{"id":151,"date":"2021-10-20T09:37:37","date_gmt":"2021-10-19T22:37:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/politicalgadgets.com\/words\/?p=151"},"modified":"2021-10-20T09:37:41","modified_gmt":"2021-10-19T22:37:41","slug":"building-better-regions-grants-sliced-and-diced","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/politicalgadgets.com\/words\/2021\/10\/20\/building-better-regions-grants-sliced-and-diced\/","title":{"rendered":"Building Better Regions Grants sliced and diced"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Some might say I got obsessive – I prefer the word ‘focussed’. Whatever. The fruits of that focus is that there are now multiple gadgets slicing and dicing the Building Better Regions grants from all directions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Building Better Regions Grants have been very controversial<\/a>. The accusation is that they were pork-barrelling. Multiple articles have drawn that conclusion. But in keeping with what Political Gadgets is all about – letting you draw your won conclusions – we’ve pulled the data into one place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Who got the grants<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

At the heart of things is a database<\/a> with each grant mapped to the electorate that received it. Thanks to the very bodgy way the data is published in the first place there’s a bit of art in this as well as a lot of science. The database allows you to look at how much money went where. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To cut to the chase – most of the money went to coalition seats – you can draw your own conclusion about whether that was justifiable. And just to be clear we’re talking about over one billion dollars in grants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, first there is the database<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then we’ve got three maps:<\/p>\n\n\n\n