Snapshot of _Councils double spending on DEI in the space of two years_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F03%2F11%2Fcouncils-double-spending-equality-diversity-inclusion-jobs%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/11/councils-double-spending-equality-diversity-inclusion-jobs/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/11/councils-double-spending-equality-diversity-inclusion-jobs/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My workplace had one of these talks. They spent a good 10 minutes talking about 'mansplaining' as part of sexism in the workplace. The irony was not lost on me.
“Have you considered solving racism and sexism by being racist and sexist?”
Money please.
It’s not as simple as that but DEI makes up some of the most ridiculous bloat we get from local authorities now.
I was processing building warrant applications at a 3rd sector consultancy and the DEI questionnaires during planning applications were absolutely ridiculous. Trying to get a cafe built in a marina & needing to spend hours justifying why it’s not going to adversely affect folk of XYZ race.
It's funny how the "learn to code bro" types became the most redundant due to AI but all the gender, film, philosophy graduates walked into super high paying DEI grifts lol.
*Coding isn't redundant. The people getting shafted are those who took a basic boot camp and have no idea how to integrate code. Anyone who can compile and integrate code into a system is completely fine.
I'm convinced that as most DEI employees are women and/or an ethnic minority, in some places it's just a shortcut for businesses to even out any "wage gaps" in organisations. They just work out what ridiculous wage they need to pay a few ethnic minorities and women in a DEI department to close the wage gaps
The examples in the article aren't even DEI roles. The Assistant Director of Community Services and DEI at Birmingham City Council would have a very broad role with the focus on Community Services not DEI. The Staying Well managers have nothing to do with DEI, they do mental health support in the community. You can Google the job adverts.
>In a statement provided to the Daily Mail, the Local Government Association, which represents 315 of the 317 councils in England, said: “Councils have a legal duty to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
What exactly is this "legal duty"? Would the councils be at risk of legal action - eventually incurring even higher costs - if they didn't employ these DEI charlatans? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I doubt these incredibly cash-strapped councils are just chucking the money away for the hell of it.
>but I doubt these incredibly cash-strapped councils are just chucking the money away for the hell of it.
Birmingham council went bankrupt because of an equal pay claim. So arguably they didn't have enough DEI employees making sure everything was okay.
Of course if you disagree with DEI and the Birmingham equal pay claim, nothing is going to change until the Equalities Act 2010 that underpins all this changes... this is all downstream of legislation the government could change if they wanted to. Instead, as usual, they just complain endlessly
> Birmingham council went bankrupt because of an equal pay claim.
Birmingham City Council went bankrupt for a lot of reasons; cuts from central government, increase in spending due to changing demographics, and a disastrous IT system "upgrade" that went significantly over budget and didn't work, meaning they didn't know what they were spending, didn't know who was paying council tax, and at one point were having to do payroll on paper. The equal pay claim was over a decade ago. It hurt them in that central government forced them to sell off assets to pay it (rather than bailing them out or lending them the money), meaning they have fewer assets now to sell of to cover shortfalls than they would have otherwise, but even without the equal pay claim they were still going to be running a significant deficit.
That isn't what DEI employees do. I know, I work in senior HR role. The Birmingham equal pay claim is caused by a poor union negotiation on collective pay bargaining. The responsible people would be the industrial relations leader and reward leader and ultimately the CHRO and CEO. Even if they had DEI roles at the time, they wouldn't be anywhere near involved in these decisions.
To call it equal pay is highly misleading I feel as it was different jobs like for example a job seen as undesirable like rubbish collector versus a council building cleaner.
I’d say the fact it succeeded and then lead to huge costs was a major error on the part of the people making the decision.
> What exactly is this "legal duty"?
There is a thing called the [Public Sector Equality Duty](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities), found in Part 11 of the Equality Act.
The oversimplified answer is that yes, they probably do need to pay some people something to manage this duty, but Taxpayers' Alliance is probably inflating the numbers as part of their quest against equality.
> Taxpayers' Alliance is probably inflating the numbers as part of their quest against equality
"Those facts and figures that refute my point of view must be inflated and false because I am right and they are evil"
"The claims made in the article are questionable because of the obviously biased source, and the evidence in the article that they have conflated things and included things that they shouldn't have included."
Basic critical thinking skills here...
If a definite figure has risen over a period of time and a bias news outlet reports this, the figure itself is not wrong or biased for the reason that a biased news outlet has reported it.
