** NASTY Edinburgh Council Tax! **
Paul Allen
£27,001 to £35,000, £651, 54 quid a month,
£35,001 to £45,000, £744, 62 quid a month,
£45,001 to £58,000, £837, 69 quid a month.
Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
nothing compared to this.
Are there any other nasty charges I need to know of? Cheers in
advance.
--
Paul Allen, paul....@cableol.co.uk
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Mail a 160 character message to my phone: pauls...@genie.co.uk
ICQ# 4695120
Craig Cockburn
sgriobh Paul Allen <paul....@cableol.co.uk>
>Am I right in saying that council tax in Edinburgh is as follows?
>
>£27,001 to £35,000, £651, 54 quid a month,
>£35,001 to £45,000, £744, 62 quid a month,
>£45,001 to £58,000, £837, 69 quid a month.
>
>Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
>nothing compared to this.
>
>Are there any other nasty charges I need to know of? Cheers in
>advance.
>
Council.
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/ mailto:cr...@scot.demon.co.uk
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Jack Campin
paul....@cableol.co.uk (Paul Allen) writes:
> Am I right in saying that council tax in Edinburgh is as follows?
> 27,001 to 35,000, 651, 54 quid a month,
> 35,001 to 45,000, 744, 62 quid a month,
> 45,001 to 58,000, 837, 69 quid a month.
> Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
> nothing compared to this.
Because, by comparison, Belfast has worse public services and a higher
level of funding from central government. Having good public services
is worth the money (albeit they could be better with some redirection of
spending priorities that is unlikely to happen until the present bunch
of corrupt and timeserving incumbent sleazebags on the Council are lined
up along the Flodden Wall and shot).
> Are there any other nasty charges I need to know of?
Watch this space for water privatization. It's been a political issue
in Scotland similar to what electricity used to be in Northern Ireland;
but since both Labour and the Tories are in favour of it and the SNP is
saying nothing (meaning they're in favour too, only we don't get to find
out until they're elected) there isn't much to stop it going ahead.
--> email to "jc" at the site in the "From:" line: mail to "jack" bounces <--
Jack Campin * 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE, Scotland * 0131 556 5272
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Paul Allen
>Because, by comparison, Belfast has worse public services
What do I have to look forward to in Edinburgh for my extra well-spent
tax?
> and a higher
>level of funding from central government.
I suppose that will stop soon, if everything goes well....
>> Are there any other nasty charges I need to know of?
>Watch this space for water privatization. It's been a political issue
>in Scotland similar to what electricity used to be in Northern Ireland;
>but since both Labour and the Tories are in favour of it and the SNP is
>saying nothing (meaning they're in favour too, only we don't get to find
>out until they're elected) there isn't much to stop it going ahead.
Class....
Paul Allen
(About council tax....)
>Mine (Edinburgh City Council area) is £1734 a year. A ludicrous amount
>given that the council doesn't operate a bus service within 5 miles of
>where I live. Note that this amount includes water and sewerage, these
>are charged seperately in other parts of the UK.
Yikes. That'll be for a fairly expensive house though, right? That's
144 quid a month, 33 quid a week. That's ludicrous. Apart from water
and sewerage, what exactly is that supposed to cover?
Dr John Barrow
Perhaps it's to do with the building valuation procedures up
here. IIRC, my parents' rates in Tyneside were waaaay below
the rates up here at some point in the 1980s because the
local govt in England hadn't re-valued properties for yonks
while in Scotland, re-valuation seemed to be "on-going"
(whatever that means). And, the council tax is linked
to the supposed market value of the property back in
about 1992 or 1993 or whenever the system was introduced
IIRC. Yes?
jb
:-)
: Ann an sgriobhainn <35a81ddb...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>,
: sgriobh Paul Allen <paul....@cableol.co.uk>
: >Am I right in saying that council tax in Edinburgh is as follows?
: >
: >£27,001 to £35,000, £651, 54 quid a month,
: >£35,001 to £45,000, £744, 62 quid a month,
: >£45,001 to £58,000, £837, 69 quid a month.
: >
: >Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
: >nothing compared to this.
: >
: >Are there any other nasty charges I need to know of? Cheers in
Craig Cockburn
sgriobh Paul Allen <paul....@cableol.co.uk>
>
>
>Yikes. That'll be for a fairly expensive house though, right? That's
>144 quid a month, 33 quid a week. That's ludicrous. Apart from water
>and sewerage, what exactly is that supposed to cover?
>
Prices in millions
Education £185.4
Social Work £110.8
Police £76.2
City Development £38.7
Recreation £39.5
Housing £29.1
Environmental and Consumer Services £31.7
Fire £16.4
Other Services £28.0
Deficit brought forward £4.2
Total £560.0
Band D council tax equivalent £837
Average Scottish Band D for previous year £783
The Edinburgh figure is 6.9% higher than the national average last year.
In 96/97 the council tax in Edinburgh went up 13.5% and the next year
10.6%.
Paul Allen
>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Mine (Edinburgh City Council area) is £1734 a year. A ludicrous amount
>>given that the council doesn't operate a bus service within 5 miles of
>>where I live. Note that this amount includes water and sewerage, these
>>are charged seperately in other parts of the UK.
I've had a couple of people mail me on this also (many thanks) but
there seems to be conflicting views on whether it includes
water/sewerage. Anyone wanna confirm?
Rainer Thonnes
j...@folkmus.demon.co.uk (Dr John Barrow) writes:
>
> Perhaps it's to do with the building valuation procedures up
> here. IIRC, my parents' rates in Tyneside were waaaay below
> the rates up here at some point in the 1980s because the
> local govt in England hadn't re-valued properties for yonks
> while in Scotland, re-valuation seemed to be "on-going"
> (whatever that means). And, the council tax is linked
> to the supposed market value of the property back in
> about 1992 or 1993 or whenever the system was introduced
> IIRC. Yes?
Not quite. The valuation procedures are largely irrelevant to the
average level of charge, which is a function of budgeting. Valuation
only makes a difference to the extent to which different people pay
different amounts.
With the Council Tax the bands are defined with respect to property value
on 1st April 1991. There is no on-going revaluation. The council
simply set their budget, subtract the central support grant and
the contribution from business rates and arrive at a figure which
must be collected from households. That is divided by the number
of households and this average is then tweaked so that, taking
account of the number of properties in each band, it all adds up.
The law apparently prescibes a fixed set of ratios for the charges
in the respective bands, i.e. no matter what, say, the band D
charge will work out at, the band C charge must be nine elevenths
of it, or something like that.
Jack Campin
paul....@cableol.co.uk (Paul Allen) writes:
>ja...@purr.demon.co.uk (Jack Campin) wrote:
[ reason for higher Edinburgh council tax than Belfast... ]
>> Because, by comparison, Belfast has worse public services
> What do I have to look forward to in Edinburgh for my extra well-spent
> tax?
One of the best bus services in the UK. Buildings reasonably well
maintained. Some of the cleanest water in Britain (ok, Glasgow may
be better). Better than average schools, albeit not as egalitarian
as they easily could be for the same money. Well-maintained public
parks and recreation facilities (some of which the council wants to
sell off to house builders who, as usual in Scotland, have them in
their pockets). A pretty efficient street cleaning system (which
the council want to downgrade so they can sack as many bin-men as
possible and call the resulting filth, inconvenience and unemployment
a public benefit). The usual gang of useless and paranoic social
workers who are likely to retain their jobs indefinitely since they're
cheaper than cops and twice as nasty. Publicly funded art galleries
which do genuinely attract a mass audience. Care services for the sick
and old that struggle from one crisis to the next, like everywhere.
