Uk Shared Prosperity Fund - What Should We Request?

[Baron99 794]

Reading today in the "i" newspaper, that there are proposals for a "UK Shared Prosperity Fund", worth £2.1, to pay for / kick start projects around the UK. Doesn't say if if a one off or per year? 

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8527

 

What do you think Sheffield needs or requires to improve the city? 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Baron99

[geared 306]

We like most other cities need better public transport options.

 

Obviously that fund can't provide that, but since we're out of the EU why don't we start spending out money differently?

[altus 540]

Boris has a load of new MPs in deprived previously safe Labour seats. None of that money is coming anywhere near Sheffield.

[Robin-H 11]

47 minutes ago, geared said:

We like most other cities need better public transport options.

 

Obviously that fund can't provide that, but since we're out of the EU why don't we start spending out money differently?

There was talk not long ago that the Government are going to rewrite the rules regarding how money is allocated to public spending projects across the UK, so that less emphasis is placed on giving money to projects that promise the best monetary returns, and instead social returns (lowering regional inequalities etc) are taken into account. This would prevent things being so London/South East focused as they have previously. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50925321

[Longcol 600]

21 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

There was talk not long ago that the Government are going to rewrite the rules regarding how money is allocated to public spending projects across the UK, so that less emphasis is placed on giving money to projects that promise the best monetary returns, and instead social returns (lowering regional inequalities etc) are taken into account. This would prevent things being so London/South East focused as they have previously. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50925321

How does this square with the "fair funding review" for local government which potentially moves money from the North to the Tory shires?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/25/former-red-wall-areas-could-lose-millions-in-council-funding-review

Edited February 5, 2020 by Longcol

[Funky_Gibbon 42]

All I can say is that I wouldn't start making any grand plans for how you think it's going to be spent. The money that came from the EU that this is supposed to replace (and they've only promised funding for 1 year so far) was largely allocated towards paying farmers (or should that be farm-land owners like Paul Dacre). Only about 1/3 of the annual figure went on regional investment in infrastructure. It could also be argued that we only got it at all because our own Government couldn't be bothered to invest adequately in the regions of the UK outside London and the South-East and prolonged underfunding turned us into a region that qualified for their emergency aid.

 

Anyone thinking that Boris Johnson will be any different should probably note that the 'largest investment in the NHS ever!' that they're announcing right now is neither the largest nor is it technically an investment since they're still promising below-inflation increases in the budget which in reality means the budget is still being cut year on year. They'll fanfare the sum of money in the media and rely on the public being ignorant of the realities of how much things cost.

[nightrider 13]

16 hours ago, Funky_Gibbon said:

All I can say is that I wouldn't start making any grand plans for how you think it's going to be spent. The money that came from the EU that this is supposed to replace (and they've only promised funding for 1 year so far) was largely allocated towards paying farmers (or should that be farm-land owners like Paul Dacre). Only about 1/3 of the annual figure went on regional investment in infrastructure. It could also be argued that we only got it at all because our own Government couldn't be bothered to invest adequately in the regions of the UK outside London and the South-East and prolonged underfunding turned us into a region that qualified for their emergency aid.

 

 

I think this is an important point - much of that money targeted to the regions was done because the british government did not want to send money there. The EU made up for that. Now we have control its not obvious why it should continue to go to the regions based on past government decisions. If it does, I would think anyway it will target safe labour seats that flipped to tories as a reward (i.e. not Sheffield).

[geared 306]

17 hours ago, Robin-H said:

There was talk not long ago that the Government are going to rewrite the rules regarding how money is allocated to public spending projects across the UK, so that less emphasis is placed on giving money to projects that promise the best monetary returns, and instead social returns (lowering regional inequalities etc) are taken into account. This would prevent things being so London/South East focused as they have previously. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50925321

 

Yes I saw, essentially funding has become circular and it needs to stop.

 

The funding goes to where economic benefit is greatest, which improves that area, draws more people in and thus makes it more likely to receive the next round of funding.  And so on and so on

[Longcol 600]

2 minutes ago, WokeyMcWokeface said:

No money "came from" the EU. We were not contributors. We got our own money back, less redistribution to other countries. Let's see how Boris redistributes our money within our own country.

Not looking good for the North is it?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/25/former-red-wall-areas-could-lose-millions-in-council-funding-review

[WokeyMcWokeface 0]

On 05/02/2020 at 19:04, Funky_Gibbon said:

All I can say is that I wouldn't start making any grand plans for how you think it's going to be spent. The money that came from the EU that this is supposed to replace (and they've only promised funding for 1 year so far) was largely allocated towards paying farmers (or should that be farm-land owners like Paul Dacre). Only about 1/3 of the annual figure went on regional investment in infrastructure. It could also be argued that we only got it at all because our own Government couldn't be bothered to invest adequately in the regions of the UK outside London and the South-East and prolonged underfunding turned us into a region that qualified for their emergency aid.

 

Anyone thinking that Boris Johnson will be any different should probably note that the 'largest investment in the NHS ever!' that they're announcing right now is neither the largest nor is it technically an investment since they're still promising below-inflation increases in the budget which in reality means the budget is still being cut year on year. They'll fanfare the sum of money in the media and rely on the public being ignorant of the realities of how much things cost.

 

 

Your claim on the NHS funding is dubious. The planned increases, whilst not being the biggest in history, are still real terms increases, and fact checked.

 

"The £34 billion is a spending increase in real terms of £20.5 billion between 2018/19 and 2023/24. "

 

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/nhs-spending-biggest-boost/

[Longcol 600]

22 minutes ago, WokeyMcWokeface said:

 

 

Your claim on the NHS funding is dubious. The planned increases, whilst not being the biggest in history, are still real terms increases, and fact checked.

 

"The £34 billion is a spending increase in real terms of £20.5 billion between 2018/19 and 2023/24. "

 

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/nhs-spending-biggest-boost/

And from the same document

 

"At the moment, we only know what the full budget of the Department of Health and Social Care will be until 2020/21. In 2019/20 and 2020/21 spending on non-NHS services will fall by over 12%, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

We can also look at the percentage increase in spending each year between 2018/19 and 2023/24 and compare that to historical trends. Looked at this way the increase is set to be around 3.3% per year according to the Health Foundation. That’s above the average annual increases over the last decade, but below the historic average of 3.7% per year since the NHS was founded."

 

Which suggests to me that we're going to see elements of social care funding (mental health, learning difficulties) switched from local authorities to the NHS.

 

And the "increases" are only "big" compared to the austerity programme of the last 10 years.

[geared 306]

11 hours ago, Longcol said:

Not looking good for the North is it?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/25/former-red-wall-areas-could-lose-millions-in-council-funding-review

 

What do they say?  "Never trust a Tory"

 

Looks like we get to find out the hard way.