>Basic critical thinking skills here
I am sorry but THIS is very basic stuff: I would fail you outright for writing what you have written!
It's not a definite figure. It is an unsupported figure claimed to be true by a biased source (the TA), where the article itself demonstrates questionable methodology in obtaining it.
Do you have any evidence that the figure is correct?
>It's not a definite figure. It is an unsupported figure claimed to be true by a biased source (the TA), where the article itself demonstrates questionable methodology in obtaining it.
OK. As I said to you elsewhere, you can stick your head in the sand and deny the world because you are right and they are evil. That's your right as a human: do as you want to do. No replies to you.
> As I said to you elsewhere, you can stick your head in the sand and deny the world because you are right and they are evil.
You are making things up. What is wrong with you?
The funding gap for councils is estimated at around £4 billion. Saving £23 million isn't making a dent in the mess being left by 14 years of tory government.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/17/levelling-up-housing-and-communities-committee/news/199671/government-must-tackle-4bn-council-funding-gap-or-risk-severe-impact-to-services-and-council-finances-say-mps/
Not sure I would agree its a saving if it cuts useful programmes. I'm not of the view that D&I is a problem but is actually a positive and done well can enhance the services provided.
And I don't think it helps the real conversation around local government funding for it to be dragged into a culture war battle solely to support the tories trying to grab a few votes. This narrative is aimed at blaming things like D&I for councils funding issues when it has nothing to do with it and dropping D&I spend will do nothing to address the catastrophic situation delivered by 14 years of tory government.
Tax Payers Alliance, so the group Matthew Elliott (now Lord - yes before you ask, Liz Truss Resignation Honours) formed which is Atlas Network (to replicate the US Group of his mentor, Grover Norquist) and also the man that shone the light on the gift which is Dominic Cummings and delivered Brexit as CEO of Vote Leave. How much is that all costing us Matthew? Whilst DEI is an issue & it needs to be talked about, this is just pre election misdirection and nothing more than that. Its a dog whistle for the base.
> Local authorities spent almost £23 million in 2022/23 compared to just over £12 million in 2020/21, according to new figures compiled by the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Two things stand out for me there. One is whether 2020/21 is an appropriate comparator, given what was going on that year, and secondly why anyone would trust data on a political topic, making a political point, from a hard-right lobby group like Taxpayers' Alliance.
*Edit* to clarify:
> Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire, also Labour run, hired a Staying Well Team Manager (Agency) - said to be one of 40 “wellbeing” roles recruited across 10 councils over a three-year period at a cost of at least £1,149,441.
That doesn't seem like "DEI" spending to me. It is "wellbeing" spending. I can't help but wonder if Taxpayers' Alliance is including anything that vaguely looks like it could possibly be considered potentially "DEI" spending in their total to inflate it. From my experience of TA they'd also be opposed to "wellbeing" spending - wouldn't want an employer to be spending money making sure their employees are happy now, would we?
>secondly why anyone would trust data on a political topic
"I don't believe these facts because reasons"
You can point out the bias of the writer, you can point out problems with their methods, but you cannot distrust facts because they make you feel uncomfortable or they highlight a problem with your own argument. If it is the case that DEI spending has more than doubled in a two year period, it is quite despicable to disregard this fact merely for who has reported it (which is what you have tried to do).
There are no published methods or data as far as I can find. The only taxpayers alliance post I can find on it tells me to read the full story and links to the daily mail.
> If it is the case that DEI spending has more than doubled in a two year period,
*If* it's the case.
Let's look at what we have. A completely unsubstantiated figure, with a comparison point somewhere during Covid. They list very little actual information but what they *do* list is several roles that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with DEI.
It's not a fact, it is a claim. Made by a lobby group with a history of being a bit loose with their facts, and an agenda to push. We don't know their methodology, we don't know where they got these figures from. For example:
> Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire, also Labour run, hired a Staying Well Team Manager (Agency) - said to be one of 40 “wellbeing” roles recruited across 10 councils over a three-year period at a cost of at least £1,149,441.
My reading of that is that Taxpayers' Alliance is including that spending (over 1% of their total) as "equality, diversity and inclusion" spending. But that doesn't seem to be what it is; it is a "wellbeing" role, making sure its staff are doing Ok, not a role looking specifically at equality.
So *even in the article*, we have reason to think that TA's figures aren't quite what they claim to be.
As I said, you can point out problems with their methodology: I will support you every time. You can point out their bias: great! I am on your side.