Ludicrous amounts of money spent on paramilitary policing of preposterous
meetings and ceremonies for loathsome celebrities. Masses of dosh pumped
into glittering facilities for the tourist industry, as if it didn't make
enough profit anyway. Millions spent on utterly unproductive "enterprise"
schemes which create no jobs except for the handful of clueless bozo
consultants who run them. Council offices fitted out like Ceausescu's
palace with a fleet of Rollers to shunt the fat overfed arses of the
Labour administration from one smoked-salmon-and-chardonnay official
reception to the next.
That is, nothing radically different from other cities in Britain but
priorities somewhat better than many.
>> and a higher level of funding from central government.
> I suppose that will stop soon, if everything goes well....
Would you guys be interested in selling us a used war, if that's what
it takes?
Paul Allen
>> What do I have to look forward to in Edinburgh (over Belfast) for my extra well-spent
>> tax?
lotsa good info snipped....
>That is, nothing radically different from other cities in Britain but
>priorities somewhat better than many.
>>> and [Belfast has] a higher level of funding from central government.
>> I suppose that will stop soon, if everything goes well....
>Would you guys be interested in selling us a used war, if that's what
>it takes?
You're welcome to it! :-)
Hey, you can even take it off our hands before we're finished with it.
Please?
Craig Cockburn
sgriobh Paul Allen <paul....@cableol.co.uk>
>paul....@cableol.co.uk (Paul Allen) wrote:
>
>>Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Mine (Edinburgh City Council area) is £1734 a year. A ludicrous amount
>>>given that the council doesn't operate a bus service within 5 miles of
>>>where I live. Note that this amount includes water and sewerage, these
>>>are charged seperately in other parts of the UK.
>
>I've had a couple of people mail me on this also (many thanks) but
>there seems to be conflicting views on whether it includes
>water/sewerage. Anyone wanna confirm?
>
council tax element of it is itemised.
Chris Cooke
irrelevant Irish stuff [*] here too, so you'll feel right at home :-(
[*] Mainly in the shape of a shitload of new corporate theme-pubs with
names like "O'Paddy's Oirish Blarney"...
--
-- Chris.
Alun Williams
<35a81ddb...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>...
>Am I right in saying that council tax in Edinburgh is as follows?
>
>£27,001 to £35,000, £651, 54 quid a month,
>£35,001 to £45,000, £744, 62 quid a month,
>£45,001 to £58,000, £837, 69 quid a month.
>
>Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
>nothing compared to this.
Sorry Paul if you think Edinburgh is hard done by, trying living in Glasgow
where you need to re-mortgage your home just to pay the Council Tax. The
worst of it is that if I was 100 yards down the road I'd be in East
Renfrewshire and my Council Tax would have halved.
Figures below relate to Glasgow City Council Council Tax rates for 1998/99
financial year with comparable Edinburgh City Council rates in brackets
B £27,001 - £35,000 £835.33 (£651)
C £35,001 - £45,000 £954.67 (£744)
D £45,001 - £58,000 £1,074 (£837)
I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that Glasgow has got the *highest*
rate of Council Tax in Scotland. So if you think you're hard up in
Edinburgh "Go west my friend, go west".
Alun
Roland Watson
> Band D council tax equivalent £837
> Average Scottish Band D for previous year £783
> The Edinburgh figure is 6.9% higher than the national average last year.
> In 96/97 the council tax in Edinburgh went up 13.5% and the next year
> 10.6%.
13.5% followed by 10.6%!! If they keep that up I think the Tories may
have a chance of getting control of the Council!
Roland Watson.
P.S. I live in Edinburgh and pay around £1200 a year.
Charlie Wood
> Craig Cockburn wrote:
> > In 96/97 the council tax in Edinburgh went up 13.5% and the next year
> > 10.6%.
>
> 13.5% followed by 10.6%!! If they keep that up I think the Tories may
> have a chance of getting control of the Council!
And that would make thinks better, would it? Please explain how?
--
charlie wood Spider Software Limited
+44 (0)131 475 7028 o/ 8 John's Place
http://www.spider.com/ ___#___ Edinburgh EH6 7EL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rainer Thonnes
r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) writes:
>
> The law apparently prescibes a fixed set of ratios for the charges
> in the respective bands, i.e. no matter what, say, the band D
> charge will work out at, the band C charge must be nine elevenths
> of it, or something like that.
I knew nine figured in there somewhere. In fact the mulipliers are
6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18 ninths respectively for bands A-H.
In other words D is the "reference" band and you never pay more
than twice that nor less than two thirds, unless you're entitled
to discounts.
Don't forget you get a 25% discount if you're on your own. So, if
you manage to find a band B property (worth between 27k and 35k in
April '91) you're looking at around £60 a month (for 10 months in the
year - you get a payment holiday in March and April IIRC). That goes
up to £80 a month if you take a lodger (but you'd get the lodger to pay
half); mind you, finding space for the lodger might not be easy in the
one-tiny-bedroom-and-lounge-cum-dining-kitchen garret which a bijou
Edinburgh residencette in band B would be likely to be.
A Brown
>> What do I have to look forward to in Edinburgh for my extra well-spent
>> tax?
>One of the best bus services in the UK.
You what? Taking all the timetables down for 2 weeks until they decide
on new routes? About 30 buses on Princes Street at anyone time, but go
more than 1 mile outside Edinburgh and you can wait over an hour for the
single bus that does the trip?
>Buildings reasonably well
>maintained.
e.g. The Scott Monument? So well maintained they put up all the
scaffolding, took it down, put it up again and then started to clean
it...
>Some of the cleanest water in Britain (ok, Glasgow may
>be better).
Possibly.
>Better than average schools, albeit not as egalitarian
>as they easily could be for the same money.
Dunno.
>Well-maintained public
>parks and recreation facilities
Only wear your wellies in the meadows as it's covered in dog shit.
> A pretty efficient street cleaning system
Which street is that? There is always a load of rubbish floating around
the streets due to the spilt open binbags all over the place. However I
do beleive that these have been replaced by huge immobile wheely bins
bolted onto the middle of the pavement in some areas....
>The usual gang of useless and paranoic social
>workers who are likely to retain their jobs indefinitely since they're
>cheaper than cops and twice as nasty.
Equal rights for Fat Lesbian Wimmin. I have Zero Tolerance for this kind
of snide remark...
>Publicly funded art galleries
>which do genuinely attract a mass audience.
Of tourists, who do not bloody pay for it anyways...
>Care services for the sick
>and old that struggle from one crisis to the next, like everywhere.
Indeed, with Hunters Quare being a prime example, the council building a
lovely open air area with public toilets for the homeless to live in,
and then kicking them out of it.
>Ludicrous amounts of money spent on paramilitary policing of preposterous
>meetings and ceremonies for loathsome celebrities.
Increasing our tourist revenue I believe. However I have never sold
anything to a tourist...
>Masses of dosh pumped
>into glittering facilities for the tourist industry, as if it didn't make
>enough profit anyway. Millions spent on utterly unproductive "enterprise"
>schemes which create no jobs except for the handful of clueless bozo
>consultants who run them. Council offices fitted out like Ceausescu's
>palace with a fleet of Rollers to shunt the fat overfed arses of the
>Labour administration from one smoked-salmon-and-chardonnay official
>reception to the next.
Well I'm glad we agree on something...
>That is, nothing radically different from other cities in Britain but
>priorities somewhat better than many.
Erm, but the council tax is higher than many - I'll take low council tax
and lax priorities anyday...
GtB
Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Unless your loddger is a student because they are not counted as
people for council tax purposes. So you'd still qualify for the 25%
discount.
Mackay
Mark Woods
BRITBALL - www.britball.com
Email: ma...@britball.com
Ian Johnston
: Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
: nothing compared to this.
Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
seeking bastards kept in powers mainly by the votes of those who pay
little or no council tax and who therefore feel quite safe in soaking
the rest of us as they feel like to line their own, their friends and
their relatives pockets.
Still it could be worse. We could have Pat Lally ....
