Re: The 50p tax for NGA: HMRC lands a nasty surprise in its consultation.
Old Codger
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/consult_landlineduty.pdf
>
> ALL fixed lines will pay the tax, whether copper, coaxial or fibre.
> See sections 3.3 to 3.5.
>
> So if you have Openreach copper for your phone (and doesn't matter who
> the retail service provider is) and Virgin coax for broadband it's
> proposed that you pay twice.
>
> And when/ if you have FTTH fibre (or a FTTC hybrid of both) you will
> also pay under the proposals.
What do you expect from Gordon. He has spent all our money and has then
borrowed up to the hilt. He needs lots of money fast.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Unbeleiver
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/consult_landlineduty.pdf
>
> ALL fixed lines will pay the tax, whether copper, coaxial or fibre.
> See sections 3.3 to 3.5.
>
> So if you have Openreach copper for your phone (and doesn't matter who
> the retail service provider is) and Virgin coax for broadband it's
> proposed that you pay twice.
>
> And when/ if you have FTTH fibre (or a FTTC hybrid of both) you will
> also pay under the proposals.
----------------------------------------------
From the link given above
Try looking a little further down in that section:
3.7 There are some difficulties with this general approach due to how some
retailers provide services to their customers. Virgin Media provide
broadband services over a co-axial cable but standard voice services over a
separate copper line where other providers would just use a single copper
line for both voice and broadband services. BT will also face similar issues
where fibre is overlaid on copper wires. Government's intention is to ensure
that there is no double liability under these circumstances.
So according to this, that double liability should not apply.
BTW, I don't agree with the this tax.
George Weston
"Unbeleiver" <cb@.....tts.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:hgbngp$cbi$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I don't either but it looks like we're going to have to pay it!
/goes into reluctant acceptance mode...
George
nospam
>I don't either but it looks like we're going to have to pay it!
>/goes into reluctant acceptance mode...
A Conservative government would scrap the planned 50 pence per month tax on
every landline - which the current government plans to use to subsidise
faster broadband in rural regions - "as soon as possible", according to the
shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Unbeleiver
And pigs might fly! Camron will say absolutely anything to get his well
polished arse over the threshold of No 10.
I lived through the last 13 years of Tory mis-rule, and I know the only
time a Tory tells the truth is when his/her mouth is shut!
Chris Hills
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/consult_landlineduty.pdf
>
> ALL fixed lines will pay the tax, whether copper, coaxial or fibre.
> See sections 3.3 to 3.5.
>
> So if you have Openreach copper for your phone (and doesn't matter who
> the retail service provider is) and Virgin coax for broadband it's
> proposed that you pay twice.
>
> And when/ if you have FTTH fibre (or a FTTC hybrid of both) you will
> also pay under the proposals.
Given that it's slightly cheaper to get cable with a phone line (for
reasons I cannot fathom) I would imagine the majority would be
unaffected. Presumably if you get phone and internet via some form of
wireless (i.e. gsm or voip for calling and wifi/wimax/3g/etc for data)
you can avoid the fee.
nospam
>nospam wrote:
>> "George Weston" <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't either but it looks like we're going to have to pay it!
>>> /goes into reluctant acceptance mode...
>>
>> A Conservative government would scrap the planned 50 pence per month
>> tax on every landline - which the current government plans to use to
>> subsidise faster broadband in rural regions - "as soon as possible",
>> according to the shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.
>
>
>
>And pigs might fly! Camron will say absolutely anything to get his well
>polished arse over the threshold of No 10.
Yes it worked for Blair didn't it.
>I lived through the last 13 years of Tory mis-rule, and I know the only
>time a Tory tells the truth is when his/her mouth is shut!
Wow you and 30 odd million others. Like FuLab never tell porkies...
I'm sure the Tories will turn out to be a pack of useless wankers, but much
less useless than FuLab. I would rather be governed by a pack of wankers
that FuLab, hell I would rather be governed by a cupboard full of broom
handles which would have done less damage to our society, country, and
economy than FuLab.
This 50p per phone line is just another new tax, hypothecation is bollocks,
it is consistent with FuLabs overriding policy which is to ensure they and
not you get to decide how your money is spent.
