Levelling up defined.

[JamesWales]

Re: Levelling up defined.

If this is true (which it probably isn't) then I hope they really do get the £1.6m boost to the local economy (that has been reported) by fixing this road.

To add "balance", this story that is needing further investigation is not indicative of all of the other recent scandals involving the current Tory party.

(I'm pretty sure this is how "balance" works on here, eh James? ).

It is indeed Tito. Well done. We've had a conversation and agreed that perhaps this is a nuanced story afterall and not as was originally presented.

I consider that progress.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Levelling up defined.

It is indeed Tito. Well done. We've had a conversation and agreed that perhaps this is a nuanced story afterall and not as was originally presented.

I consider that progress.

Now that we've established that: would you now care to discuss all of the recent scandals involving the Tory party?

[JamesWales]

Re: Levelling up defined.

Now that we've established that: would you now care to discuss all of the recent scandals involving the Tory party?

Always happy to, but really, again!?

[Dorcus]

Re: Levelling up defined.

The guy who wrote The-Two-faced-hypocritical-Buffoon-and-his-Party-set-for-a-Mauling-at-PMQ-s-Today is definitely not a biased leftie

You're right, tell that to Monkfish, he'd go apoplectic!

[Veg1960]

Re: Levelling up defined.

I think you will find that The Getting Building Fund is actually part of The Levelling up Fund.

Which makes the points you raise a bit irrelevant.

[Tito Fuente]

Re: Levelling up defined.

I think you will find that The Getting Building Fund is actually part of The Levelling up Fund.

Which makes the points you raise a bit irrelevant.

It would appear that you're correct, Veg.

That and the stuff James has added to the conversation is all in this article.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/levelling-up-fund-tory-peer-viscount-gage-potholes-labour-1374247

So the money did come from the Levelling Up fund as that is the department that oversaw the Getting Building fund.

Points to be retroactively removed from James.

I will take at face value that the money was granted to a charitable cause unless proven otherwise.

Unfortunately, due to the constant widespread corruption within the halls of Downing Street, I will also remain sceptical - for balance.

[Veg1960]

Re: Levelling up defined.

It would appear that you're correct, Veg.

That and the stuff James has added to the conversation is all in this article.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/levelling-up-fund-tory-peer-viscount-gage-potholes-labour-1374247

So the money did come from the Levelling Up fund as that is the department that oversaw the Getting Building fund.

Points to be retroactively removed from James.

I will take at face value that the money was granted to a charitable cause unless proven otherwise.

Unfortunately, due to the constant widespread corruption within the halls of Downing Street, I will also remain sceptical - for balance.

I did a bit of research the other day when the story broke. I don't think you can take what you read as gospel these days, even if you agree with the sentiment!

This is The Goverment's levelling up prospectus

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/966138/Levelling_Up_prospectus.pdf

On page 12, it presents a case study for Bath Quays, where it says:

Funded by £2 million from the Getting Building Fund, the Bath Quays South Phase 1a
project comprises the delivery of essential infrastructure and enabling works to bring
forward the Quays South site for development.

[JamesWales]

Re: Levelling up defined.

It would appear that you're correct, Veg.

That and the stuff James has added to the conversation is all in this article.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/levelling-up-fund-tory-peer-viscount-gage-potholes-labour-1374247

So the money did come from the Levelling Up fund as that is the department that oversaw the Getting Building fund.

Points to be retroactively removed from James.

I will take at face value that the money was granted to a charitable cause unless proven otherwise.

Unfortunately, due to the constant widespread corruption within the halls of Downing Street, I will also remain sceptical - for balance.

That seems unlikely, given that funding was first given by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership on 20 November 2020 and the Levelling Up fund was presented to parliament on 25 November 2020.

https://www.southeastlep.com/project/accessing-charleston-removing-the-barrier-to-growth/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-2020-documents/spending-review-2020

Either way, I would suggest that a fund is not 'defined' by one example of a project that was not even funded by said funding stream and is seemingly far less controversial than the original article sought to present it as.