Ian
M Holmes
: Watch this space for water privatization. It's been a political issue
: in Scotland similar to what electricity used to be in Northern Ireland;
: but since both Labour and the Tories are in favour of it and the SNP is
: saying nothing (meaning they're in favour too, only we don't get to find
: out until they're elected) there isn't much to stop it going ahead.
Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
: Jack Campin
FoFP
Bob Scott
lying, thieving scum businessmen?
Besides which, water provision in Scotland seems to be working ok,
compared with the joys of Thames Water et al. IMHO because the water
providers in Scotland aren't trying to make a pofit, they'll cut fewer
corners than companies answering to their bosses share options. Ahem,
share holders.
Not that I've actually got anything against profit or privatisation in
general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to give me
safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
--
Bob Scott
Richard Tobin
>Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
Because it's our water.
-- Richard
--
Because of all the junk e-mail I receive, all e-mail from .com sites is
automatically sent to a file which I only rarely check. If you want to mail
me from a .com site, please ensure my surname appears in the headers.
Tim Bradshaw
> ja...@purr.demon.co.uk (Jack Campin) wrote:
>> Because, by comparison, Belfast has worse public services
> What do I have to look forward to in Edinburgh for my extra well-spent
> tax?
Wheelie bins (`you have nowhere to put it? It won't go up your
stairs? tough')
--tim
Tim Bradshaw
> You what? Taking all the timetables down for 2 weeks until they decide
> on new routes?
2 weeks? I think it's at least 2 months now (mind you, the new
timetables, where they exist, are actually better!).
--tim
Paul Allen
Hey, we've had wheelie bins for ages. They're great for transporting
home made fertiliser bombs. Unfortunately. :-(
A Brown
>Unless your loddger is a student because they are not counted as
>people for council tax purposes. So you'd still qualify for the 25%
>discount.
Ahem, no. I think you'll find that students are not counted as people
for council tax purposes so long as the flat is entirely made up of
students. Add one non-student and they are all liable, therefore no
single person allowance. And as students are in theory not liable they
cannot appeal for a rebate like you can if you are on a low income or on
the dole or something.
Hence the reason students have to kick their pals out the flat as soon
as they graduate.
Even if the flat is occupied by 3 students and a doley - the doley is
not liable because he is on the dole, but he makes the students liable
by his very presence there.
This was the case a couple of years ago anyways....
GtB
Michael Wade
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
>a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
>seeking bastards kept in powers mainly by the votes of those who pay
>little or no council tax and who therefore feel quite safe in soaking
>the rest of us as they feel like to line their own, their friends and
>their relatives pockets.
>
>Still it could be worse. We could have Pat Lally ....
>
>Ian
Isn't it the people with the higher council taxes who do most of the
complaining, the one's in the New Town, who still vote for the Tories?
I occasionally cock an ear (as 'twere) in Kay's Bar and find these are
the three bete noires:
1. Councillor David Begg (wants to do away with their fast cars)
2. 'My bloody council tax'
3. Whoever runs the Scottish Rugby Union
They haven't a lot of time for the Manchester Guardian, either, I note.
--
Michael Wade
Mark Higgins
>Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk writes:
>>Unless your loddger is a student because they are not counted as
>>people for council tax purposes. So you'd still qualify for the 25%
>>discount.
>Ahem, no. I think you'll find that students are not counted as people
>for council tax purposes so long as the flat is entirely made up of
>students. Add one non-student and they are all liable, therefore no
>single person allowance. And as students are in theory not liable they
>cannot appeal for a rebate like you can if you are on a low income or on
>the dole or something.
nope
students are invisible for the *calculation* of the council tax bill,
one pseron[dole|working] + n students = 1 person for the calculation of
the bill which in this case would be 25% single person rebate
but ...
students are liable for the council tax as the bill is joint and
sevrally payable by all occupants pf an abode
so one person plus n students are laibale for the amount payable, one
would hope that the bill would be mostly paid by the working type but
that can get real expensive ...
>Hence the reason students have to kick their pals out the flat as soon
>as they graduate.
or they sign on, see below
(substitue course ends rather than graduate)
>Even if the flat is occupied by 3 students and a doley - the doley is
>not liable because he is on the dole, but he makes the students liable
>by his very presence there.
Doley claims benefit which (as of last oct) covers the whole council tax
bill -- but not the water or sewerage.
all this happens becuas "they" want to keep students out of the benefit
system.
Mark
--
_ ,,,
_ (o o)
________o00__( )__00o_______________________________
m...@ed.ac.uk Mark Higgins =>:o}
Rainer Thonnes
epa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk ( A Brown) writes:
> Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk writes:
>
> >Unless your loddger is a student because they are not counted as
> >people for council tax purposes. So you'd still qualify for the 25%
> >discount.
>
> Ahem, no.
Well, yes, actually.
> I think you'll find that students are not counted as people
> for council tax purposes so long as the flat is entirely made up of
> students.
Students are disregarded for the purpose of determining the number of
people resident. When there are two or more non-students, you pay
100%, when there is one non-student you pay 75%, and in the special case
of all occupiers being students, you pay 0%.
> Add one non-student and they are all liable, therefore no
> single person allowance.
Wrong. The one non-student makes it a one-person property, and so
the 25% discount applies.
> And as students are in theory not liable they
> cannot appeal for a rebate like you can if you are on a low income or on
> the dole or something.
>
> Hence the reason students have to kick their pals out the flat as soon
> as they graduate.
>
> Even if the flat is occupied by 3 students and a doley - the doley is
> not liable because he is on the dole, but he makes the students liable
> by his very presence there.
This is the sort of bizarre result we have come to expect from uncoordinated
bureaucracy. It certainly doesn't make sense, but since the students don't
count, what would the position be if the doley kicked them all out? Would
the dole pay his CTax? Probably not, because they'd say he doesn't need
a four bedroom flat, and the dole won't pay rent for the whole place.
"Oh, but it's OK, there are three students sharing with me and they pay
their share of the rent." -- "No, it's not OK, sonny, we'll pay your share
of the rent and your share of the tax, take it or leave it.".
It would be much more sensible if the CTax rules just treated doleys the
same as students.
Craig Cockburn
Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>In <Ew13DE.B9L.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer
>Thonnes) writes:
>>In article <EvyAKM.Bs0.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
>> r...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Rainer Thonnes) writes:
>>>
>>> The law apparently prescibes a fixed set of ratios for the charges
>>> in the respective bands, i.e. no matter what, say, the band D
>>> charge will work out at, the band C charge must be nine elevenths
>>> of it, or something like that.
>>
>>I knew nine figured in there somewhere. In fact the mulipliers are
>>6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18 ninths respectively for bands A-H.
>>In other words D is the "reference" band and you never pay more
>>than twice that nor less than two thirds, unless you're entitled
>>to discounts.
>>
>>Don't forget you get a 25% discount if you're on your own. So, if
>>you manage to find a band B property (worth between 27k and 35k in
>>April '91) you're looking at around £60 a month (for 10 months in the
>>year - you get a payment holiday in March and April IIRC). That goes
>>up to £80 a month if you take a lodger (but you'd get the lodger to pay
>>half); mind you, finding space for the lodger might not be easy in the
>>one-tiny-bedroom-and-lounge-cum-dining-kitchen garret which a bijou
>>Edinburgh residencette in band B would be likely to be.
>
>
>people for council tax purposes. So you'd still qualify for the 25%
>discount.
>
I wouldn't get the 25% discount when my wife goes back to University.
Discuss!
Ian Johnston
: Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
Pragmatism. We get considerably better water in Edinburgh - and Scotland
generally - than inmost of England, and at a fraction of the price. If
it works, why fix it?
Ian
Ian Johnston
: Isn't it the people with the higher council taxes who do most of the
: complaining, the one's in the New Town, who still vote for the Tories?