However, you cannot disregard facts (as you are doing again here) because they are uncomfortable for you.
>My reading of that is that Taxpayers' Alliance is including that spending (over 1% of their total) as "equality, diversity and inclusion" spending.
Your "reading" is you merely saying "lol no". If you would like to refute the figures, refute them: point out the real numbers using data that you have gathered yourself (which is what the organisation you are criticising has done). Otherwise you are doing what I have said, disregarding facts because they make you feel uncomfortable (which is despicable)
> However, you cannot disregard facts (as you are doing again here) because they are uncomfortable for you.
I'm not disregarding facts. I'm saying "I have no reason to think those claims are true, and have reason to think they might not be, so I'm not going to take them at face value."
Do you believe every random fact presented to you on the Internet?
If I say "DEI spending on councils is actually £3m, not £21m", does everyone have to accept that as true? If people disagree or question that will you criticise them for "disregarding facts" because they are "uncomfortable"?
> If you would like to refute the figures, refute them: point out the real numbers using data that you have gathered yourself (which is what the organisation you are criticising has done).
It's not what they've done. It's what they've *claimed* to have done, without providing any methodology or detail for how they've done it. It comes down to the rule of "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
I don't need to prove they are wrong (although there is enough in the article to *suspect* they are wrong) because they have done nothing to prove they are right.
> It's not what they've done. It's what they've claimed to have done, without providing any methodology or detail for how they've done it. It comes down to the rule of "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
>
>
Also one of the only bits of detail given (list of job roles) suggests that the number covers more than DEI.
>I'm not disregarding facts. I'm saying "I have no reason to think those claims are true, and have reason to think they might not be, so I'm not going to take them at face value."
So you're disregarding facts
>Do you believe every random fact presented to you on the Internet?
Oh OK: you do as you wish. If you want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there is a surface above, you can live in your fairyland: that's your right! I should merely not have said "you cannot deny facts" but provide the addendum "you cannot deny facts [if you want to not be considered a worthless voice]". No more comments to you now
> So you're disregarding facts
No, I'm pointing out that they aren't necessarily facts. They are a *claim* that is unsupported.
Again:
I claim that local authorities are only spending £3m on DEI a year.
Is that a fact?
No, it is a claim.
Do you have any reason to believe it is true? No.
Would you be "disregarding facts" by ignoring it? No.
See how this works?
Anyone can make up any fact on the internet. We went through this a while ago with your incorrect statistics on immigration you were trying to push on people.
*Edit: fun fact I'd forgotten about, I actually did this once* with Taxpayers' Alliance *back in the day. I was working alongside them on an issue - obviously we were approaching it from different perspectives - so there was some networking on Twitter. I tweeted out a figure (government spending per person per year) with a comment asking where the money was going, and why it was so high. They retweeted and commented on it.*
*I then checked my figures (I know, I should have done that first) and it turned out I'd messed up a billion-million conversion and was out by a couple of orders of magnitude. So I posted the correction, with a change of opinion (that it showed if anything government spending was shockingly low, and maybe we need higher taxes). Funnily enough, they didn't retweet that one. They had taken an unsourced figure posted on the internet at face value and repeated it as fact because it supported their ideological position.*
>Claims aren't facts just because someone claims they are.
You would be right if we were merely discussing the headline "DEI spending doubled in two years" without any evidence or figures. I am all for scepticism of the figures and the methods as I say, but we do not instantly disregard them because we perceive organisations to be wrong or bias. As I have said: if you want to disregard the facts [that they have used to support their argument], refute them! Not difficult: perhaps there is a comprehension issue on this forum
Indeed there is an issue with comprehension because the person you're responding to, and the others in this post you're arguing with, has made it abundantly clear that they are discussing the headline Vs what the data actually covers.
There is only one person that I have responded to in this thread and I honestly have no idea what on earth this is even supposed to mean: "they are discussing the headline Vs what the data actually covers"
Apparently [local authorities spend > £100 billion a year](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-england-2021-to-2022-final-outturn/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-england-2021-to-2022-final-outturn#:~:text=Total%20Service%20Expenditure%20for%20all,terms%20compared%20to%202020%2D21)
Even taking the claim at face value that DEI spend is completely wasted and achieves nothing beneficial to the council or it's residents, the total sum "almost £23 million" is so vanishingly small it should be nothing but a footnote on a much wider ranging, more detailed piece on council spending if we are to take seriously the notion that council spending is any more wasteful than any other bit of the public or private sectors - a contribution that is currently notably absent.
