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 If there is a link it would raise questions over how Labour run their councils and attract businesses. Especially if there was no significant upturn in the performance of Labour councils when there was a Labour government. You are assuming a Council has such a significant impact on the prosperity of a local area or that local areas started on an equal footing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 You are assuming a Council has such a significant impact on the prosperity of a local area or that local areas started on an equal footing. You don't think that they do? People who vote labour need a reality check. Labour are the party of economic stagnation, unemployment, self entitlement and Muslim haters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 You don't think that they do? People who vote labour need a reality check. Labour are the party of economic stagnation, unemployment, self entitlement and Muslim haters. You are posing a different question. the thread is about the economic divide. he then went on to say about the councils being responsible for economic propserity. Can you stick to the question? The reason why one area is more successful than another has a very limited amount to do with the council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 You are posing a different question. the thread is about the economic divide. he then went on to say about the councils being responsible for economic propserity. Can you stick to the question? The reason why one area is more successful than another has a very limited amount to do with the council. Fair point I did go a little off topic. However, I disagree with you with regards to the impact a council has on local development. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the local councils run by a particular party are in impoverished areas. When looking at reasons behind multiple failures, one must consider the constants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 What incentive do Labour have to improve their areas when they know that the more affluent an area becomes, the more likely they are to vote Conservative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Fair point I did go a little off topic. However, I disagree with you with regards to the impact a council has on local development. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the local councils run by a particular party are in impoverished areas. When looking at reasons behind multiple failures, one must consider the constants. How do you explain differences in loacal areas before the Labour party existed? ---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 13:18 ---------- What incentive do Labour have to improve their areas when they know that the more affluent an area becomes, the more likely they are to vote Conservative? Can you not be so random? The threads about economic divide. You think the local council is the most importnat factor in whether an area is successful or not? What do you think makes London more successful than say Sheffield? its down to the council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 How do you explain differences in loacal areas before the Labour party existed? They have shifted in the 120 odd years since the labour party was created. The areas under labour council control are almost all poor. Even if all these areas were poor before Labour came along *which they weren't), the evil labour have had 120 years to sort it out. It isn't so much a north south divide as a labour and everyone else divide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Fair point I did go a little off topic. However, I disagree with you with regards to the impact a council has on local development. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the local councils run by a particular party are in impoverished areas. When looking at reasons behind multiple failures, one must consider the constants. Could it not be that like attracts like and that the reason labour would be in the less affluent areas is not becayse the council has made the area impoverished, but because the constituents are poor and see labour as having more interest in meeting their needs? in contrast a wealthy area will be more interested in policies that maintains its wealth and reduces spending so votes accordingly. The constutuents determine the council. ---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 13:24 ---------- They have shifted in the 120 odd years since the labour party was created. The areas under labour council control are almost all poor. Even if all these areas were poor before Labour came along *which they weren't), the evil labour have had 120 years to sort it out. It isn't so much a north south divide as a labour and everyone else divide. Wouldnt other things have to do with why an area was propserous, you think its only the council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runningman1 Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Could it not be that like attracts like and that the reason labour would be in the less affluent areas is not becayse the council has made the area impoverished, but because the constituents are poor and see labour as having more interest in meeting their needs? in contrast a wealthy area will be more interested in policies that maintains its wealth and reduces spending so votes accordingly. The constutuents determine the council. ---------- Post added 01-11-2015 at 13:24 ---------- Wouldnt other things have to do with why an area was propserous, you think its only the council? With regards to the 2nd point. I don't think it is only the council at all. I am countering the ludicrous claim that the impact a local council has is "very limited". With regards to the first point, you make a goid deal of sense in the short term. However, the needs of the poor are to get richer and the labour party need to do more to achieve this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky_Gibbon Posted November 1, 2015 Share Posted November 1, 2015 Fair point I did go a little off topic. However, I disagree with you with regards to the impact a council has on local development. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of the local councils run by a particular party are in impoverished areas. When looking at reasons behind multiple failures, one must consider the constants. Way too simplistic. It isn't a coincidence but it's not the cause of the impoverishment either. Correlation is not equal to causation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now