Obviously one cannot condone voting for the Tories, but with the lack of
any other credible opposition it's perhaps understandable. Anyway, you don't
need the lofty heights of the New Town to get clobbered by Edinburgh
Council. Band D is quite enough to see services hammered in order to give
cooncillors sweeties to distribute to a) their relations in the construction
industry b) their pals from the Lodge and c) the poors sods of an electorate
who they are happy to keep rotting in the schemes...
: They haven't a lot of time for the Manchester Guardian, either, I note.
Open toed sandals and the Guardian are in my contract of employment.
Ian
Rainer Thonnes
>
>That's funny. When I phoned the council to ask about this they said that
>I wouldn't get the 25% discount when my wife goes back to University.
>Discuss!
You should get the discount if she becomes a student.
But that probably means "full time student".
Never rely on information given over the phone unless you know the
person at the other end knows what they're talking about.
In that respect, treat newsgroups like the phone. :-)
Richard Tobin
>>Because it's our water.
>
>Can you sell it ?
Sure, I'll sell you a pint for 80p (bring your own bottle). Two pints
for £1.59. Enquire for further bulk discounts (no trade-ins).
Mike Dickson
> Otherwise Edinburgh has a *very* healthy attitutude towards planning laws.
They appear to have a green belt 'policy' which can be breached at will
by developers.
> Edinburgh has some very stong points such as preservation of the
> buildings, radical anit-traffic measures (God, please bring them to
> London)
There's radical and there's radical. Does London still shut the Mall on
Sundays?
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Edinburgh, Scotland
fax 0131-271-1551 - Columnated Ruins Domino - Mellotron M400 #996
Craig Cockburn
Neil <ne...@thump.org>
>On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 11:10:07 +0100, Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> had
>this opinion
>
>>>Are there any other nasty charges I need to know of? Cheers in
>>>advance.
>>>
>>Blame the Labour government and the Labour dominated Edinburgh City
>>Council.
>
>last year it was the Tories's fault. What's changed ?
>
Certainly not the monetary policy.
Craig Cockburn
Neil <ne...@thump.org>
>Otherwise Edinburgh has a *very* healthy attitutude towards planning laws. Wish
>we had some of Ed.'s civic pride in london - it was always refreshing.
I would disagree.
Two articles attached which make the point. Edinburgh fails to meet both
its own standards and those set by the government.
-----------------------------('OG?AP(Ayv)-----------------------------
Xref: news.demon.co.uk ed.general:2919 scot.general:2004 soc.culture.scottish:15642 uk.environment:4735 scot.environment:161 uk.politics.misc:48904 scot.politics:682
Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!scot.demon.co.uk!craig
From: Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: ed.general,scot.general,soc.culture.scottish,uk.environment,scot.environment,uk.politics.misc,scot.politics
Subject: Re: South Queensferry, Scotland : 'A sustained attack on the local environment'
Followup-To: soc.culture.scottish,scot.politics,ed.general
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 23:15:32 +0100
Organization: Mo dhachaidh
Message-ID: <V8CwPeAE...@scot.demon.co.uk>
References: <35A0B78A...@iname.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: scot.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: scot.demon.co.uk:158.152.23.217
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 900281787 nnrp-03:29994 NO-IDENT scot.demon.co.uk:158.152.23.217
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 3.05 <VGrxkUP5e270WzhUsoQxBgLInu>
Lines: 89
Letter for Publication
To: The Editor, The Evening News
cc: Ferry Friends
South Queensferry Development
=============================
Council and Government failing to follow their own commitments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sir
I refer to the letter by Councillor Robert Cairns, Convener, Planning
Committee, Edinburgh dated July 9, 1998. With reference to council
planning, he stated:
"The rules are quite clear in this respect. If an authority stands to
make money from a planning application then it must be referred to the
Secretary of State if there is a significant body of opposition to the
proposal or if it is contrary to the local plan."
Yet the reply received by South Queensferry Community Council from the
Scottish Office States:
"The Secretary of State would contemplate intervening only in very
exceptional circumstances and would normally become involved only in
cases which raise issues of national significance"
Clearly Donald Dewar does not appear to be aware of the circumstances
which, according to the head of planning at Edinburgh City Council, the
Secretary of State must be informed. In the council's own words, Donald
Dewar must be informed in this instance as there is both a significant
body of opposition to the proposal and the authority is to gain several
million pounds from the develoment. Is Donald Dewar aware of this issue
or is Donald ducking the issue?
The Government has also published a consultation paper on Modernising
Local Government which states:
"Authorities need to react openly to feedback or campaigns from those
they serve"
and which proposes some democratic initiatives for
"enabling the electorate to determine or influence policy on a specific
issue"
and "Handing over a decision or influence to those affected"
Whilst these only apply to English local authorities, they highlight the
lack of participatory democracy in this country which the Government is
presiding over. Will Tony Blair be addressing this issue on his Tour of
Scotland this week?
With reference to Edinburgh City Council, both they and the Government
have expressed a commitment to Agenda 21 which states
"Fundamental to the achievement of sustainable development is public
participation by all major social groups."
and in the City of Edinburgh council's document "Scheme of
Decentralisation", the council has stated
"If local government is to be meaningful, councillors and officers must
co-operate and collaborate, inside and outside the council, with
community councils, local groups and agencies, and existing partnership
bodies."
And the council is committing to
"Actively involving the people of Edinburgh in decision-making processes
and enabling them to influence and shape the design of services and the
way in which the council serves its communities."
In all these regards, the council and government are failing to follow
their own commitments and standards by railroading through a proposal
against the wishes of the local community and the community council,
with no consultation and against decent common sense for the sustainable
development of South Queensferry.
It seems that Edinburgh City Council is following the same standards of
maladministration practiced by their counterparts in the rest of
Scotland.
Craig Cockburn
South Queensferry
12th July
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn"), Du\n E/ideann, Alba. (Edinburgh, Scotland)
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/ mailto:cr...@scot.demon.co.uk
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
-----------------------------('OG?AP(Ayv)-----------------------------
-----------------------------((OG?AP(aR')-----------------------------
Xref: news.demon.co.uk ed.general:2959 scot.general:2033 soc.culture.scottish:15792 uk.environment:4837 scot.environment:165
Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!serio.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: Friends of South Quensferry <ferry....@iname.com>
Newsgroups: ed.general,scot.general,soc.culture.scottish,uk.environment,scot.environment
Subject: Help required - Watch out Calton Hill!
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 22:20:27 +0100
Message-ID: <35AA7A1B...@iname.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: serio.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: serio.demon.co.uk:158.152.137.58
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 900364985 nnrp-09:15323 NO-IDENT serio.demon.co.uk:158.152.137.58
X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Does anyone know of development proposals made by City of Edinburgh
Council where the Council is going to be benefiting from the proposal
itself, maybe to improve the lot of a narrow interest group, whilst also
being the planning authority?
We know of two - Craiglockart in Edinburgh (Rugby club), Port Edgar in
South Queensferry (marina).
Are there any others going on at present in Edinburgh? Watch out Calton
Hill!
Peter Milne, Friends of South Queensferry.
-----------------------------((OG?AP(aR')-----------------------------
Laurence Molloy
>
>
> Even if the flat is occupied by 3 students and a doley - the doley is
> not liable because he is on the dole, but he makes the students liable
> by his very presence there.
>
>
> GtB
Exact rules quoted to me (and subsequently rigorously applied) as
follows...
1) Number of non-students in flat are counted for purposes of deducing
whether single person 25% discount applies.
2) Benefits claimants can then claim rebate ON THEIR PORTION OF THE
BILL. Before April 1997 there was a stupid rule which required ALL
inhabitants (students included) to be counted for the purposes of
deducing the propotion of a benefit claimant's rebate.
Example:
--------
A benefits claimant living with 2 students would get a 1/3 rebate (he is
only one of 3 people living there) of the 75% tax levied, leaving a
residue of 50% tax for someone to pay.
