The problem is really, that all politics atany level is about the exercise of power.Basically the more homes you build, the morepeople you get to exercise that power over.There's probably no real incentive for anyone to go into local politics, sit through allthe boring committees, even if the moneyis good, if at the top of the greasy poleall you'll end up in charge of, is a coupleof parks.But turn the Uxbridge Rd into uptownManhatten - and be in charge of all that lot...There are presumably Council Tax benefits aswell. The bigger the population, the biggerthe budget. And who wouldn't want a bigger budget to play around with ?In the early days local councils, in additionto providing libraries swimming, pools etc werewere often also responsible for gas, water,sewage electricity etc. And were run by professionalmiddle-class individuals out of a sense of duty with small hope of financial reward.Just as presumably local residents regardedpaying their local rates similarly as a matter of duty.But all that's all changed. Nobody wants to payincreased Council Tax nowadays , citing corruptionand inefficiency as their reason. While few peopleare any longer prepared participate in localgovernment solely out of a sense of duty.If they could even afford to do soThere's no such thing as a free lunch. And so withno rise in Council Tax, basically you get a classof politicians who are best at massaging thefinances by building more homes and thusincreasing Council Tax revenues, while at the same time maintaining the pretence that cuts in services libraries, refuse collection etc are really an improvement.The choice being - provide a lower level of service forincreasing numbers of people - or throw in the toweland admit its impossible to maintain any level ofservice at all for a stable population unlessCouncil Tax goes up substantially. Now in this dayand age, who is going to vote for that ? michael adams...
Michael Adams ● 3886d