I am hopeful the Tories will scrap it because it is just another new tax,
and they are going to have to raise plenty of tax as it is to try to reduce
the mountain of debt FuLab is *still* building. FuLab claim they can't
reduce spending because it will delay recovery from the recession and at
the same time they increase National Insurance (tax on jobs) which will
reduce personal and company spending and delay recovery from the recession
- they are so full of shit, simply addicted to spending money they don't
have.
Java Jive
worse one. The Tories always promise to cut taxes when seeking power,
and they always increase them when they get there.
The last time they did indeed cut income tax a little, but more than
made up the shortfall by significantly increasing VAT. This meant
that the rich escaped some tax they they could well afford to pay, but
instead they and everyone else had to pay through the nose on almost
everything they bought. And, of course, people who were already poor,
like the 3 million soon to be put out of work by their policies, had
to pay the same level of VAT, regardless of their poverty. We are
still paying that absurd rate of VAT today, only now we take it for
granted, because it's been there so long, and it's only when we buy
something big and realise that we've just handed �100 or more to the
government to no apparent purpose, that we are reminded how absurd it
is.
Then there was the Community Charge (Poll Tax) / Council Tax fiasco.
The previous method of funding local government, the Rating System,
was admittedly unfair, in that the charge was on dwelling and
proportional to size and the 'poshness' of the area it was in, and
thus was not closely coupled with ability to pay. However, it was at
least loosely coupled, in that if you were poor, you were unlikely to
be living alone in a large house in a posh area. So the Tories
replaced this rather unfair tax with a desperately unfair one, where
each individual had the pay the same flat rate charge, regardless of
ability to pay. In what I imagine must be just about the biggest mass
act of civil disobedience in this country since the suffragette
movement, clogging up the courts with bailiff's work, etc, 6 million
(IIRC) people refused to pay it, including at least some former Tory
councillors (I know that for certain because at least two were
customers of mine and told me that they had resigned the party in
disgust). The result was worth it though, the downfall of Thatcher,
and the ending of the Poll Tax. The trouble is, instead of replacing
it with something sensible and fair such as local income tax, they
brought back the Rating System, only now it's called the Council Tax,
in an effort to disguise the fact that really it's a return to the old
moderately unfair Rating System!
So, for the Tories, 'cutting taxes' always means cutting them for the
rich, but increasing them for everyone else.
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:31:21 +0000, nospam <nos...@please.invalid>
wrote:
>
> A Conservative government would scrap the planned 50 pence per month tax on
> every landline - which the current government plans to use to subsidise
> faster broadband in rural regions - "as soon as possible", according to the
> shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact addresses at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
nospam
>Then there was the Community Charge (Poll Tax) / Council Tax fiasco.
>The previous method of funding local government, the Rating System,
>was admittedly unfair, in that the charge was on dwelling and
>proportional to size and the 'poshness' of the area it was in, and
>thus was not closely coupled with ability to pay.
Just like your ability to vote and elect a council who decides how much to
tax and what to spend it on was not closely (not at all) coupled to how
much of that tax was going to come out of your pocket. So the poor who paid
sod all council tax would vote for a labour council who would tax the shit
out of the rich and spend it on them. The Poll tax was a fuck up but the
idea behind it to give every voter an interest in electing a frugal council
which taxed and spent wisely was fine.
>ability to pay. In what I imagine must be just about the biggest mass
>act of civil disobedience in this country since the suffragette
Yeah I remember a conversation in a pub with a can't pay won't pay refusnik
woman about her day in court, a conversation which 10 minutes later had
moved on to how much she liked the beemer she just bought. Plenty of people
jumped on that bandwagon because they could, not because they deserved to
be on it.
>So, for the Tories, 'cutting taxes' always means cutting them for the
>rich, but increasing them for everyone else.
When the Tories get in they aren't going to be cutting taxes, they have
FuLabs national debt amounting to around 23,000 quid for every person in
the country to pay back. The real difference is they won't be pissing away
our money on harebrain schemes like NGA and ID cards.
Mark
wrote:
>Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Then there was the Community Charge (Poll Tax) / Council Tax fiasco.