3) However, in April 1997 the rebate rule was amended to allow students
to retain their *invisble* status for the purposes of the rebate
calculation. In the above example, this results in the entire bill being
rebated.
However, there is a sting in the tail for students who own their flats
and rent the spare room to help with the mortgage (quite common in
Edinburgh) and it goes like this...
4) If a liable person (any non-student) is living with you, 75% tax is
levied as before. However, as soon as the tax liability on the property
is calculated, the bill is automatically issued in the resident owner's
name. Thus, if your lodger is a benefits claimant, he no longer has a
bill to rebate and the student is not eligible for a rebate so the
entire 75% stands.
OUCH!!!
What are the odds that this anomaly will never be ironed out?
Laurence.
M Holmes
: M Holmes <zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
: >Jack Campin (ja...@purr.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
: >: Watch this space for water privatization. It's been a political issue
: >: in Scotland similar to what electricity used to be in Northern Ireland;
: >: but since both Labour and the Tories are in favour of it and the SNP is
: >: saying nothing (meaning they're in favour too, only we don't get to find
: >: out until they're elected) there isn't much to stop it going ahead.
: >Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
: 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
: lying, thieving scum businessmen?
Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
do is take your cstom elsewhere.
: Besides which, water provision in Scotland seems to be working ok,
: compared with the joys of Thames Water et al. IMHO because the water
: providers in Scotland aren't trying to make a pofit, they'll cut fewer
: corners than companies answering to their bosses share options. Ahem,
: share holders.
Maybe it just works better because it rains more in Scotland?
: Not that I've actually got anything against profit or privatisation in
: general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to give me
: safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
You also need clothes don't you? Can the private sector be trusted to
give you safe and effective clothes at a reaonable price?
: Bob Scott
FoFP
J. Henderson
: : Watch this space for water privatization. It's been a political issue
: : in Scotland similar to what electricity used to be in Northern Ireland;
: : but since both Labour and the Tories are in favour of it and the SNP is
: : saying nothing (meaning they're in favour too, only we don't get to find
: : out until they're elected) there isn't much to stop it going ahead.
: Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
Two words: "Yorkshire Water".
--
Jeremy.
(note busted reply-to address - make the obvious changes)
"he's an egotistical, nasty, self-opinionated hypocrite" - Sue Spence
Michael Wade
<cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Unless your loddger is a student because they are not counted as
>>people for council tax purposes. So you'd still qualify for the 25%
>>discount.
>>
>I wouldn't get the 25% discount when my wife goes back to University.
>Discuss!
>
Tesco's Club Card, which offers double points discounts. It's worth
worth about forty quid a quarter chez nous.
--
Michael Wade
J. Henderson
: : >
: : >: Watch this space for water privatization. It's been a political issue
: : >: in Scotland similar to what electricity used to be in Northern Ireland;
: : >: but since both Labour and the Tories are in favour of it and the SNP is
: : >: saying nothing (meaning they're in favour too, only we don't get to find
: : >: out until they're elected) there isn't much to stop it going ahead.
: : >
: : >Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
: : 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
: : lying, thieving scum businessmen?
: Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
: five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
: the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
: do is take your cstom elsewhere.
Mike - you may fill your bath with Perrier, but the rest of us don't find
that a very convincing argument for privatisation.
Bob Scott
>Bob Scott (B...@landb5.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: >
>: 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
>: lying, thieving scum businessmen?
>
>Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
>five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
>the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
>do is take your cstom elsewhere.
>
>: compared with the joys of Thames Water et al. IMHO because the water
>: providers in Scotland aren't trying to make a pofit, they'll cut fewer
>: corners than companies answering to their bosses share options. Ahem,
>: share holders.
>
>Maybe it just works better because it rains more in Scotland?
>
>: Not that I've actually got anything against profit or privatisation in
>: general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to give me
>: safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
>
>You also need clothes don't you? Can the private sector be trusted to
>give you safe and effective clothes at a reaonable price?
>
but, following the glories of Thames water etc - why change something
that works well at a reasonable price? Should we be changing purely for
the sake of ideology? (If it was in private hands & working well I'd be
opposed to nationalisation).
And it occurs to me that if the population don't object to spending
their money, in the form of taxes, on ensuring good water supplies why
should this be changed just so businessmen can make profits? Is there
any other rationale for privatising water supply in Scotland? Is there a
need for investment in water infrastructure that cannot currently be met
from the public purse?
Bob
--
Bob Scott
Simon John Fraser
> ja...@purr.demon.co.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>
> >> What do I have to look forward to in Edinburgh for my extra well-spent
> >> tax?
> >be better).
> Possibly. NOT
I agree. The water in Edinburgh is terrible (compared to North Perthshire
anyway). I always feel a bit queezy after drinking a pint of the stuff.
Cleanest water in Britain is probably in the streams of the Highlands
above animal level. Drink in the glens if you dare.
As a side, if you want cheap council tax, or more to the point no council
tax, become a student. I assume that is why Paul is coming to Edinburgh
so he wont have to pay it anyway........
Simon
Christopher Bruce
>
> Paul Allen (paul....@cableol.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : Why so high? I'm used to living in Belfast, where rates are next to
> : nothing compared to this.
>
> Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
> a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
> seeking bastards kept in powers mainly by the votes of those who pay
> little or no council tax and who therefore feel quite safe in soaking
> the rest of us as they feel like to line their own, their friends and
> their relatives pockets.
You should get in there Ian, you might make some friends :-)
Chris
--
_/_/ mailto:br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de
_/ mailto:Christop...@compuserve.com
_/
_/_/ I burn the midnight oil until 9:30.
M Holmes
: >: Not that I've actually got anything against profit or privatisation
: >: in general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to
: >: give me safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
: >You also need clothes don't you? Can the private sector be trusted to
: >give you safe and effective clothes at a reaonable price?
: It has. It does. I'm thoroughly in favour of the free market
: generally but, following the glories of Thames water etc - why change
: something that works well at a reasonable price? Should we be changing
: purely for the sake of ideology? (If it was in private hands & working
: well I'd be opposed to nationalisation).
Fairy Nuff.
: And it occurs to me that if the population don't object to spending
: their money, in the form of taxes, on ensuring good water supplies why
: should this be changed
If everyone is so unanimously in favour of it, why do they need to
extort the money by threat rather than just invite 'em to subscribe?
: Bob
FoFP
Christopher Bruce
>
> Bob Scott (B...@landb5.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : M Holmes <zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
> : >Jack Campin (ja...@purr.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : >
> : >: Watch this space for water privatization.
> : >
> : lying, thieving scum businessmen?
>
> Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
> five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
> the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
> do is take your cstom elsewhere.
Mmmm, pretty easy with gas water and electricity eh?
> : Not that I've actually got anything against profit or privatisation in
> : general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to give me
> : safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
>
> You also need clothes don't you? Can the private sector be trusted to
> give you safe and effective clothes at a reaonable price?
There is another, IMO, more important factor!
We, the British should have a common right to good, clean and regular
drinking water. We should also have those rights to the other basic
facilities of power. The costs to us across the nation should be
consistant also.
This common right almost demands that no unnecessary profit be made and
it carries with it the clear understanding that if the infrastructure
needs improving, we will pay for it!
The privatised industries, take their profit and then look to us, (in
the form of government grants), when they run into trouble. I suspect
that parts of those grants will go directly to the sharteholders
pockets.
That there is not already a water network for Scotland, England and
Wales, is a disgrace and the last years of the tory self-government
worked hard to see that it could never be done. They put into place
legislation that absolutely prevented the water industry returning to
what it was before they distributed it to their friends. The asset
stripping that took place then and was seemingly tolerated by the public
was and is disgraceful.
The day will come when Scotland will sell power and water to England
well the private industries will sell the commodities where they can get
the best price so a water shortage in England, (and this is already
occuring) might cause the plentiful supply in Scotland to be sold to the
higher bidder, England.