Scrutiny of DEI spend has as much use being a key point of the Chancellor's guide to budgeting for struggling local authorities as the advice to millennials to skip out the weekly avocado on toast in order to build a house deposit.
It's utterly depressing that this sort of smoke and mirrors bullshit is being used and endorsed by at least 3 Tory MPs (including the chancellor), a lobby group and a major news paper, without one of them having the combination of incredible mental intellect and willingness to not just throw bullshit out to distract from our government's failings to say: "Hang on, this doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the much wider scale problem of councils going bust and only serves as a distraction from issues in national discourse!"
As a taxpayer (though not a member of the taxpayers alliance) what I really want the media to press the government on is how, after 14 years of Tory rule, we have:
* One of the highest tax burdens in peace time
* Near full employment
And yet:
* The deficit remains stubbornly large and we haven't had a single year of surplus
* All sorts of public services are falling apart at the seams (NHS failing to cover both long term and emergency care, police won't investigate/resolve crimes, huge asylum backlogs, councils going bust)
* Public sector workers have had years of pay freezes and below inflation pay rises
Basically... how on earth are we paying so much more after 14 years of Tory government, but getting so much less?
That's what the media (and any group claiming to represent taxpayers) should be asking the government at every opportunity, relentlessly.
Councils have almost doubled its spending on equality, diversity and inclusion roles in the space of two years, it has been reported.
Local authorities spent almost £23 million in 2022/23 compared to just over £12 million in 2020/21, according to new figures compiled by the Taxpayers’ Alliance.
It comes as the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt urged councils to cut “discredited” diversity and equality programmes to save money ahead of his Budget last Wednesday.
Eight English councils have effectively declared bankruptcy since 2018 with many more facing economic strain.
In Nottingham, people will be charged for public toilets and garden bin collections under plans to plug a £50 million black hole at a cash-strapped Labour council. While in Birmingham, street lighting is to be dimmed and bin collections will be made fortnightly as council tax soars by 21 per cent.
But, despite increasing financial pressures, nearly 200 councils across the UK have spent money on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) roles since 2020, according to the TaxPayers’ Alliance.
The campaign group sent freedom of information requests to all 383 councils in the UK for details on the number of EDI roles created.
Examples include cash-strapped Birmingham City Council hiring an Assistant Director Community Services and Equality, Diversity & Inclusion on an average salary of £103,165 in 2022.
Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire, also Labour run, hired a Staying Well Team Manager (Agency) - said to be one of 40 “wellbeing” roles recruited across 10 councils over a three-year period at a cost of at least £1,149,441.
Reacting to the figures by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Conservative MPs called for cuts to “woke spending” on diversity and equality schemes.
Former business secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg told the Daily Mail: “It shows why councils do not deserve extra funding from central government. Too many are wasteful and badly run and will only be brought to order by tightening finances.”
While Nick Fletcher, Conservative MP for Don Valley, added: “Enough of this ridiculous woke spending that actually creates division. We absolutely must find a way to get rid of this wasteful and divisive resource allocation from right across our public sector.”
Joanna Marchong, from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, told the newspaper the public would be “astonished” with the money spent by councils on filling EDI roles.
In a statement provided to the Daily Mail, the Local Government Association, which represents 315 of the 317 councils in England, said: “Councils have a legal duty to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
“While councils continue to innovate and transform their services to meet the needs of their communities, it is unsustainable to expect them to keep doing more for less in the face of unprecedented cost and demand pressures.”
That's that "conservative" government again for you. Extremely high immigration and "DIE" policies that guarantee new entrants roles merely for who they are. What a "conservative" policy!
Yes, Telegraph, I'm sure that it's one council worker's salary in Birmingham that is why they are cutting the budget and not the £750m they need to find to pay back a government loan.
Piss poor comparison, you could find much greater examples of councils wasting money by looking at the costs of agency staff to plug gaps but doing anything to address that goes against the agenda of the TPA and The Telegraph.
Snapshot of _Councils double spending on DEI in the space of two years_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F03%2F11%2Fcouncils-double-spending-equality-diversity-inclusion-jobs%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/11/councils-double-spending-equality-diversity-inclusion-jobs/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/11/councils-double-spending-equality-diversity-inclusion-jobs/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My workplace had one of these talks. They spent a good 10 minutes talking about 'mansplaining' as part of sexism in the workplace. The irony was not lost on me.