>>The previous method of funding local government, the Rating System,
>>was admittedly unfair, in that the charge was on dwelling and
>>proportional to size and the 'poshness' of the area it was in, and
>>thus was not closely coupled with ability to pay.
>
>Just like your ability to vote and elect a council who decides how much to
>tax and what to spend it on was not closely (not at all) coupled to how
>much of that tax was going to come out of your pocket. So the poor who paid
>sod all council tax would vote for a labour council who would tax the shit
>out of the rich and spend it on them. The Poll tax was a fuck up but the
>idea behind it to give every voter an interest in electing a frugal council
>which taxed and spent wisely was fine.
Given the minuscule amount of choice the voters have this principle
does not apply. Taxation must take account of peoples ability to pay
unless we want to go back in time.
>>ability to pay. In what I imagine must be just about the biggest mass
>>act of civil disobedience in this country since the suffragette
>
>Yeah I remember a conversation in a pub with a can't pay won't pay refusnik
>woman about her day in court, a conversation which 10 minutes later had
>moved on to how much she liked the beemer she just bought. Plenty of people
>jumped on that bandwagon because they could, not because they deserved to
>be on it.
Irrelevant to the point.
>>So, for the Tories, 'cutting taxes' always means cutting them for the
>>rich, but increasing them for everyone else.
>
>When the Tories get in they aren't going to be cutting taxes, they have
>FuLabs national debt amounting to around 23,000 quid for every person in
>the country to pay back. The real difference is they won't be pissing away
>our money on harebrain schemes like NGA and ID cards.
Maybe. I wouldn't put it past them to keep these if there is enough
money in it for them though.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]
Theo Markettos
> 3.7 There are some difficulties with this general approach due to how some
> retailers provide services to their customers. Virgin Media provide
> broadband services over a co-axial cable but standard voice services over a
> separate copper line where other providers would just use a single copper
> line for both voice and broadband services. BT will also face similar issues
> where fibre is overlaid on copper wires. Government's intention is to ensure
> that there is no double liability under these circumstances.
>
> So according to this, that double liability should not apply.
But what if you have connections from two providers? For example, Virgin
coax for broadband and Openreach copper for telephone? The HMRC
pronouncement above covers the case where Virgin's standard install is 1 or
2 coax+N twisted pairs - that would be treated as one connection. But what
if you elect to use Openreach's twisted pair rather than Virgin's?
But how do you get BT and Virgin to communicate to avoid there being a
competitive disadvantage to getting half your service from BT and half from
Virgin? Both would dearly love to make you sign up to a bundle package, as
they get to fleece you through expensive calls (Virgin) or flaky internet
(BT). So there's not even an incentive for them to lobby against this.
Theo
Java Jive
wrote:
>
> idea behind it to give every voter an interest in electing a frugal council
> which taxed and spent wisely was fine.
It's only fine if every voter has a basic ability to pay, otherwise
it's a pointless exercise in extortion.
> >In what I imagine must be just about the biggest mass
> >act of civil disobedience in this country since the suffragette
>
> Yeah I remember a conversation in a pub with a can't pay won't pay refusnik
> woman about her day in court, a conversation which 10 minutes later had
> moved on to how much she liked the beemer she just bought.
As has been pointed out that's irrelevant to the point, except in
emphasizing how broad-based the opposition to the tax was. Doubtless
she was making the stand on prinicpal, as did I. You seem to have
conveniently forgotten the fact that we all had to pay up in the end,
once Thatcher had been knifed in the back.
> >So, for the Tories, 'cutting taxes' always means cutting them for the
> >rich, but increasing them for everyone else.
>
> When the Tories get in they aren't going to be cutting taxes
No, but they will be promising to do so in the run up to the election.
> they have
> FuLabs national debt amounting to around 23,000 quid for every person in
> the country to pay back.
Which was caused by the banking crisis, caused in term by deregulation
of the financial sector by the Tories under Thatcher and the
Republicans under Reagan.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the current lot, just even less so
of the last lot. At least some of the present lot's problems are that
we still haven't put the country back together after the last lot
wrecked it.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> Both would dearly love to make you sign up to a bundle package, as they
> get to fleece you through expensive calls (Virgin)...
I'm a VM customer for phone & broadband but I route phone calls via 18185
(admittedly having to dial an 0808 number at the start of each such call)
and it's much much cheaper.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "nnn" by "284".
