Labour's £20m commitment to a ‘forgotten' housing estate
Hartcliffe, a housing estate in Bristol, is set to receive up to £20m in Labour funding for community-led regeneration as part of a new 'trailblazer neighbourhood' initiative.
Residents express optimism about the potential investment, which they hope will address years of neglect and broken promises, particularly for vital community facilities like the Hartcliffe Community Centre.
The funding aims to empower the community by giving them control over how the money is spent, addressing concerns about past top-down approaches and ensuring lasting change.
Local figures like Kirsty Green, manager of the Hartcliffe Community Centre, and 85-year-old resident Charlotte Gardiner highlight the area's potential and the urgent need for investment after decades of being overlooked.
Despite the positive outlook, concerns remain about whether the £20m will be enough, as highlighted by former councillor Paul Smith.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
The state spends £24,000 a year for every adult. Something's got to give
It's amazing how things change. Just a few months ago Rachel Reeves told us the financial situation was so grim she had no choice but to take the winter fuel payment from all but the poorest pensioners. And now, thanks to Labour, it's all going so well she can afford to give it back. That was, of course, a lie. But it wasn't the big lie. No, the big lie was that the spending review bore any relation to what we will actually spend. The traditional recipe for political success is simple: scrimp, then splurge. Get the pain out of the way after the election, so you can splash out before the next one. • Jobs market is flashing a warning sign to Rachel Reeves That's not the approach Reeves took. She wanted to show she was ending austerity (such as it was). But the finances were desperately tight. Her solution, apart from raising taxes, was to frontload her spending increases and hope something turned up. The result is a spending profile that resembles a child playing a violin: sharp, then flat. Between 2025-26 and 2028-29, day-to-day departmental spending is to rise from £518 billion to £568 billion. Factoring in inflation, that means budgets in the last two years of the parliament will grow by just 1 per cent a year — and far less for most departments, since the overall figure includes 3 per cent a year for the NHS (which is getting more than half of all the extra cash). Will Labour really go into the election amid more 'Tory austerity'? Well, no. It'll want to spend more. Or need to: Reeves's ferociously tight numbers leave no room for downturns, pay strikes, trade wars or shooting wars. Her plans also depend on £14 billion in hazily detailed 'efficiency savings'. And the hoped-for bailout via a mid-term growth bonanza is less likely than ever. But here's the paradox. From the perspective of the Labour Party, most of those working in public services and her own electoral prospects, Reeves isn't spending nearly enough. But from another perspective, the chancellor is spending far, far too much. Public spending is running at 44 per cent of GDP, a historic high. Taxes, too, are historically high, and universally expected to go higher. Not only have we been spending like crazy, not least because of the pandemic, but we've been spending money we don't have — resulting in an annual bill of more than £100 billion just to cover the interest on our debts. These numbers can be hard to put into context. So our team at the Centre for Policy Studies think tank has come up with a different way of looking at it. We estimate that we are now spending £23,757 for every adult in this country: roughly two thirds of the average full-time salary of £37,500. That includes £3,807 on health, £5,817 on welfare and pensions and a shocking £1,955 for that debt bill. Restrict the calculation to those of working age, and spending is north of £30,000 a head. Factor in economic inactivity, and the state is almost certainly spending more than every worker aged 18 to 65 is earning. This is very obviously not sustainable. So how to square the circle? Given the position we're in, shaving departmental budgets just won't cut it, especially when the chancellor claims to have already ruthlessly reviewed every pound they spend (yet somehow set them all the same target for efficiency savings). We need to accept instead that government cannot actually do all the things it tries to. But we already know how hard that will be. If ministers are going to U-turn on the winter fuel payment and wobble on a set of welfare reforms that barely slow, let alone halt, the rise in disability and incapacity spending, how can they possibly tackle issues like the triple lock, social care or special educational needs and disability (Send) costs for councils? That's before even mentioning the NHS. So here are a couple of heretical thoughts. The first is that rather than guaranteeing the level of any individual benefit, we should think in terms of total spend. Let's say we decide that we can only afford to devote 1.5 per cent of GDP to a particular benefit. If more people claim, the totals go down. If people want more cash, they either have to dob in the fraudsters or accept the kinds of policy likely to swell GDP. A gentler version would be to keep benefits from falling, but ensure that they increase only when we can actually afford it. Revolutionary, I know. The second idea is more fundamental: to accept that government cannot actually move the economic needle. If you were listening to the spending review, you would have heard pledge after pledge: billions spent on this, billions on that. But that is not how you get the