Jump to content

Is Warrington the worst place to live in the country?


Gary
 Share

Is Warrington the worst place to live in the country?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Warrington the worst place to live in the country?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Don't know


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I chose to live in Warrington in 1987 and I choose to remain living in Warrington. I was not wrong then and am not wrong now.

 

Warrington gets a bad press because of Londoncentric reporters, many of whom probably don't know where Warrington is, let alone visit our town to see for themselves.

 

We all need to be careful, if we beat Warrington up, investors will go elsewhere.

 

All of these reports and assessments are just a job creation scheme, I never get excited when they award four stars and never get downhearted when they award three red flags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose to live in Warrington in 1987 and I choose to remain living in Warrington. I was not wrong then and am not wrong now.

 

Warrington gets a bad press because of Londoncentric reporters, many of whom probably don't know where Warrington is, let alone visit our town to see for themselves.

 

We all need to be careful, if we beat Warrington up, investors will go elsewhere.

 

All of these reports and assessments are just a job creation scheme, I never get excited when they award four stars and never get downhearted when they award three red flags.

 

Well said Paul - great to see a local politician put his name and face to his statements.

Shame there aren't a few more like you.

Those who tell me they are far too busy to post on here or engage with the public need to spend more time showing us what they actually do to earn our votes!

I can't think of a simplier way to engage with the public! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahhhh but how do you know it is really Paul that is posting??? it could be his press secretary or another of the army of employees these councillors have out of the ?100,00.00 a year salaries!! :lol::lol:

 

I voted no too, because I am sure it would be better to live here than in Widnes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahhhh but how do you know it is really Paul that is posting??? it could be his press secretary or another of the army of employees these councillors have out of the ?100,00.00 a year salaries!! :lol::lol:

 

I voted no too, because I am sure it would be better to live here than in Widnes!

 

I can assure you that that all posts in my name, are typed by my fair hand. ?100,000 a year, crikey somebody must be pocketing mine, last month's payslip was for ?521.28. :wink::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted 'No' but that was because I believe there are far worse places to live too.

 

BUT I also think that there are many issues in Warrington that do need addressing.

 

I wont list them just incase the tabloids are following the story on here and decide to make a mountain out of my comments and criticisms :lol: Ok so maybe not :lol::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an outsider, the impression I get is that Warrington isn't at all bad a place, it has its ups and downs like anywhere else. I doubt if Londoncentric people are to blame, as they probably ignore Warrington rather than slag it off. More likely it is a vocal minority of ming-mongs closer to your own home who are responsible! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole debate is based on an assumption that LOCAL Councillors actually have the power to make a difference; the reality is that central Government control over 80% of the budget allocation (statutory spending); and together with Brussels circumscribe any local initiative; add to this the micro-management of services, the target culture and set by Gov inspectors looking over the shoulder of local Officers creating risk aversion and inertia - so no surprise. It used to be the case (at least in theory); that the LOCAL electorate decided whether they were receiving value for their money, through the ballot box - but alas LAs are merely outposts of central dictat - so if folk arn't satisfied, take it out on Westminister and Brussels! :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole debate is based on an assumption that LOCAL Councillors actually have the power to make a difference; the reality is that central Government control over 80% of the budget allocation (statutory spending)

 

Hang on, if my Mum and Dad give me 50p pocket money, they're effectively controlling my budget. But it's up to me if I blow it all on 2p cola bottles at the tuc shop rather than spend it wisely.

 

Are you trying to tell me that our council spend their budget wisely? :shock: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's an easy job, but somebody out there needs to put their head into the the 2010s and onward. I've seen some encouraging signs of late, so there is hope.

 

Anyhow, Warrington isn't the worse place in the UK to live, far from it. It's also far from perfect, which is partly the local council's fault - let's hope this just serves as a big kick up the proverbial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't understand where most of these posts are coming from! :shock:

Non political Gary?

Though Warrington was judged on it's performance in varied sectors the areas the Auditors rated as having failed were areas wherein the council were responsible.

The news reports did initially focus on the sensational 'worst town in Britain' but it was easily apparent to the reader that it was the various sectors that were being judged and not the town as a whole.