George Weston
"Mark" <mark...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:bmvki5dk5f9l3mpkr...@4ax.com...
> The access provider is under no obligation to pass the charge it on to
> the retail customer.
>
> So the goal as I read it is avoiding double liability on *Openreach*
> or *VM* where two 'pipes' of different technology are co-incident.
>
> HMRC isn't remotely interested in not double-billing individuals.
>
>>BTW, I don't agree with the this tax.
>
To all you lot moaning about:
1. The 50p levy, and
2. The respective political parties, council tax and so on........
You won't achieve anything by arguing the toss on here.
The only way that you *might* get something changed is as follows:
(a) The 50p levy: This is in the consultation stage at the moment. Make your
voice heard by contributing to the consultation. That's what it's there for
(duh).
(b) Labour vs. Conservative. Actually go out and vote for the party/person
you prefer at the next election and/or stand for parliament/your council
yourself.
Anything else is just hot air.
George
Theo Markettos
> You won't achieve anything by arguing the toss on here.
> The only way that you *might* get something changed is as follows:
> (a) The 50p levy: This is in the consultation stage at the moment. Make
> your voice heard by contributing to the consultation. That's what it's
> there for (duh).
Fair point. Email sent :)
Theo
Mark
<geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
[--snip--]
>To all you lot moaning about:
>1. The 50p levy, and
>2. The respective political parties, council tax and so on........
>
>You won't achieve anything by arguing the toss on here.
>The only way that you *might* get something changed is as follows:
>(a) The 50p levy: This is in the consultation stage at the moment. Make your
>voice heard by contributing to the consultation. That's what it's there for
>(duh).
Most public consultations are a sham nowadays IMHO. The outcome has
already been decided.
>(b) Labour vs. Conservative. Actually go out and vote for the party/person
>you prefer at the next election and/or stand for parliament/your council
>yourself.
>
>Anything else is just hot air.
Good Idea. I'll vote for you ;-)
John
<ja...@evij.com.invalid> writes
>Which was caused by the banking crisis, caused in term by deregulation
>of the financial sector by the Tories under Thatcher and the
>Republicans under Reagan.
>
And to think that the current lot have had 13 years to put in the
necessary regulation, and repair the country from the "good times" they
claim to have created. They did take massive additional amounts in
stealth taxes which they frittered away on a massive range of hare
brained schemes, which the post 1997 lot didn't do
--
John Clark
Old Codger
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:43:45 +0000, nospam <nos...@please.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> they have
>> FuLabs national debt amounting to around 23,000 quid for every person in
>> the country to pay back.
>
> Which was caused by the banking crisis, caused in term by deregulation
> of the financial sector by the Tories under Thatcher and the
> Republicans under Reagan.
Nothing to do with Gordon splitting the regulatory responsibility three
ways (BoE, FSA and Treasury) so no one had overall responsibility.
Might have been different had the BoE been left in charge on its own.
Also nothing to do with Gordon not putting anything by in the good years
so that we had some reserve when things went bad. Remember he abolished
Boom and Bust.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the current lot, just even less so
> of the last lot. At least some of the present lot's problems are that
> we still haven't put the country back together after the last lot
> wrecked it.
I think you have that the wrong way round. Since the war at least
*every* Labour government has ended with the economy in a mess. Each
time the Tories have sorted it out. The Tories have also got us in to a
mess sometimes but at least they have sorted it before the next Labour
government comes along to wreck it again.
Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it. They
are lead by a clone of Tone who is more interested in presentation and
votes that actually doing what is necessary.
We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
The Natural Philosopher
>
> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it. They
> are lead by a clone of Tone who is more interested in presentation and
> votes that actually doing what is necessary.
>
Don't be too fooled, that's how you win elections.
Its NOT how you run a country and with luck, Cameron knows it.
There appear to be at least three people with more brains than the
entire current cabinet, in the opposition. I hope they get a chance to
use them.
> We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
>
death comes to us all.
>
Ato_Zee
On 20-Dec-2009, Old Codger <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it.
Didn't the Tories under Lamont have to devalue?
