Esteem Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6761766/Warrington-is-ranked-at-bottom-of-Government-backed-quality-of-life-survey.html `The study highlighted the area's high unemployment, relatively low life expectancy and its poor record on child protection as key factors for its place at the bottom of the rankings` Grim ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Worse than Knowsley and Halton apparantly. However the report did say that traffic congestion is improving so maybe they have got everything else wrong also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esteem Posted December 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Five years ago it was one of the best - the beautys of having a Lib Dem controlled Council I guess ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Five years ago it was one of the best - the beautys of having a Lib Dem controlled Council I guess ... Lets not bring politics into this. While there are plenty of faults with Warrington (and the council) the media have deliberately put spin on this to make sensational newspaper headlines. The whole report was done in such a way as not to rank one town with another. This is a cheap publicity stunt by some media organisations who don't give a damn about the damage they can cause by writing misleading headlines. Shame on any one who tries to score cheap political points out of this. If you want to read an accurate report on the findings of the report click here http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/6912/1/Anger-over-red-flag-report/Page1.html I have lived in Warrington all of my life and am proud of the town and want to do my best to make it a better place to live and work. Shame on those who just sit back and knock it. Get off your backsides and do something to make Warrington a better place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esteem Posted December 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Gary with all due respect it`s an offical Government report by the Audit commission of the performance of Council services amongst other markers - are you trying to say Ian Marks and his Lymm licking cronies are not answerable ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Gary with all due respect it`s an offical Government report by the Audit commission of the performance of Council services amongst other markers - are you trying to say Ian Marks and his Lymm licking cronies are not answerable ? Exactly! It is a report on areas where councils perform well and not so well - not which is the worst town in the country! I clearly stated that the council is far from perfect in my post. I just try and rise above politics on here and fight my corner defending my home town because I am prepared to do something about it instead of trying to score cheap political points. If everyone made the effort to do something positive instead of wasting time on being negative, the town and the world would be a better place for us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
safeway56 Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 I live in Newton-leWillows which became lumped in with St Helens in the 1970's when we lost our local council in *re-organisation* How reports show that Warrington is a terrible to live doesn't know what they are talking about. Of course every town has it's faults and critics but St Helens council still lives in the 1950's. We've had large tracts of land derelict for years and a good example is the local cinema right in the town centre which has been derelict for years and has become a major eyesore. The Tesco store, again right in the town centre, is built on what was once a development of about six streets for the workers employed at the railway carriage and wagon works. The houses became uninhabitable and were little more than hovels so had to be demolished..This land was unoccupied for TWELVE years before the supermarket was allowed to be built. I've always maintained that we should have been merged with Warrington rather than St Helens and perhaps we wouldn't be the semi-derelict slum we are today. Even today we are suffering from the non-decisions from St Helens Council. Planning permission has been in their hands for years for the redevelopment of the former Parkside Colliery to be turned into a mega railway marshalling yard which would take thousands of trucks off the roads and still no decision taken. I've lived here for most of my life but I worked in Warrington for around 25 years so am well qualified to judge on the quality of life in both towns...Warrington by some considerable distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DS Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 For a start, lets get one thing straight. Warrington is NOT "officially" the worst town in the country. Warrington simply happens to have been handed three red flags, which is one more than any other town. But it has also been awarded one green flag, which effectively wipes out one of the red ones. Secondly, the Audit Commission report is NOT about council services but about ALL public services in the borough, including, voluntary services. Apparently, the Audit Commission deliberately designed this review in such a way as to make it impossible to compare one area with another. But, predictably I suppose, the national media have contrived to do so and come up with the notion that Warrington is the worst place to live. The Audit Commission has admitted that there are areas which perform worse than Warrington which have better "flag" scores. Another point is that we are not talking about a level playing field. Some areas have been judged on fewer, or more, services than Warrington. Some have received green flags for services which are exemplary in Warrington but which did not get a green flag. My own view is that the review is flawed itself. It seems to be an attempt to judge an authority against its own aims. It seems to ignore Warrington's historic legacy which puts the town in a poor position compared with others which do not have the same industrial past. Yes there will be people around who choose to play politics with the survey but Warrington's problems are so deep rooted in the past that all political parties must take a share of the blame for them, just as all can also take some credit for the town's successes. I am quick enough to criticise the council when it is justified but on this occasion I do not think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Given the constraints within which LOCAL Government has to operate; it's a bit like criticising a man in a straight jacket for picking his nose. After 12 years of NuLab social experiment, micro-management and sheer wasted expenditure - all the red flags should be deposited on the door step of No 10 Downing St. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather NOT have a green flag like the one in Ipswich for dealing really well with gangs of prossies on the streets..... not really a plus for me, that. I'd rather have them red flagged as unemployed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Thought they were given a red light?