There were serious failings in very important sectors,

Children's services perhaps the most worrying.

So I can't understand why you should be so worried about the reputation of the town, or the rugby team ( whose reputation they are looking after well enough themselves).

 

And Paul....

We all need to be careful, if we beat Warrington up, investors will go elsewhere. .

 

Economic interests may be damaged by a town's reputation.......

but what the hell! children's safety and welfare comes first!.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting that either of you would put the town's 'reputation' before the children because I know you wouldn't but I can't see any defence whatsoever for the council to have failed in this of all areas!

They should be criticised, they should be ashamed and they should ensure that it never, ever happens again!

 

Another area was health, failing to address the towns high risk factors for cancer, heart disease, stroke and respiratory illness. Pollution from the towns congested roads is probably one of the most serious causative factors. Yet have the council even addressed this?

 

High unemployment figures....don't they have any responsibility in that area? There have been many wasted opportunities for creating jobs, for example where the council has allowed housing development on employment sites......because it's been less effort and provided a few easy quid in 106 agreements.

The inequality of health and life expectancy in different areas is obviously related directly to lower incomes...and that is not as Mr Barr seems to condescendingly suggest due to less 'productivity' but due to the towns glut of low wage employment opportunities.

If Warrington were 'economically successful' there wouldn't be areas of deprivation.

Warrington Exec's failings have been somewhat due to their lack of productivity, they should have the grace to accept the criticism, admit their mistakes and learn from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are we sure it was Warrington in Cheshire and not Warrington in Olney they were looking at?

 

have lived here all my life (so far, fingers crossed, do not tempt fate) and would not live anywhere else. if you look at the report we ended up with a 2 out of 4 so you could say we are an average place to live with a score of 50%. there is room for improvement, but there always is no matter how good or perfect a place is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh 21; it doesn't quite work like that: only around 25% of Council expenditure is collected via local Council Tax; all Buisiness Rates are collected on behalf of central Gov, then redistributed (a la Barnett Formula) as block grants, directed at various budget areas - thus the biggest share is "directed" at Education, then Social Services, then when the dust settles, local Councils decide where they want to top up the amounts, with local revenue, which has CAPs placed on it by (you guessed it) central Government. So they have discretion over about 15% of their budgets. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh 21; it doesn't quite work like that: only around 25% of Council expenditure is collected via local Council Tax; all Buisiness Rates are collected on behalf of central Gov, then redistributed (a la Barnett Formula) as block grants, directed at various budget areas - thus the biggest share is "directed" at Education, then Social Services, then when the dust settles, local Councils decide where they want to top up the amounts, with local revenue, which has CAPs placed on it by (you guessed it) central Government. So they have discretion over about 15% of their budgets. :roll:

 

I've not argued how they get their budget, or even how much they have. Just the way they go about spending what they do have and the decisions they make, which leave a lot to be desired sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting sick to death hearing people going on about "children's services". We should not forget that the vulnerable children we are talking about are very much a minority.

While I would not wish any of them to come to harm, surely we should accept that the people most to blame for any failings in their care are their parents. I think all councils, or more correctly, all social workers, have a very difficult job which is made more difficult by society's stupid obsession with the human rights, or civil rights, or whatever rights you want to call them, of people who don't deserve any rights at all.

If we, as a society, are really serious about stamping out child neglect, child abuse, etc we should stop certain people from having children in the first place. We all have a pretty good idea who they are, don't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on the 11 of you who have voted Warrington the worst town in Britain to live.

I can only presume you have a political agenda - which I can assure you all i don't.

I try and work with all political parties and anyone who is doing their best to help make our town a better place.

This is not a vote on whether Warrington is well run by the local council - this is a vote on whether Warrington is the worst place to live.

If you really do hate living here so much why not move down the road to St Helens, Widnes, Leigh, Runcorn, Salford.

I know where I would rather live.

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A resounding NO from me too. I moved to Warrington 22 years ago by choice and, in my line of work, I can choose to live anywhere in the world to live never mind anywhere in this country. Sure there are bad parts to the town but I've always found most of the inhabitants friendly enough!! :wink::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...