And didn't Harold (tea a biscuits in Downing Street
solves everything) Wilson say "The Pound in your pocket isn't
devalued"?
Not forgetting the Tories and Beeching sold off the rail routes
used to get commuters into our cities, so it is now gridlock
on roads running parallel to these long gone rail lines, and
commuters living in Station Roads with no station, are going
to have to pay Congestion Charges.
Mainly because you can soak motorists, road tax,
vat on fuel, cars, spares, insurance, and now congestion
charges,
I seem to remember that parking meters will finance off street
parking and clear our streets of congestion, all we financed
was an army of jobsworths. and little if any public funded
off street parking.
It's politicisns who start wars, against the will of the
electorate, get voted out, then go on the profitable lecture
circuit, and the boards of PLC's.
Whilst current MP's switch homes, fiddle their expenses,
and provide luxury accommadation for their ducks.
Hoping that their open door policy and claimants will
keep them in office.
Being in Europe with its chaotic finances and fiddles is
a disaster, and the Tories who signed us up want us to
vote them in again. Pull the other one, No Referendum, no
vote.
> We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
Never said a truer word.
Java Jive
Even if there wasn't enough money in the interim period to put
education, health, and the railways back together, there was nothing
to prevent the introduction of decent regulation of the financial
markets.
I think these things tend to go in cycles:
1 There's a financial crash.
2 On investigation, a significant factor in the cause of it turns
out to be financial malpractice, so tougher regulation is introduced.
3 Over time, the finance industry push for the relaxation of
regulation.
4 Given enough time, everyone has forgetten about the crash, and
regulation is eased.
5 Given a bit more time, malpractice takes advantage of the easing
of regulation.
6 Go back to 1.
It was ever thus, as a reading of Dickens' makes plain! (I
particularly liked his name for the Civil Service in "Little Dorritt",
the Circumlocution Office)
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:06:32 +0000, John
<fred...@consltec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> And to think that the current lot have had 13 years to put in the
> necessary regulation, and repair the country from the "good times" they
> claim to have created.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Java Jive
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
> Nothing to do with Gordon splitting the regulatory responsibility three
> ways (BoE, FSA and Treasury) so no one had overall responsibility.
You are absolutely right. It had NOTHING to do with it. Putting the
BoE in charge of monetary policy, as long it is genuinely allowed to
be free of political interference, is a good thing.
The failing was with the FSA, who didn't appear to have their eye on
the ball. You could perhaps also argue that the government didn't
have its eye on the FSA, and I wouldn't argue with that.
> Might have been different had the BoE been left in charge on its own.
It's not the BoE's responsibility to regulate the financial sector.
> Also nothing to do with Gordon not putting anything by in the good years
> so that we had some reserve when things went bad.
That's a fair criticism, but it's also a fair criticism of virtually
every government that I can remember.
> I think you have that the wrong way round. Since the war at least
> *every* Labour government has ended with the economy in a mess.
That is simply not true, for example Roy Jenkins is widely accepted to
have been the best post-war Chancellor.
> The Tories have also got us in to a
> mess sometimes but at least they have sorted it before the next Labour
> government comes along to wreck it again.
That is rubbish, the last Tory government put us through a big dipper
of boom and bust, while squandering all the North Sea oil revenues on
paying 3 million people to be out of work. Their mismanagement of the
economy was about the worst that I can remember.
> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it. They
> are lead by a clone of Tone who is more interested in presentation and
> votes that actually doing what is necessary.
Yes, UK politics is in a mess, right across the party divide.
> We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
Capt Mainwaring will sort it out somehow though ...
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Old Codger
> Old Codger wrote:
>
>>
>> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it. They
>> are lead by a clone of Tone who is more interested in presentation and
>> votes that actually doing what is necessary.
>>
>
> Don't be too fooled, that's how you win elections.
>
> Its NOT how you run a country and with luck, Cameron knows it.
>
> There appear to be at least three people with more brains than the
> entire current cabinet, in the opposition. I hope they get a chance to
> use them.
I do hope so, but that is all it is, hope.
>> We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
>>
>
> death comes to us all.
Indeed.
The Natural Philosopher
> On 20-Dec-2009, Old Codger <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it.
>
> Didn't the Tories under Lamont have to devalue?