Would you think that was right and proper, and if so, I do hope that you
are the first person to lose their supply to the benefit of those paying
more in the South!
Regards
G Bell
>M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
>Two words: "Yorkshire Water".
And also to guarantee that everybody has access to adequate and clean
water for drinking, washing and sewerage. It was the Tories at the end
of the last century who in fact removed water provision from private
hands to accomplish the three points above.
Most poor folk can't afford Evian, Highland Spring, etc.!
Graham
Bob Scott
>: >: in general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to
>: >: give me safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
>
>: >You also need clothes don't you? Can the private sector be trusted to
>: >give you safe and effective clothes at a reaonable price?
>
>: generally but, following the glories of Thames water etc - why change
>: something that works well at a reasonable price? Should we be changing
>: purely for the sake of ideology? (If it was in private hands & working
>: well I'd be opposed to nationalisation).
>
>Fairy Nuff.
>
>: And it occurs to me that if the population don't object to spending
>: their money, in the form of taxes, on ensuring good water supplies why
>: should this be changed
>
>If everyone is so unanimously in favour of it, why do they need to
>extort the money by threat rather than just invite 'em to subscribe?
>
noticed people rushing to demand privatisation. I suspect that if it
came down to it people would try to avoid paying for it whoever owned
it. And, AFAIK, it's a good few years since anyone has sought
subscriptions for specific public works. Seems a good idea, right enough
- I suspect you'd find people a lot more willing to pay taxes if they
were earmarked for specific things, rather than the casual enrichment of
whoever had their paws on the levers of power.
Anyone for an audit of politicians finances as they take & leave power -
just to stop the bastards getting too rich on our money?
--
Bob Scott
Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>
>The day will come when Scotland will sell power and water to England
>well the private industries will sell the commodities where they can get
>the best price so a water shortage in England, (and this is already
>occuring) might cause the plentiful supply in Scotland to be sold to the
>higher bidder, England.
Electricity and water are already exported into England from
Scotland, Wales and France. Indeed one feature of the recent
proposals that were meant to protect the coal industry included
making it more difficult to import electricity from France but I think
this fell because of legal problems about restraint of trade and
European competition.
M Holmes
: M Holmes wrote:
: >
: > Bob Scott (B...@landb5.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : M Holmes <zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
: > : >Jack Campin (ja...@purr.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : >
: > : >: Watch this space for water privatization.
: > : >
: > : 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
: > : lying, thieving scum businessmen?
: >
: > Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
: > five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
: > the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
: Mmmm, pretty easy with gas water and electricity eh?
As I understood it, the original plan was that you would be able to buy
your gas, water, or electricity from any supplier and only the supply
grid/pipes would be effectively a monopoly. Dunno if that'll be the case
once New Nanny have messed about with the legislation though.
Then again, the Scottish Power bloke was round to offer me gas service
and Scottish Gas are within an inch of pissing me off enough to go to
the effort of swapping suppliers. As far as I can tell they have a lot
of trouble when customers do unusual things like change address. Then
once they respond by sending unusual bills for the wrong period and
amount they have you wait interminably through some phone muzak until
some bloke answers to say only that he's just manning the phone line and
you won't be able to talk to anyone qualified to discuss your query
until a week next Tuesday or someone finishes a training course,
whichever happens soonest. While you wait they'll leave ominous sounding
messages on your answering machine which amount to "Phone us or else"
and ignoring these on the basis of not again going through a phone
service which makes GNER look customer friendly will result in a red
bill.
I still have no idea whether they've sorted the mess out, though
ominously my ex-flatmate says he's not getting gas bills at the old
address.
How they'll get gas over the electriciuty wires, or whether electricity
and gas really mix, is quite beyond me but I suppose they know what
they're doing.
: > : Not that I've actually got anything against profit or privatisation in
: > : general, it's just I'm not sure I trust the profit motive to give me
: > : safe drinking water at a reasonable price.
: >
: > You also need clothes don't you? Can the private sector be trusted to
: > give you safe and effective clothes at a reaonable price?
: There is another, IMO, more important factor!
: We, the British should have a common right to good, clean and regular
: drinking water.
As someone who's become all too closely acquainted with the stuff
recently I can assure you there's no need to worry. You can just go
outside, tilt your head back, open your mouth and there'll be enough
to drown in.
: We should also have those rights to the other basic
: facilities of power.
And the internet! And phones! and Video TV! and and and...
: The costs to us across the nation should be
: consistant also.
Moon on a stick! Moon on a stick!
: This common right almost demands that no unnecessary profit be made and
: it carries with it the clear understanding that if the infrastructure
: needs improving, we will pay for it!
How much profit is "unecessary profit"? They didn't get that far in my
economics course.
: The privatised industries, take their profit and then look to us, (in
: the form of government grants), when they run into trouble. I suspect
: that parts of those grants will go directly to the sharteholders
: pockets.
Indeed so. I blame the Tories for the way they privatised 'em.
: That there is not already a water network for Scotland, England and
: Wales, is a disgrace and the last years of the tory self-government
"self-government"? Some mistake surely?
: worked hard to see that it could never be done. They put into place
: legislation that absolutely prevented the water industry returning to
: what it was before they distributed it to their friends.
They got something right at least then.
: The day will come when Scotland will sell power and water to England
: well the private industries will sell the commodities where they can get
: the best price so a water shortage in England, (and this is already
: occuring
I was at Glastonbury mate. Trust me, there was plenty water there.
: might cause the plentiful supply in Scotland to be sold to the
: higher bidder, England.
: Would you think that was right and proper
It's almost a moral duty.
: and if so, I do hope that you
: are the first person to lose their supply to the benefit of those paying
: more in the South!
Just a teensy weensy point, but won't it cost more to ship it abroad? If
we're eft with no water ourselves isn't it likely we'll raise our bid
to compete with the English bid?
It's a nice fantasy and I'm sure you could interest Ben Elton in the
book rights but somehow I just can't see Scots running out of water.
In an emergency though I expect either the French would ship us tankers
of Perrier or we'd copy our ancestors and drink ale instead. I'll take
you seriously enough to go out and practice for the emergency in a few
minutes.
: Chris
FoFP
M Holmes
: >: And it occurs to me that if the population don't object to spending
: >: their money, in the form of taxes, on ensuring good water supplies
: >: why should this be changed
: >If everyone is so unanimously in favour of it, why do they need to
: >extort the money by threat rather than just invite 'em to subscribe?
: That, unfortunately, is a good point. Then again, I hadn't exactly
: noticed people rushing to demand privatisation. I suspect that if it
: came down to it people would try to avoid paying for it whoever owned
: it.
I presume the owners could then just cut off their supply and leave 'em
to put pans out or get in a supply of Evian.
: And, AFAIK, it's a good few years since anyone has sought
: subscriptions for specific public works.
Gee, I wonder if that's because a lot of public works were nationalised?
: Seems a good idea, right
: enough - I suspect you'd find people a lot more willing to pay taxes
: if they were earmarked for specific things
It'd certainly be interesting to see what people would actually pay for
if they had the choice. Of course it might balance out with half the
country subscribing to Nuke 'Em 'Til They Glow Submarines while refusing
to pay for the BBC and vice versa.
: rather than the casual
: enrichment of whoever had their paws on the levers of power.
I do suspect that funding for political parties, politicians and their
concubines and flunkies wouldn't be oversubscribed. Then again, they
could always raise the odd million by auctioning government policy to
the highest bidder.
: Anyone for an audit of politicians finances as they take & leave power
: - just to stop the bastards getting too rich on our money? --
You'd probably have to work some to dislike politicians more than I do
but I'd be willing to pay more for results. How about requiring the
parties to state in their manifesto their targets for various figures
like unemployment, inflation, investment and performance targets versus
money given to the various public works, and also a list of bonuses and
financial penalties (personal unlimited liability for elected party
members) should those figures be over, or under, achieved. I suspect we
might see a little realism enter politics rather than the parties
playing Fantasy Manifesto and then either ignoring their promises or
changing policy at the drop of a million.
