Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Government investment in working-class areas

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Ok, I'm hoping someone who is a bit more policy savvy than me will be able to help me. One of my arguments in my PhD thesis is that more money is spent and more investment is made in middle-class areas than in working-class area. This differential social capital provision is one of the reasons why working-class areas have such high rates of crime etc (I'm simplifying it for the sake of brevity, I know it's more complicated than that). The problem, however, is that I can't find any literature to back this up. I basically want to find an article that says 'more money is spent in middle-class areas than in working-class areas'.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong and it's the other way round?

In any event, can anyone help?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you look on the statistics.gov website in the labour market part they may have times series data on public spending per area. The treasury's website has data for spending on services by regions though i've no idea what areas are classed working or middle. You may have to mess about on excel to produce useful data, e.g. by finding data on income to deterine whether an area is working class then divide spending by population and calculate money spent per person.

    Of course finding an article that has already done this is a lot easier but i've no idea where to find one.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I kind of be suprised if it was true - given things like regeneration spending, benefits etc. Plus a lot of Government spending is hard to quantify ie defence, police stations will often cover both middle class and working class wards.

    It's also more complex in that investment often crosses boundaries. eg if an RDA puts money into a shopping centre in middle class area A, it will often attract workers from working class area B - so they benefit. In fact it will have put it in A, because working class area C also can travel to work as well.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I live and work in middle/upper class areas and fuck all gets spent on them. The money gets poured into the poorer areas.

    That's why out of the 3 towns I cover, the poorest has more police, better access to medical care, more choice of infant schools, far more youth provision e.t.c.
    The rich town I work in has activities for the youngsters once a week. The poor town has stuff going on every night.

    The people who pay the most in council/income tax, get pretty much the bare minimum in return. The people paying the lowest get the most. Where's the fairness in that?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    More money is spent on middle-class areas? What a load of bollocks. Let's start with the politics. We all know that New Labour shovels taxpayers money into areas of the country which are allegedly more "deprived" than others. By that, I refer to Northern England, most of Wales and most of Scotland. In truth, it's because they always vote Labour like good little children, and Labour thinks that's just fine. This hilarious "Downfall" video about Labour losing the Glasgow East by-election in July puts it far better than I ever could. Next, Zanu Labour are busily shovelling money into a bottomless pit in East London for the 2012 Olympics - they're very keen to emphasise that the money is going to "disadvantaged" and "deprived" areas. This despite the fact the Olympics will do jack shit to help poverty-stricken areas in London, such as Tower Hamlets. Still, nothing like a bit of class warrior politics to get the Labour drones supprting the government, is there?

    Bringing this more up to date - take a look at this bullshit to come out of the Tory Party today. According to the Quiet Man, good behaviour on council estates should be rewarded by letting people buy a part of what usually looks like a council-built lego set at a knock down price. Bollocks to that. Increasing the flow of money to poor areas is not the answer. Cutting off the bottomless pit of money is what is needed. If people know they cannot depend on the state to assist them forever, that would change things.

    We have social services departments that have budgets of £100million a year, (yes, I'm talking about you, Haringey) yet they can't seem to stop babies being beaten to a pulp on their watch. And why is that? Because we have a system which supported the sort of disgusting squalor that the sub-human filth who killed Baby P lived in. There was rat shit all over the floor, and the house apparently had dead animals in it. And somehow, I doubt they were paying their own way, were they? Cut the supply of money off.

    I only wish more were spent on middle-class areas!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I live and work in middle/upper class areas and fuck all gets spent on them. The money gets poured into the poorer areas.

    That's why out of the 3 towns I cover, the poorest has more police, better access to medical care, more choice of infant schools, far more youth provision e.t.c.
    The rich town I work in has activities for the youngsters once a week. The poor town has stuff going on every night.

    The people who pay the most in council/income tax, get pretty much the bare minimum in return. The people paying the lowest get the most. Where's the fairness in that?
    While I suspect that rather more than 'fuck all' gets spent on affluent areas, it is quite possible that more money gets spent on deprived areas. You ask where the fairness is in that.

    However I (and many others) would be asking the same question if every effort within reason was not being made to help those who need it the most, and who could not pay for any of it otherwise.

    I should imagine residents in Chelsea have rather less need for activities for youngsters, or certainly rather less need for government assistance to organise them, than residents of a sink estate where every kid is at considerable risk of becoming an offender or become a drug user.

    Giving bigger tax credits and benefits to those earning 15,000 p.a. than to those earning 50,000 could be described as 'unfair' too. But I hope we all recognise the reasons behind this 'discrimination' and fully support them. There is no difference between that principle and that of providing more support for deprived areas.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is probably making less sense to speak of 'working-class' and 'middle-class' areas. In many areas the picture is more mixed - many 'working class' areas have increasing numbers of students, immigrants and young professionals. Poorer areas tend to have lower life expectancies, worse schools, higher unemployment, higher crime and lower private sector investment. So I'd be quite surprised if the govt is spending more in middle class areas...

    Obviously, there are going to be regional variations - Slough, Stoke and Glasgow all have working and middle class areas; the variation in spending in those areas probably won't be the same for all three.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The problem, however, is that I can't find any literature to back this up. I basically want to find an article that says 'more money is spent in middle-class areas than in working-class areas'.

    A good starting point might be the regional development agencies who are responsible for a lot of regeneration work (both physical and economic) in England. The equivalent in Scotland would be Scottish Enterprise. London has the LDA.

    All of these have a lot of publications but are obviously not the only organisations who spend money at a local level. Local Authority spending would also be worth investigating though I am unsure about how localised the data will be (the LGA is probably the best place to start). Remember that 'poor' regions/localities sometimes contain pockets of wealth. The London borough of Tower Hamlets contains Canary Wharf for instance (though maybe they won't have money for much longer...).

    Good luck with the research. Let us know if you find any good resources. I'm sure everyone will be happy to debate them here!
Sign In or Register to comment.