This is why more balanced debate is beneficial; stories like this would come out and be put in context amongst many other discussion points, as opposed to being front and centre and merely designed to enrage people by using what it now seems was inaccurate information.

[Veg1960]

Re: Levelling up defined.

The Getting Building Fund had already agreed projects by August 2020 according to this from the department of (drum roll) Levelling Up!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/getting-building-fund

There may have been many other examples of the fund being used "properly", and the original article may well have been designed to "enrage" as you put it.

That doesn't alter the fact that the article appears in my opinion at least to be factual. The only person unapologetically spreading untruths her would appear to be you - "It looks like this project DID NOT receive levelling up funding."

[JamesWales]

Re: Levelling up defined.

The Getting Building Fund had already agreed projects by August 2020 according to this from the department of (drum roll) Levelling Up!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/getting-building-fund

There may have been many other examples of the fund being used "properly", and the original article may well have been designed to "enrage" as you put it.

That doesn't alter the fact that the article appears in my opinion at least to be factual. The only person unapologetically spreading untruths her would appear to be you - "It looks like this project DID NOT receive levelling up funding."

I guess 'Levelling up' can be considered a funding stream in itself (announced in Nov 2020 as part of a 4.8bn fund) or as part of a wider agenda, or thematic policy concept, dating from before that date.

Given someone posted to a very specific funding bid, and labelled it 'Levelling up defined' it's reasonable to assume this was posted as an example of the Levelling Up funding. It wasn't.

The money also wasn't granted by the government. It was granted by the Local Enterprise Partnership.

It also wasn't "to fill in potholes for a Conservative peer" as Lisa Nandy (who is an intelligent MP and should be above that kind of crap) stated.

Either way, there is far more to the story than first suggested, the government didn't award the grant and it has nothing to do with the Levelling Up Funding, but perhaps could be considered part of a more general levelling up agenda, which to be honest is probably something we all support in principle.

The point is, these things are complex, and trying to enrage people into thinking that the government is always corrupt and forever mis-spending money "on fixing Conservatives potholes" is entirely disingenuous and the topic deserves a far better quality of debate IMO

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Levelling up defined.

I guess 'Levelling up' can be considered a funding stream in itself (announced in Nov 2020 as part of a 4.8bn fund) or as part of a wider agenda, or thematic policy concept, dating from before that date.

Given someone posted to a very specific funding bid, and labelled it 'Levelling up defined' it's reasonable to assume this was posted as an example of the Levelling Up funding. It wasn't.

The money also wasn't granted by the government. It was granted by the Local Enterprise Partnership.

It also wasn't "to fill in potholes for a Conservative peer" as Lisa Nandy (who is an intelligent MP and should be above that kind of crap) stated.

Either way, there is far more to the story than first suggested, the government didn't award the grant and it has nothing to do with the Levelling Up Funding, but perhaps could be considered part of a more general levelling up agenda, which to be honest is probably something we all support in principle.

The point is, these things are complex, and trying to enrage people into thinking that the government is always corrupt and forever mis-spending money "on fixing Conservatives potholes" is entirely disingenuous and the topic deserves a far better quality of debate IMO

Having their cake and eating it then, where have I heard that before?

[JamesWales]

Re: Levelling up defined.

Having their cake and eating it then, where have I heard that before?

I'm not sure what you mean on that really. I don't think it's a case of that, but quite clearly the story is significantly less black and white than Lisa Nandy tried to portray it.

[Dorcus]

Re: Levelling up defined.

Well it looks a lot more black than white to me. I'd describe it as sooty 😀

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Levelling up defined.

I'm not sure what you mean on that really. I don't think it's a case of that, but quite clearly the story is significantly less black and white than Lisa Nandy tried to portray it.

You’re saying it’s got nothing to do with levelling up funding, but could be considered part of a more general levelling up agenda, so it’s seems like a Johnson type best of both worlds situation to me.