The problem being that this is also fantasy since politicians aren't
going to vote to put themselves under the spotlight. It'd be nice to get
some sort of clause in at the start of the Scottish Parliament though.
Bob Scott
FoFP
Paul Allen
>As a side, if you want cheap council tax, or more to the point no council
>tax, become a student. I assume that is why Paul is coming to Edinburgh
>so he wont have to pay it anyway........
Not true! <g>
I'm hopefully coming to work as a branch manager in a communications
store....I'll let you know how the all-day interview/group
discussion/psychometric testing goes on Friday. I'll be over in
Stirling for that on Friday, and I'll be spending Friday night and
Saturday and Sunday in Edinburgh.
--
Paul Allen, paul....@cableol.co.uk
Belfast, Northern Ireland
Mail a 160 character message to my phone: pauls...@genie.co.uk
ICQ# 4695120
Craig Cockburn
Neil <ne...@thump.org>
>On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 07:28:21 +0100, Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> had
>this opinion
>
>>>
>>>last year it was the Tories's fault. What's changed ?
>>>
>>Certainly not the monetary policy.
>
>biggest change in monetry policy since the 2nd world war !!!
I suppose so. We are then supposed to blame the Bank of England for the
higher interest rates instead of the government?
Craig Cockburn
Wade <cel...@mwade.demon.co.uk>
That's handy, I hear Tesco's are opening a branch here.
Ian Johnston
: : >Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
: : >
: : 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
: : lying, thieving scum businessmen?
: Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
: five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
: the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
: do is take your cstom elsewhere.
And in how many parts of England is it possible - or intended to be possible -
to change one's water company?
Ian
Ian Johnston
: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
: > a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
: > seeking bastards kept ...
: You should get in there Ian, you might make some friends :-)
I would be ashamed to have friends in Scottish local government as it stands.
Besides, what would I do with a road repair contract?
Ian
Colin Rosenthal
You could follow standard custom and practice and sell it to the
highest bidder.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Malcolm Ogilvie
od.ed.ac.uk> writes
>G Bell (gb...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: jeremynosp...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (J. Henderson) writes:
>
>: >M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>
>
>: And also to guarantee that everybody has access to adequate and clean
>: water for drinking, washing and sewerage.
>
>
Yes, we use water of drinking quality to flush our toilets with. Stupid,
or what?
Malcolm
--
Malcolm Ogilvie, Isle of Islay, Scotland, U.K.
Christopher Bruce
>
> In <35AB62E9...@ks.sel.alcatel.de>, Christopher Bruce <br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de> writes:
> >
> >well the private industries will sell the commodities where they can get
> >the best price so a water shortage in England, (and this is already
> >higher bidder, England.
>
> Scotland, Wales and France. Indeed one feature of the recent
> proposals that were meant to protect the coal industry included
> making it more difficult to import electricity from France but I think
> this fell because of legal problems about restraint of trade and
> European competition.
Well Gordon, not 'exported' in any useful sense!
There is no benefit to Scotland from this and the Welsh rather feel that
their water is being stolen!
They have a good point!
The natural resources of both countries are being plundered by private
industry.
This is not to the advantage of the public at large. (IMHO)
Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>Christopher Bruce (br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de) wrote:
>: Ian Johnston wrote:
>
>: > Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
>: > a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
>: > seeking bastards kept ...
>
>: You should get in there Ian, you might make some friends :-)
>
>I would be ashamed to have friends in Scottish local government as it stands.
>Besides, what would I do with a road repair contract?
Pay me 40-grand a year to do it but don't expect me to do anything!
BTW, I thought it was Americans who were supposed to miss irony
when it's slapping them in the face.
Bob Scott
Mega snip - discussion of something or other, during which the bod
attributed above expounded views I do NOT neccessarily hold and then
ended as below.
>
>Bob Scott
>
>FoFP
Oi! Fuckwit! Gauntae not put my name on your posts!!!
--
Bob Scott
M Holmes
: >: And also to guarantee that everybody has access to adequate and clean
: >: water for drinking, washing and sewerage.
: >
: >We use clean water for sewerage?
: >
: Yes, we use water of drinking quality to flush our toilets with. Stupid,
: or what?
Yeah, I suppose we do. I gather that on the continent they feed
rainwater from the rone pipes to do that and even collect it for
watering gardens. Seems to me that this would be an easier way to solve
drought problems in England than towing huge plastic bags full of water
from Scotland. The water companies obviously have no incentive to
convert homes to such a system and lacking pricing based on usage,
requiring metering, neither do householders. I guess the introduction of
a proper price mechanism here would actually be good for the
environment.
: Malcolm
FoFP
M Holmes
: M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : Bob Scott (B...@landb5.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: : : M Holmes <zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
: : : >Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
: : : >
: : : 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
: : : lying, thieving scum businessmen?
: : Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
: : five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
: : the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
: : do is take your cstom elsewhere.
: And in how many parts of England is it possible - or intended to be possible -
: to change one's water company?
That was the plan under the Conservatives (though admittedly you had to
receive the water via the same taps). Has New Nanny altered this plan?
: Ian
FoFP
M Holmes
[council tax...]
: >>>last year it was the Tories's fault. What's changed ?
: >>Certainly not the monetary policy.
: >Beg you pardon ? Giving the central bank power of interest rates is
: >arguably the biggest change in monetry policy since the 2nd world war
: >!!!
An interesting article in the Times yesterday figured that Brown had
done this because he'd studied the reasons why previous Labour
governments had problems and exchange rate crises came out tops.
: I suppose so. We are then supposed to blame the Bank of England for
: the higher interest rates instead of the government?
Temporarily. Pretty soon you get to blame the Bank of Frankfurt.
: Craig Cockburn
FoFP
Loz
pulling the interest rate strings invisibly.
1) After passing control over to the MPC last year, Gordon Brown did
zero to tighten fiscal policy in his first budget, forcing the MPC to
act in the only additional way possible to deter spending...by raising
interest rates.
2) After announcing his (quite substantial) 3 year spending plan this
week many are saying that the assumed reduction in the benefits budget
that the spending plan is reliant upon for some of its source of income
assumes no slowing down of economic growth. If an economic slowdown
occurs (as is expected in the next 2 years) unemployment rises and the
benefits budget will have to be breached, thus making a farce of the
figures contained in the 3 year plan. High interest rates are
threatening to do this in the manufacturing and export sectors already.
The MPC may well have to take this scenario into account in any future
decision they make regarding further rises in interest rates.
Who's to say that Gordon Brown knew this would be the case when he
passed interest rate control over to the BoE last year?...or when he
announced which cronies he'd chosen to sit on the panel?
The ideal of separate control may well be good but in reality the two
are always inextricably linked. The only thing that Gordon Brown
decentralised by passing interest control to the BoE was *blame*. "Not
me Guv. I didn't screw up interest rate policy. It was the BoE!"
Laurence
M Holmes
: Mega snip - discussion of something or other, during which the bod
: attributed above expounded views I do NOT neccessarily hold and then
: ended as below.
: >
: >Bob Scott
: >
: >FoFP
: Oi! Fuckwit! Gauntae not put my name on your posts!!!
Sorry, my keyboard ran out of semicolons.
: Bob Scott
FoFP
M Holmes
: On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 19:25:40 +0100, Craig Cockburn <cr...@scot.demon.co.uk> had
: this opinion
: >>Beg you pardon ? Giving the central bank power of interest rates is
: >>arguably the biggest change in monetry policy since the 2nd world
: >>war !!!
: >I suppose so. We are then supposed to blame the Bank of England for
: >the higher interest rates instead of the government?
