Enjoy your reasoned "debate" chaps! The irony of me being called blinkered for attempting to widen the debate out, is too much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Printable View
Enjoy your reasoned "debate" chaps! The irony of me being called blinkered for attempting to widen the debate out, is too much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
Call it whatever you want but you only wanted to divert the debate away from the blatant corruption we are witnessing from the current UK Government and discussing in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
The debate didn't require widening.
You couldn't care less as long as you can point elsewhere and try to distract people from the dirty truth.
Instead of moaning about what other people are discussing, why not start a thread about an actual positive Tory story and see what happens.
I just want a debate that looks at the wider issues, considers the hundreds of applications, the pros and cons of them. You are just advocating the equivalent of stories that do not do that - the same stories that only post negatives about certain groups of people, or always label football fans as hooligans. It's just stereotypes. If you only ever highlight negatives, you are just trying to distort the truth, and create an alternative one in which there is some grand conspiracy of corruption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
You aren't presenting the full story - it's just politically motivated speculation about a country road you have never heard of leading to a museum you have never been to or have no idea about. I've actually run a grant scheme before (not to this level, but we gave out grants of upto £5k) and a small minority of people would ALWAYS scream corruption, but it was never so.
If you actually read (too much to ask I know) the first thing I posted on this, it was as follows:
".. if the story is as reported (and it probably isn't) then it's obviously outrageous."
So clearly, if it is as clear cut as made out, then it is outrageous. My point is, that it almost certainly isn't.
What bugs me, is these posts have no interest in real debate or in uncovering anything of substance. It's just relentless, and tiresome mudslinging. Anyone who disagrees and tries to present an alternative argument is invariably insulted. If you don't agree with the CCMB angries then you just get abuse.
This is what is reported in the local paper. It may even be that the thing you are so angry about, isn't even true.
Either way...do I know the full story? No. Does anyone on CCMB? No.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1981...iveway-sussex/
“The Firle Estate sold Charleston to an independent charity formed in 1980.
“The access track had remained functional for farm traffic and cottages but was unsuitable for Charleston’s visitors travelling in the average family car.
“Charleston successfully applied to the Getting Building Fund to rebuild the track to improve access for visitors, create job opportunities and support the recovery and growth of the region’s visitor economy.
“The southern extent of the new track beyond Charleston that services the dairy farm and estate cottages was funded by Firle Estate.”
A Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities spokesman said: “Charleston has not received any money from the Levelling Up Fund.
“This project was allocated funding from the Getting Building Fund by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership, whose independent evaluators assessed it as offering value for money.
“Charleston is a charity-owned, internationally recognised site of cultural importance, with a museum and art gallery, and this work is estimated to provide a £1.6 million boost to the local economy by creating jobs and increasing visitor numbers.”
So just to confirm...
1 / It looks like this project DID NOT receive levelling up funding.
2 / It did receive funding from the South East Local Enterprise Partnership under the Getting Building Fund programme.
https://www.southeastlep.com/about-us/
3 / You can read more about it here
https://www.southeastlep.com/project...ier-to-growth/
4 / I was right to query whether the original story was accurate because it seemingly wasn't.
5 / The world isn't going to hell in a handcart.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
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? :hehe: ).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
I consider that progress. :ayatollah:
Now that we've established that: would you now care to discuss all of the recent scandals involving the Tory party?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
Always happy to, but really, again!?:hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
You're right, tell that to Monkfish, he'd go apoplectic!Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veg1960
That and the stuff James has added to the conversation is all in this article.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/le...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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
This is The Goverment's levelling up prospectus
https://assets.publishing.service.go...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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
https://www.southeastlep.com/project...ier-to-growth/
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ng-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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veg1960
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Well it looks a lot more black than white to me. I'd describe it as sooty 😀
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales