David Cornock's blog had an interesting comment today,
Two questions, both linked, spring to mind, "who would receive the funding, and, who would decide how it would be used ? "
If, for example, it can be demonstrated that an area has such poor literacy that its inhabitants are unable to attract good, well paid, employment, then government might address educational needs of the area.
If, for example, health issues can be linked to poor sanitation, then government can intervene, much like London of the 19th century.
With this in mind, should Westminster fund various regions of the UK as it does, should Scotland receive more per head than Wales, should Wales receive more per head than the East of England, per head ?
I don't think so, funding should be equal across the UK as a whole, based upon population, but a new approach to funding societies deficiencies wherever they are found.
I don't think he is right, "why should a poor part of any country receive government funds because it is poorer than other areas ? "Comment No. 45. by paul80 "Poorer parts of the UK should receive more funding. Makes sense. The UK is a sinlge country after all."
Two questions, both linked, spring to mind, "who would receive the funding, and, who would decide how it would be used ? "
If, for example, it can be demonstrated that an area has such poor literacy that its inhabitants are unable to attract good, well paid, employment, then government might address educational needs of the area.
If, for example, health issues can be linked to poor sanitation, then government can intervene, much like London of the 19th century.
With this in mind, should Westminster fund various regions of the UK as it does, should Scotland receive more per head than Wales, should Wales receive more per head than the East of England, per head ?
I don't think so, funding should be equal across the UK as a whole, based upon population, but a new approach to funding societies deficiencies wherever they are found.
No comments:
Post a Comment