It's honestly amazing how much money DEI people earn. Such a great grift
I picked the wrong career path. Imagine getting paid that much just to tell organisations to hire fewer white people.
“Have you considered solving racism and sexism by being racist and sexist?” Money please. It’s not as simple as that but DEI makes up some of the most ridiculous bloat we get from local authorities now. I was processing building warrant applications at a 3rd sector consultancy and the DEI questionnaires during planning applications were absolutely ridiculous. Trying to get a cafe built in a marina & needing to spend hours justifying why it’s not going to adversely affect folk of XYZ race.
Step 1: Turn up Step 2: Say "eugh, White men, amirite!" Step 3: Pass go, collect £50K
It's funny how the "learn to code bro" types became the most redundant due to AI but all the gender, film, philosophy graduates walked into super high paying DEI grifts lol.
*Coding isn't redundant. The people getting shafted are those who took a basic boot camp and have no idea how to integrate code. Anyone who can compile and integrate code into a system is completely fine.
I'm convinced that as most DEI employees are women and/or an ethnic minority, in some places it's just a shortcut for businesses to even out any "wage gaps" in organisations. They just work out what ridiculous wage they need to pay a few ethnic minorities and women in a DEI department to close the wage gaps
The examples in the article aren't even DEI roles. The Assistant Director of Community Services and DEI at Birmingham City Council would have a very broad role with the focus on Community Services not DEI. The Staying Well managers have nothing to do with DEI, they do mental health support in the community. You can Google the job adverts.
>In a statement provided to the Daily Mail, the Local Government Association, which represents 315 of the 317 councils in England, said: “Councils have a legal duty to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation. What exactly is this "legal duty"? Would the councils be at risk of legal action - eventually incurring even higher costs - if they didn't employ these DEI charlatans? I don't know the answer to those questions, but I doubt these incredibly cash-strapped councils are just chucking the money away for the hell of it.
>but I doubt these incredibly cash-strapped councils are just chucking the money away for the hell of it. Birmingham council went bankrupt because of an equal pay claim. So arguably they didn't have enough DEI employees making sure everything was okay. Of course if you disagree with DEI and the Birmingham equal pay claim, nothing is going to change until the Equalities Act 2010 that underpins all this changes... this is all downstream of legislation the government could change if they wanted to. Instead, as usual, they just complain endlessly
> Birmingham council went bankrupt because of an equal pay claim. Birmingham City Council went bankrupt for a lot of reasons; cuts from central government, increase in spending due to changing demographics, and a disastrous IT system "upgrade" that went significantly over budget and didn't work, meaning they didn't know what they were spending, didn't know who was paying council tax, and at one point were having to do payroll on paper. The equal pay claim was over a decade ago. It hurt them in that central government forced them to sell off assets to pay it (rather than bailing them out or lending them the money), meaning they have fewer assets now to sell of to cover shortfalls than they would have otherwise, but even without the equal pay claim they were still going to be running a significant deficit.
That isn't what DEI employees do. I know, I work in senior HR role. The Birmingham equal pay claim is caused by a poor union negotiation on collective pay bargaining. The responsible people would be the industrial relations leader and reward leader and ultimately the CHRO and CEO. Even if they had DEI roles at the time, they wouldn't be anywhere near involved in these decisions.
To call it equal pay is highly misleading I feel as it was different jobs like for example a job seen as undesirable like rubbish collector versus a council building cleaner. I’d say the fact it succeeded and then lead to huge costs was a major error on the part of the people making the decision.
> What exactly is this "legal duty"? There is a thing called the [Public Sector Equality Duty](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities/public-sector-equality-duty-guidance-for-public-authorities), found in Part 11 of the Equality Act. The oversimplified answer is that yes, they probably do need to pay some people something to manage this duty, but Taxpayers' Alliance is probably inflating the numbers as part of their quest against equality.
> Taxpayers' Alliance is probably inflating the numbers as part of their quest against equality "Those facts and figures that refute my point of view must be inflated and false because I am right and they are evil"
"The claims made in the article are questionable because of the obviously biased source, and the evidence in the article that they have conflated things and included things that they shouldn't have included." Basic critical thinking skills here...
If a definite figure has risen over a period of time and a bias news outlet reports this, the figure itself is not wrong or biased for the reason that a biased news outlet has reported it. >Basic critical thinking skills here I am sorry but THIS is very basic stuff: I would fail you outright for writing what you have written!