> And didn't Harold (tea a biscuits in Downing Street
> solves everything) Wilson say "The Pound in your pocket isn't
> devalued"?
> Not forgetting the Tories and Beeching sold off the rail routes
> used to get commuters into our cities, so it is now gridlock
> on roads running parallel to these long gone rail lines, and
> commuters living in Station Roads with no station, are going
> to have to pay Congestion Charges.
> Mainly because you can soak motorists, road tax,
> vat on fuel, cars, spares, insurance, and now congestion
> charges,
No mainly because babies are subsidised and brought up to be good Laber
Votahs.
And every car parking attendant now owns two cars, and uses them.
> I seem to remember that parking meters will finance off street
> parking and clear our streets of congestion, all we financed
> was an army of jobsworths. and little if any public funded
> off street parking.
Labour policy. Jobs, not efficiency.
> It's politicisns who start wars, against the will of the
> electorate, get voted out, then go on the profitable lecture
> circuit, and the boards of PLC's.
T Bliar. labour.
> Whilst current MP's switch homes, fiddle their expenses,
> and provide luxury accommadation for their ducks.
If all they did was fiddle a duck house for 500 quid, I wouldn't give a
toss.
> Hoping that their open door policy and claimants will
> keep them in office.
> Being in Europe with its chaotic finances and fiddles is
> a disaster, and the Tories who signed us up want us to
> vote them in again. Pull the other one, No Referendum, no
> vote.
>
You dont renmember 'Non! Non! Non! and maasstricht, do you?
Old Codger
> On 20-Dec-2009, Old Codger <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it.
>
> Didn't the Tories under Lamont have to devalue?
No, but they did put us into and then pull us out of the ERM. Bit of a
disaster but the economy was growing again by the time of the next
labour government.
> And didn't Harold (tea a biscuits in Downing Street
> solves everything) Wilson say "The Pound in your pocket isn't
> devalued"?
Even though he had just devalued it.
> Not forgetting the Tories and Beeching sold off the rail routes
> used to get commuters into our cities, so it is now gridlock
> on roads running parallel to these long gone rail lines, and
> commuters living in Station Roads with no station, are going
> to have to pay Congestion Charges.
> Mainly because you can soak motorists, road tax,
> vat on fuel, cars, spares, insurance, and now congestion
> charges,
> I seem to remember that parking meters will finance off street
> parking and clear our streets of congestion, all we financed
> was an army of jobsworths. and little if any public funded
> off street parking.
Doesn't change the basics that Labour get the economy in a mess and the
tories, so far, have always got it growing again.
> It's politicisns who start wars, against the will of the
> electorate, get voted out, then go on the profitable lecture
> circuit, and the boards of PLC's.
Particularly Noo Labor politicians.
> Whilst current MP's switch homes, fiddle their expenses,
> and provide luxury accommadation for their ducks.
> Hoping that their open door policy and claimants will
> keep them in office.
Indeed.
> Being in Europe with its chaotic finances and fiddles is
> a disaster, and the Tories who signed us up want us to
> vote them in again. Pull the other one, No Referendum, no
> vote.
Agreed.
>> We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
>
> Never said a truer word.
Old Codger
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:39:35 +0000, Old Codger
> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>> Nothing to do with Gordon splitting the regulatory responsibility three
>> ways (BoE, FSA and Treasury) so no one had overall responsibility.
>
> You are absolutely right. It had NOTHING to do with it. Putting the
> BoE in charge of monetary policy, as long it is genuinely allowed to
> be free of political interference, is a good thing.
>
> The failing was with the FSA, who didn't appear to have their eye on
> the ball. You could perhaps also argue that the government didn't
> have its eye on the FSA, and I wouldn't argue with that.
>
>> Might have been different had the BoE been left in charge on its own.
>
> It's not the BoE's responsibility to regulate the financial sector.
So who was in charge before the FSA?
>> Also nothing to do with Gordon not putting anything by in the good years
>> so that we had some reserve when things went bad.
>
> That's a fair criticism, but it's also a fair criticism of virtually
> every government that I can remember.
Only true of Labour Governments. Most, if not all, Tory governments
built up the reserves, not withstanding the ERM fiasco.