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 They have to buy their own.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 9, 2009 Report Share Posted December 9, 2009 Well not that I have taken much notice of the news reports today although I just clicked on the first link posted by Esteem. To be quite honest although Warrington was named as one of the worst in the Telegraphs news report it was the ONLY one that received additional reporting space for comments made by the local council and a few members of the public. So I think that new report was rather fair towards Warrington actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 It's stupid, frankly. The Lib Dem/Tory coalition may well have taken their eye off the ball in some areas (and lost political control to officers because cabinet members are not on top of their jobs). But Warrington as the worst place in the country is bunkum e.g. judged poor for inequality in pockets of high unemployment (but with vastly lower unemployment than in many other areas). It's a bit like the economic survey a few years ago where we came second as "the most profitable town in the country" (based on businesses' profit/turnover ratio). Then Carrington closed the wire works, which wasn't very profitable, and made the workers redundant, so that probably made us number one (even though it did nothing for employment). Speaking of red lights, I see Ipswich did well for tackling street prostitution in Ipswich. So they get a green light for tackling their red light district - a problem that Warrington doesn't even have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 HEADLINE: Warrington is ranked at bottom of Government-backed quality of life survey Details: The study highlighted the area's high unemployment, relatively low life expectancy and its poor record on child protection as key factors for its place at the bottom of the rankings. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't see any of those three criteria as quality of life issues, nor indeed the green flag for public transport. Conversly, congestion where we scored well despite being atrocious, with appalling traffic management by the council lackeys, is a quality of life issue. As is (as pointed out above) not living in a run down area (to my eyes) like St Helens. There's probably nothing wrong with the report, just that is isn;t a quality of life survey as headlined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Maybe they should all start again from scratch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Some folk can live out the most boring existence for a hundred years, some can pack it all into 20 years - so what's the correlation between "quality" of life and longevity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Dunno and a very good quastion Obs... ask me again in 55 years and hopefully I may have an answer for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Some folk can live out the most boring existence for a hundred years, some can pack it all into 20 years - so what's the correlation between "quality" of life and longevity? Exactly my point, the 'quality of life' issues where Warrington falls down, seem to be nothing of the sort. Just a bad headline from a bad newspaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Some folk can live out the most boring existence for a hundred years, some can pack it all into 20 years - so what's the correlation between "quality" of life and longevity? The correlation between 'quality of life' and 'longevity' in this case would be that in Warrington there is none! The particular 'killers' in Warrington are Cardio- vascular and respiratory disease. Which means Warringtonians not only have a shorter lifespan, but quite some years of discomfort and disability before they finally do (relatively young) die. Quote: The study highlighted the area's high unemployment, relatively low life expectancy and its poor record on child protection as key factors for its place at the bottom of the rankings. Fatshaft quote...... the 'quality of life' issues where Warrington falls down, seem to be nothing of the sort.... Fatshaft, the areas highlighted by the auditors report were of those which are the very basics for quality of life. Unfortunately the powers that be in this town seem to share your 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 To point the finger at Warrington using "basic" health statistics is pants. Are any questions asked about medical history or is the death certificate the only evidence. Using myself as an example, I have lived in Glazebury all my life which is about as far from Warrington as you can get whilst still be classed as Warrington. I worked all my working life in Hindley Green (Wigan) in the cotton, rubber, glass and asbestos industries, I am an ex smoker and have had a 'cardiac event' which seems to be heriditary on my father's side of the family. When I eventually pop my clogs I will be a statistic whose demise has been caused by living in Warrington, daft innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 There are some links between enviromental factors, such as poverty, but there are also lifestyle and genetic factors involved too. If you worked down a mine for 30 years, it's possible you will die of lung desease, likewise if you smoked all your life, and likewise if you have a family history. If folk who are poor, knew what life has to offer if your rich - maybe they'd die of misery; but fortunately for the rich they don't - so not knowing allows them some happiness in their ignorance! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgusted Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Fatshaft, the areas highlighted by the auditors report were of those which are the very basics for quality of life. Unfortunately the powers that be in this town seem to share your 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. Sorry, that's nonsense. Yes your own quality of life will suffer if you're sick, but that is not what anyone would take the phrase "quality of life" to mean when talking about living in a particular area. If you are sick, you don't suddenly get better if you move from Warrington to St Helens, whereas such a move will change how good your schools are, how high the crime rate is, congestion, etc. They are items specific to the area, and not the person, hence why I made my comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 Plus they could eat junk food wherever they live - they could move to Scotland and eat deep fried Mars bars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted December 15, 2009 Report Share Posted December 15, 2009 If folk who are poor, knew what life has to offer if your rich - maybe they'd die of misery; but fortunately for the rich they don't - so not knowing allows them some happiness in their ignorance! Given that most rich people didn't start out rich, I would suggest that their "happiness" is due to them becoming rich rather than out of their ignorance, also probably explains why they fight to hold on to their wealth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.