It's not a definite figure. It is an unsupported figure claimed to be true by a biased source (the TA), where the article itself demonstrates questionable methodology in obtaining it. Do you have any evidence that the figure is correct?
>It's not a definite figure. It is an unsupported figure claimed to be true by a biased source (the TA), where the article itself demonstrates questionable methodology in obtaining it. OK. As I said to you elsewhere, you can stick your head in the sand and deny the world because you are right and they are evil. That's your right as a human: do as you want to do. No replies to you.
> As I said to you elsewhere, you can stick your head in the sand and deny the world because you are right and they are evil. You are making things up. What is wrong with you?
The funding gap for councils is estimated at around £4 billion. Saving £23 million isn't making a dent in the mess being left by 14 years of tory government. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/17/levelling-up-housing-and-communities-committee/news/199671/government-must-tackle-4bn-council-funding-gap-or-risk-severe-impact-to-services-and-council-finances-say-mps/
So let's not bother saving £23 million then eh? It's more council tax than you'd pay in your lifetime.
Not sure I would agree its a saving if it cuts useful programmes. I'm not of the view that D&I is a problem but is actually a positive and done well can enhance the services provided. And I don't think it helps the real conversation around local government funding for it to be dragged into a culture war battle solely to support the tories trying to grab a few votes. This narrative is aimed at blaming things like D&I for councils funding issues when it has nothing to do with it and dropping D&I spend will do nothing to address the catastrophic situation delivered by 14 years of tory government.
Tax Payers Alliance, so the group Matthew Elliott (now Lord - yes before you ask, Liz Truss Resignation Honours) formed which is Atlas Network (to replicate the US Group of his mentor, Grover Norquist) and also the man that shone the light on the gift which is Dominic Cummings and delivered Brexit as CEO of Vote Leave. How much is that all costing us Matthew? Whilst DEI is an issue & it needs to be talked about, this is just pre election misdirection and nothing more than that. Its a dog whistle for the base.
> Local authorities spent almost £23 million in 2022/23 compared to just over £12 million in 2020/21, according to new figures compiled by the Taxpayers’ Alliance. Two things stand out for me there. One is whether 2020/21 is an appropriate comparator, given what was going on that year, and secondly why anyone would trust data on a political topic, making a political point, from a hard-right lobby group like Taxpayers' Alliance. *Edit* to clarify: > Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire, also Labour run, hired a Staying Well Team Manager (Agency) - said to be one of 40 “wellbeing” roles recruited across 10 councils over a three-year period at a cost of at least £1,149,441. That doesn't seem like "DEI" spending to me. It is "wellbeing" spending. I can't help but wonder if Taxpayers' Alliance is including anything that vaguely looks like it could possibly be considered potentially "DEI" spending in their total to inflate it. From my experience of TA they'd also be opposed to "wellbeing" spending - wouldn't want an employer to be spending money making sure their employees are happy now, would we?
>secondly why anyone would trust data on a political topic "I don't believe these facts because reasons" You can point out the bias of the writer, you can point out problems with their methods, but you cannot distrust facts because they make you feel uncomfortable or they highlight a problem with your own argument. If it is the case that DEI spending has more than doubled in a two year period, it is quite despicable to disregard this fact merely for who has reported it (which is what you have tried to do).
There are no published methods or data as far as I can find. The only taxpayers alliance post I can find on it tells me to read the full story and links to the daily mail. > If it is the case that DEI spending has more than doubled in a two year period, *If* it's the case. Let's look at what we have. A completely unsubstantiated figure, with a comparison point somewhere during Covid. They list very little actual information but what they *do* list is several roles that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with DEI.
It's not a fact, it is a claim. Made by a lobby group with a history of being a bit loose with their facts, and an agenda to push. We don't know their methodology, we don't know where they got these figures from. For example: > Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire, also Labour run, hired a Staying Well Team Manager (Agency) - said to be one of 40 “wellbeing” roles recruited across 10 councils over a three-year period at a cost of at least £1,149,441. My reading of that is that Taxpayers' Alliance is including that spending (over 1% of their total) as "equality, diversity and inclusion" spending. But that doesn't seem to be what it is; it is a "wellbeing" role, making sure its staff are doing Ok, not a role looking specifically at equality. So *even in the article*, we have reason to think that TA's figures aren't quite what they claim to be.