>> I think you have that the wrong way round. Since the war at least
>> *every* Labour government has ended with the economy in a mess.
>
> That is simply not true, for example Roy Jenkins is widely accepted to
> have been the best post-war Chancellor.
He was pretty good but that labour government was still defeated because
the economy was deteriorating.
>> The Tories have also got us in to a
>> mess sometimes but at least they have sorted it before the next Labour
>> government comes along to wreck it again.
>
> That is rubbish, the last Tory government put us through a big dipper
> of boom and bust, while squandering all the North Sea oil revenues on
> paying 3 million people to be out of work. Their mismanagement of the
> economy was about the worst that I can remember.
But still handed young Tone a sound economy which Gordon maintained for
a couple of years by promising, and doing, to follow Tory policy for
those two years. As I said, despite getting the economy in a mess they
have, so far, always made it better before the next Labour government
comes in, and ultimately ruins it again.
>> Mind, I doubt the ability of the present Tory party to sort it. They
>> are lead by a clone of Tone who is more interested in presentation and
>> votes that actually doing what is necessary.
>
> Yes, UK politics is in a mess, right across the party divide.
Agreed.
>> We're doomed I tell you, all doomed.
>
> Capt Mainwaring will sort it out somehow though ...
:-)
R. Mark Clayton
> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/consult_landlineduty.pdf
>
> ALL fixed lines will pay the tax, whether copper, coaxial or fibre.
> See sections 3.3 to 3.5.
>
> So if you have Openreach copper for your phone (and doesn't matter who
> the retail service provider is) and Virgin coax for broadband it's
> proposed that you pay twice.
>
> And when/ if you have FTTH fibre (or a FTTC hybrid of both) you will
> also pay under the proposals.
>
>
>
The real sting here will not be the 50p tax, I think we could all live with
that if meant w-fi like rates in remote places, but that they will take the
money and NOT provide broadband everywhere...
Instead they will spend the money on providing 24/7 childcare for imprisoned
junkie mothers or similar
George Weston
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:46:45 -0000, "George Weston"
> <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
> [--snip--]
>> To all you lot moaning about:
>> 1. The 50p levy, and
>> 2. The respective political parties, council tax and so on........
>>
>> You won't achieve anything by arguing the toss on here.
>> The only way that you *might* get something changed is as follows:
>> (a) The 50p levy: This is in the consultation stage at the moment. Make your
>> voice heard by contributing to the consultation. That's what it's there for
>> (duh).
>
> Most public consultations are a sham nowadays IMHO. The outcome has
> already been decided.
A cynical and resigned view, IMHO.
I've taken part in a few and yes, some of my ideas have not been taken
up. However, to my delight, a few have
>
>> (b) Labour vs. Conservative. Actually go out and vote for the party/person
>> you prefer at the next election and/or stand for parliament/your council
>> yourself.
>>
>> Anything else is just hot air.
>
> Good Idea. I'll vote for you ;-)
Too late - I've already been elected! Nothing grand, I hasten to add,
just a community (parish) councillor for my village. Independent too -
no political axe to grind.
George
Mark
<geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>On 18/12/2009 09:52, Mark wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:46:45 -0000, "George Weston"
>> <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [--snip--]
>>> To all you lot moaning about:
>>> 1. The 50p levy, and
>>> 2. The respective political parties, council tax and so on........
>>>
>>> You won't achieve anything by arguing the toss on here.
>>> The only way that you *might* get something changed is as follows:
>>> (a) The 50p levy: This is in the consultation stage at the moment. Make your
>>> voice heard by contributing to the consultation. That's what it's there for
>>> (duh).
>>
>> Most public consultations are a sham nowadays IMHO. The outcome has
>> already been decided.
>
>A cynical and resigned view, IMHO.
Maybe. I've seen too many go this way to think otherwise though. It
does not stop me responding to consultations though but I am not
optomistic that my view will be considered.
>I've taken part in a few and yes, some of my ideas have not been taken
>up. However, to my delight, a few have
Great :-)
>>> (b) Labour vs. Conservative. Actually go out and vote for the party/person
>>> you prefer at the next election and/or stand for parliament/your council
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>> Anything else is just hot air.
