Right, here goes. See when the government decides not to ring-fence local council budgets for specific purposes? It doesn't mean there's less money available, or that people care less about the issue concerned. It just means councils now have the freedom to spend the money as they wish subject to some outcome agreements reminding them of their obligations, and to be held accountable for that by the voters at election time. Got that?
No? Ok, then - while the councils might spend more, less or the same as before, the point is they can now decide for themselves what to spend and on what, according to the needs of those they represent. It's exactly the same as telling people it would be good for them to spend more of their income on fruit and veg, but without feeling the need to ring-fence their money to make sure that they do, then making them buy more sprouts and spinach when what they really want is more oranges and carrots, or even the odd bar of chocolate. Treating people like adults rather than children, in other words.
That is all. I just hope I haven't given them any ideas with the bit about the ring-fencing of people's own income.
2 comments:
I see they're still getting articles in the Herald on this - surely no-one's going to be daft enough to believe them?!
I'd like to think not. I often wonder wonder whether the Labour spokespeople coming up with this nonsense actually believe a word of what they are saying.
If they do, that's very worrying, but if they don't, it's still worrying that they're prepared to exploit the fears of the vulnerable to try and secure some advantage.
Post a Comment