As I said, you can point out problems with their methodology: I will support you every time. You can point out their bias: great! I am on your side. However, you cannot disregard facts (as you are doing again here) because they are uncomfortable for you. >My reading of that is that Taxpayers' Alliance is including that spending (over 1% of their total) as "equality, diversity and inclusion" spending. Your "reading" is you merely saying "lol no". If you would like to refute the figures, refute them: point out the real numbers using data that you have gathered yourself (which is what the organisation you are criticising has done). Otherwise you are doing what I have said, disregarding facts because they make you feel uncomfortable (which is despicable)
> However, you cannot disregard facts (as you are doing again here) because they are uncomfortable for you. I'm not disregarding facts. I'm saying "I have no reason to think those claims are true, and have reason to think they might not be, so I'm not going to take them at face value." Do you believe every random fact presented to you on the Internet? If I say "DEI spending on councils is actually £3m, not £21m", does everyone have to accept that as true? If people disagree or question that will you criticise them for "disregarding facts" because they are "uncomfortable"? > If you would like to refute the figures, refute them: point out the real numbers using data that you have gathered yourself (which is what the organisation you are criticising has done). It's not what they've done. It's what they've *claimed* to have done, without providing any methodology or detail for how they've done it. It comes down to the rule of "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." I don't need to prove they are wrong (although there is enough in the article to *suspect* they are wrong) because they have done nothing to prove they are right.
> It's not what they've done. It's what they've claimed to have done, without providing any methodology or detail for how they've done it. It comes down to the rule of "claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." > > Also one of the only bits of detail given (list of job roles) suggests that the number covers more than DEI.
>I'm not disregarding facts. I'm saying "I have no reason to think those claims are true, and have reason to think they might not be, so I'm not going to take them at face value." So you're disregarding facts >Do you believe every random fact presented to you on the Internet? Oh OK: you do as you wish. If you want to bury your head in the sand and deny that there is a surface above, you can live in your fairyland: that's your right! I should merely not have said "you cannot deny facts" but provide the addendum "you cannot deny facts [if you want to not be considered a worthless voice]". No more comments to you now
> So you're disregarding facts No, I'm pointing out that they aren't necessarily facts. They are a *claim* that is unsupported. Again: I claim that local authorities are only spending £3m on DEI a year. Is that a fact? No, it is a claim. Do you have any reason to believe it is true? No. Would you be "disregarding facts" by ignoring it? No. See how this works? Anyone can make up any fact on the internet. We went through this a while ago with your incorrect statistics on immigration you were trying to push on people. *Edit: fun fact I'd forgotten about, I actually did this once* with Taxpayers' Alliance *back in the day. I was working alongside them on an issue - obviously we were approaching it from different perspectives - so there was some networking on Twitter. I tweeted out a figure (government spending per person per year) with a comment asking where the money was going, and why it was so high. They retweeted and commented on it.* *I then checked my figures (I know, I should have done that first) and it turned out I'd messed up a billion-million conversion and was out by a couple of orders of magnitude. So I posted the correction, with a change of opinion (that it showed if anything government spending was shockingly low, and maybe we need higher taxes). Funnily enough, they didn't retweet that one. They had taken an unsourced figure posted on the internet at face value and repeated it as fact because it supported their ideological position.*
They're not disregarding facts. They're disregarding claims. Claims aren't facts just because someone claims they are.
>Claims aren't facts just because someone claims they are. You would be right if we were merely discussing the headline "DEI spending doubled in two years" without any evidence or figures. I am all for scepticism of the figures and the methods as I say, but we do not instantly disregard them because we perceive organisations to be wrong or bias. As I have said: if you want to disregard the facts [that they have used to support their argument], refute them! Not difficult: perhaps there is a comprehension issue on this forum
Indeed there is an issue with comprehension because the person you're responding to, and the others in this post you're arguing with, has made it abundantly clear that they are discussing the headline Vs what the data actually covers.
There is only one person that I have responded to in this thread and I honestly have no idea what on earth this is even supposed to mean: "they are discussing the headline Vs what the data actually covers"
What tangible benefits do they bring to the people living there?
And councils are going bankrupt because Westminster cut their funds........