>>
>> Good Idea. I'll vote for you ;-)
>
>Too late - I've already been elected! Nothing grand, I hasten to add,
>just a community (parish) councillor for my village. Independent too -
>no political axe to grind.
I your parish council is not like ours -- full of elderly people
raking up long passed disputes.
Eeyore
George Weston wrote:
> "Unbeleiver" <cb@.....tts.is.invalid> wrote
> > Mark wrote:
> >> http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/consult_landlineduty.pdf
> >>
> >> ALL fixed lines will pay the tax, whether copper, coaxial or fibre.
> >> See sections 3.3 to 3.5.
> >>
> >> So if you have Openreach copper for your phone (and doesn't matter who
> >> the retail service provider is) and Virgin coax for broadband it's
> >> proposed that you pay twice.
> >>
> >> And when/ if you have FTTH fibre (or a FTTC hybrid of both) you will
> >> also pay under the proposals.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------
> >
> > From the link given above
> >
> > Try looking a little further down in that section:
> >
> > 3.7 There are some difficulties with this general approach due to how some
> > retailers provide services to their customers. Virgin Media provide
> > broadband services over a co-axial cable but standard voice services over
> > a separate copper line where other providers would just use a single
> > copper line for both voice and broadband services. BT will also face
> > similar issues where fibre is overlaid on copper wires. Government's
> > intention is to ensure that there is no double liability under these
> > circumstances.
> >
> > So according to this, that double liability should not apply.
> >
> > BTW, I don't agree with the this tax.
>
> I don't either but it looks like we're going to have to pay it!
> /goes into reluctant acceptance mode...
>
> George
There have been rebellions you know. Think about what happened to the Poll Tax.
Government today is so totally out of touch and self-centred, they deserve
bringing down.
Graham
--
due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious adjustment to
my email address
Eeyore
nospam wrote:
> "George Weston" <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't either but it looks like we're going to have to pay it!
> >/goes into reluctant acceptance mode...
>
> A Conservative government would scrap the planned 50 pence per month tax on
> every landline - which the current government plans to use to subsidise
> faster broadband in rural regions - "as soon as possible", according to the
> shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Obviously he doesn't have a clue about how typical broadband connections work.
Not unexpected for a politician of course. Maybe he has some magic fairy dust ?
George Weston
There are a few oldies - I probably come into that category, just! - but
we do tend to get on with things as professionally and dispassionately
as we can. No party politics either - we're all independent, which helps
a lot.
Unlike some other councils I've heard about... ;-(
George
George Weston
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:10:29 +0000, George Weston wrote:
>
>>> I your parish council is not like ours -- full of elderly people raking
>>> up long passed disputes.
>>>
>> Thankfully not.
>> There are a few oldies - I probably come into that category, just! - but
>> we do tend to get on with things as professionally and dispassionately
>> as we can. No party politics either - we're all independent, which helps
>> a lot.
>> Unlike some other councils I've heard about... ;-(
>
> there). They spend all their time infighting, and it's clearly largely
> personal rather than based on any real issues. Very unpleasant, actually.
Remarkably like the rumours in these parts about Monmouth Town Council,
where allegedly long-term vendettas exist between certain members about
who shagged whose missus/husband back in the 1950s, whatever... ;-)
George
George Weston
Yes but the poll tax was something which affected everyone and - perhaps
most pertinent - directly affected the great unwashed, the unemployed,
workshy, students, tax-avoiders, young adults living at home with mum &
dad, etc.
Those who did not own or rent property directly suddenly found
themselves with bills for council services that they undoubtedly used
but couldn't and/or wouldn't pay for.
I don't think this 50p levy is likely to stir up such a rebellion, somehow.
George
Bob Eager
>> I your parish council is not like ours -- full of elderly people raking
>> up long passed disputes.
>>
> Thankfully not.
> There are a few oldies - I probably come into that category, just! - but
> we do tend to get on with things as professionally and dispassionately
> as we can. No party politics either - we're all independent, which helps
> a lot.
> Unlike some other councils I've heard about... ;-(
Round here, there is Herne village parish council (luckily I don't liev
there). They spend all their time infighting, and it's clearly largely
personal rather than based on any real issues. Very unpleasant, actually.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org