economy growing. You do that by creating the conditions for individuals and businesses to boost it for you. This may sound like Thatcherite dogma. But it's simple maths. Investment in the UK is roughly 18 per cent of GDP. But the state is responsible for perhaps a sixth of that. Hence Reeves's talk of 'co-investment': using small amounts of state funding to leverage much larger private sums. Or let's look at affordable housing, one of the few areas that did get some cash at the spending review. The government is promising an extra £39 billion over ten years. That's useful. But housebuilders knocked up £46 billion in private sector housing in just the past year — a pretty slow year, at point is that even small increases, or falls, in private sector activity have a far larger impact on the economy, and balance sheet, than the endless initiatives that pour forth from government. Which is precisely why Reeves's jobs tax was so damaging. Generating those increases, or falls, often isn't about money, but common sense. On housebuilding, for example, our system is based on local plans set out by councils. But loads of councils don't have plans in place. And Labour has embarked on a massive local government reorganisation that will delay their publication still further, dooming any hope of hitting its housing targets. It may be anathema to many on the Labour benches, but if the government is to have any hope of avoiding tax rises not just this autumn but for years to come, it needs to do what it finds hardest: clear the obstacles and let the private sector get on with it. The temptation, instead, will be to hammer work, wealth and business one more time. Which will of course make the task facing the chancellor even harder.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Thames Water investors beg Keir Starmer to step in and save debt-ridden water company from collapsing after clashing with Ofwat over future fines
Investors of Thames Water are begging Keir Starmer to intervene as Britain's biggest supplier crumbles under crippling fines and could be facing collapse. The stricken company is drowning under huge debts and the threat of further fines for pollution incidents. It was hit last month with a record £123 million in fines for sewage spills and dividend payments, by the industry regulator Ofwat. The fine, which is the largest the watchdog has ever issued, follows two 'big and complex' investigations by the regulator. Ofwat said Thames Water would pay £104.5 million for the wastewater breaches and a further £18.2 million for breaking rules on dividend payments. It said the fines would be paid 'by the company and its investors and not by customers'. Investors say that the regulator's unwillingness to go soft on the company over future fines could put it at risk of administration, as they scramble for a lifeline. Now they are pleading with the Prime Minister to compel the watchdog to adopt a more compromising position to its stance on financial penalties. An investor involved in rescue talks said: 'We have had a year of dealing with one of the most intractable regulators I've ever had the misfortune of coming across. 'They have failed in their job. Absolutely, we need intervention from Downing Street.' 'I think what it takes is the government and the regulator coming together - it needs the Environment Department, the Treasury and even Number 10 to say: "What's the least worst outcome here?",' another investor said. It comes just days after Ofwat received a proposal that would provide the water company the capital they desperately need to recover from the billions of pounds worth of fines looming over them. Creditors have said that Thames could be looking at more than £1 billion in further pollution and environmental failings, according to the Telegraph. But the watchdog have been reluctant to grant the request. The regulator's probe into how the company was managing its treatment works and wider wastewater network uncovered a number of failings. Ofwat said these amounted to a significant breach of the company's legal obligations, which has caused an 'unacceptable' impact on the environment and customers. Creditors are preparing a second bid in an attempt to soften Ofwat's stance that could see the company willing to offer more cash and write off a larger sum of debt. A FTSE 100 infrastructure fund warned Ofwat's stubbornness could dampen Labour's attempts to bring in foreign investors for UK assets. They said: 'There is a £500 billion investment that's needed across UK infrastructure that is contingent on stable regulation.' A source close to Thames' creditors said: 'Ofwat is undermining the government's aim to attract private capital and deliver growth and reform across the water sector.' Now with the risk of rescue talks being stalled, Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing, has demanded to rejoin the auction for Thames after KKR abandoned its bid fore the business earlier this month. However investors fear his links to China will trigger a long and drawn out investigation under the National Security and Investment Act.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel's gone on a £4TRILLION spending spree... so here's how to make sure it gives your investments a turbo boost: These are some of the firms that will win big - and how to invest in them
After the blowout comes the debt hangover – and economic experts expect us all to end up with sore heads and wallets after Rachel Reeve's Spending Review last week. But while we wait to see which of our taxes she'll raise in the autumn Budget to pay for it all, we can help ourselves by investing in some of the companies that will reap the benefits from her largesse.