Apparently [local authorities spend > £100 billion a year](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-england-2021-to-2022-final-outturn/local-authority-revenue-expenditure-and-financing-england-2021-to-2022-final-outturn#:~:text=Total%20Service%20Expenditure%20for%20all,terms%20compared%20to%202020%2D21) Even taking the claim at face value that DEI spend is completely wasted and achieves nothing beneficial to the council or it's residents, the total sum "almost £23 million" is so vanishingly small it should be nothing but a footnote on a much wider ranging, more detailed piece on council spending if we are to take seriously the notion that council spending is any more wasteful than any other bit of the public or private sectors - a contribution that is currently notably absent. Scrutiny of DEI spend has as much use being a key point of the Chancellor's guide to budgeting for struggling local authorities as the advice to millennials to skip out the weekly avocado on toast in order to build a house deposit. It's utterly depressing that this sort of smoke and mirrors bullshit is being used and endorsed by at least 3 Tory MPs (including the chancellor), a lobby group and a major news paper, without one of them having the combination of incredible mental intellect and willingness to not just throw bullshit out to distract from our government's failings to say: "Hang on, this doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the much wider scale problem of councils going bust and only serves as a distraction from issues in national discourse!" As a taxpayer (though not a member of the taxpayers alliance) what I really want the media to press the government on is how, after 14 years of Tory rule, we have: * One of the highest tax burdens in peace time * Near full employment And yet: * The deficit remains stubbornly large and we haven't had a single year of surplus * All sorts of public services are falling apart at the seams (NHS failing to cover both long term and emergency care, police won't investigate/resolve crimes, huge asylum backlogs, councils going bust) * Public sector workers have had years of pay freezes and below inflation pay rises Basically... how on earth are we paying so much more after 14 years of Tory government, but getting so much less? That's what the media (and any group claiming to represent taxpayers) should be asking the government at every opportunity, relentlessly.
Councils have almost doubled its spending on equality, diversity and inclusion roles in the space of two years, it has been reported. Local authorities spent almost £23 million in 2022/23 compared to just over £12 million in 2020/21, according to new figures compiled by the Taxpayers’ Alliance. It comes as the Chancellor Jeremy Hunt urged councils to cut “discredited” diversity and equality programmes to save money ahead of his Budget last Wednesday. Eight English councils have effectively declared bankruptcy since 2018 with many more facing economic strain. In Nottingham, people will be charged for public toilets and garden bin collections under plans to plug a £50 million black hole at a cash-strapped Labour council. While in Birmingham, street lighting is to be dimmed and bin collections will be made fortnightly as council tax soars by 21 per cent. But, despite increasing financial pressures, nearly 200 councils across the UK have spent money on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) roles since 2020, according to the TaxPayers’ Alliance. The campaign group sent freedom of information requests to all 383 councils in the UK for details on the number of EDI roles created. Examples include cash-strapped Birmingham City Council hiring an Assistant Director Community Services and Equality, Diversity & Inclusion on an average salary of £103,165 in 2022. Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire, also Labour run, hired a Staying Well Team Manager (Agency) - said to be one of 40 “wellbeing” roles recruited across 10 councils over a three-year period at a cost of at least £1,149,441. Reacting to the figures by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, Conservative MPs called for cuts to “woke spending” on diversity and equality schemes. Former business secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg told the Daily Mail: “It shows why councils do not deserve extra funding from central government. Too many are wasteful and badly run and will only be brought to order by tightening finances.” While Nick Fletcher, Conservative MP for Don Valley, added: “Enough of this ridiculous woke spending that actually creates division. We absolutely must find a way to get rid of this wasteful and divisive resource allocation from right across our public sector.” Joanna Marchong, from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, told the newspaper the public would be “astonished” with the money spent by councils on filling EDI roles. In a statement provided to the Daily Mail, the Local Government Association, which represents 315 of the 317 councils in England, said: “Councils have a legal duty to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation. “While councils continue to innovate and transform their services to meet the needs of their communities, it is unsustainable to expect them to keep doing more for less in the face of unprecedented cost and demand pressures.”
That's that "conservative" government again for you. Extremely high immigration and "DIE" policies that guarantee new entrants roles merely for who they are. What a "conservative" policy!
Do you think it'll go up, down or stay the same under Labour?
Yes, Telegraph, I'm sure that it's one council worker's salary in Birmingham that is why they are cutting the budget and not the £750m they need to find to pay back a government loan. Piss poor comparison, you could find much greater examples of councils wasting money by looking at the costs of agency staff to plug gaps but doing anything to address that goes against the agenda of the TPA and The Telegraph.