: Well I think so. Not to start a huge thread on the pros or cons of
: decentralising the bank, but lets say experience from Germany and the
: USA shows that removing polictical control of interest rates tends to
: produce more economic stability over the long run. I studied
: economics at h-w Uni and wrote a dissertation on monetary policy so I
: hope you'll take my word on this conclusion: my research suggested it.
Ah, you may be able to answer a question which has been bugging me...
: The Bank & monetary policy committee set interest rates as they see
: fit - the long term aim being to reach the government's inflation
: targets. This is very *normal* in developed western economies. Lets
: say, this "best practice" approach seems to work, so we shouldn't
: blame the Bank for infliction a little short term harm for the sake of
: long term good.
Interest rates are supposed to be the price of money are they not? Why
then aren't interest rates always simply at the level where the amount
of money voluntarily borrowed matches the amount of money voluntarily
loaned? Is there some reason we shouldn't want the price mechanism to work?
: Neil
FoFP
M Holmes
: >: I suppose so. We are then supposed to blame the Bank of England
: >: for the higher interest rates instead of the government?
: >Temporarily. Pretty soon you get to blame the Bank of Frankfurt.
: You'd better believe it !! And Frankfurt will be dictating to the
: Goverment how much it can spend/tax and raise on the capital markets
: (budget deficit funding...)
The UK is pretty well within the limits so there's some leeway there at
the moment. The worry is that extravagant spending by the EC itself
(most likely on the poorest economies so we'll miss the fiscal stimulus
of it) will lead to high real interest rates. Putting the Germans in
charge of monetary policy will make Thatcher look like Wilson.
: Neil
FoFP
M Holmes
: On 15 Jul 1998 11:39:33 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) had this
: opinion
: > The Bank & monetary policy committee set interest rates as they see
: >: fit - the long term aim being to reach the government's inflation
: >: targets. This is very *normal* in developed western economies.
: >: Lets say, this "best practice" approach seems to work, so we
: >: shouldn't blame the Bank for infliction a little short term harm
: >: for the sake of long term good.
: >Interest rates are supposed to be the price of money are they not?
: >Why then aren't interest rates always simply at the level where the
: >amount of money voluntarily borrowed matches the amount of money
: >voluntarily loaned? Is there some reason we shouldn't want the price
: >mechanism to work?
: God this is taking me back so I might get some of it totally wong.
: Interest rates are the price of money. But remember supply and demand
: for money works on an international level. Setting interest rates
: determines the cost of money on all the london capital markets (short
: term to long term). As far as I remember the "interest rate" (ie:
: base rate) is infact the cost of borrowing money from the Bank of
: England.
: The various other capital markets rates (LIBOR etc.) are determined by
: supply and demand for money can be different to base rate...and
: sometimes will rise in anticiaption of action from the Bank of
: England, or say heavy selling of Sterling.
: The Bank will raise interest rates in accordance with fluctuations on
: the capital markets, as well as taking other general economic
: indicators into consideration.
So if I understand this correctly you're saying that rather than leave
supply and demand of money to determine the interest rate (which would
be a market price signal?) the Bank interferes so as to guide the
economy onto some desirable True Path?
However, when someone at the hands of the controls of a system doesn't
have up to date and accurate feedback of the actual state of the system,
there's a strong tendency to undercorrect or overcorrect and this leads
to large swings in the system rather than stability. This is easily
demonstrated if you put someone in a driving simulator (for example) and
make the screen feedback arrive a couple of seconds late.
We do get booms and busts in the economy and it seems not impossible
that this sort of effect might be part of the cause. Is there any
evidence supporting that? Brown claims to want to abolish boom and bust.
Wouldn't leaving interest rates to sort themselves out, rather than the
Bank interfering with them, make this more likely?
: Neil
FoFP
M Holmes
: In article <6oi4dl$d...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
: >Is there some reason we shouldn't want the price mechanism to work?
: Well of course there is, as you know perfectly well. We have goals
: like low unemployment and sustained growth, which the "price
: mechanism" does not consider
Doesn't it? Surely someone's employment situation determines what
they'll want to, and how much they can, borrow?
: unless you adhere to some magical theory
: of money.
I don't, but I'm also being invited to believe that there's a magical
theory Out There that will lead to sustained growth if only the
politicians can discover it and interfere in the right way this time.
After around ten thousand experiments of various states failing to find
this Holy Grail, I'm becoming skeptical that it really exists. I've
tried to cure myself of such cynicism but the evidence is just so damn
overwhelming.
Personally I blame Jeremy for making me read that Omerod book.
: Whether that means we should put a wunch of bankers in charge of it is
: another matter.
Or worse, a bunch of politicians.
FoFP
Chris Boyd
: On 15 Jul 1998 13:54:20 GMT, zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) had this
: opinion
: >: Well of course there is, as you know perfectly well. We have goals
: >: like low unemployment and sustained growth, which the "price
: >: mechanism" does not consider
: >
: >Doesn't it? Surely someone's employment situation determines what
: >they'll want to, and how much they can, borrow?
: Neo Classical economists woudl argue that unemployment is due to imperfections
: in the labout market - ie: information about the "price" of labour is difficult
: to find, the market is hugely distorted by the state sector (national payt
: bargaining etc.) , unions and a lack of labour mobility. I think these are
: called "supply side" issues - the price at which people are prepared to work.
: in a true "classical" labour market there would be no unemployment.
Of course all this argument hinges on the supposition that economics is
a science rather than a branch of astrology. All the evidence points in
the latter direction.
--
root@/dev/null
M Holmes
: Of course all this argument hinges on the supposition that economics is
: a science rather than a branch of astrology. All the evidence points in
: the latter direction.
Sure, but if that's correct then governments who try to engineer growth
by "pulling economic levers" are simply doing the equivalent of casting
chicken entrails but at huge expense and resultant misery.
FoFP
Christopher Bruce
Ian is an American!
Councillors in Britain do not get 40 grand or anywhere near it.
More like 5 grand if it is a big council!
CHris
Christopher Bruce
>
> Ian Johnston (engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> : M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
> : : : M Holmes <zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>
> : : : >
> : : : 'cause it's easier to sack the lying, thieving scum politicians than the
> : : : lying, thieving scum businessmen?
>
> : : Well, except that it isn't. To get rid of a government you have to wait
> : : five years and then all you get is another government that's pretty much
> : : the same as the last one. To get rid of a businessman, all you have to
> : : do is take your cstom elsewhere.
>
> : And in how many parts of England is it possible - or intended to be possible -
> : to change one's water company?
>
> That was the plan under the Conservatives (though admittedly you had to
> receive the water via the same taps). Has New Nanny altered this plan?
What??????????????
You call that a "plan"?
Chris
John F. Eldredge
>G Bell (gb...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>: jeremynosp...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (J. Henderson) writes:
>
>: >M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: >: Why do we need the government to be a water supplier anyway?
>
>: >Two words: "Yorkshire Water".
>
>: And also to guarantee that everybody has access to adequate and clean
>: water for drinking, washing and sewerage.
>
>We use clean water for sewerage?
>
Unless you have two water supply pipes coming to your house, one with
potable water for cooking & drinking, and the other with non-potable
water for flushing the toilet, then, yes, you are using clean water
for sewerage.
--
John F. Eldredge -- eldr...@poboxes.com
PGP key available from http://www.netforward.com/poboxes/?eldredge/
--
"There must be, not a balance of power, but a community of power;
not organized rivalries, but an organized common peace." - Woodrow Wilson
Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> In <6ogdqv$7ht$4...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
>> >Christopher Bruce (br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de) wrote:
>> >: Ian Johnston wrote:
>> >
>> >: > Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
>> >: > a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
>> >: > seeking bastards kept ...
>> >
>> >: You should get in there Ian, you might make some friends :-)
>> >
>> >I would be ashamed to have friends in Scottish local government as it stands.
>> >Besides, what would I do with a road repair contract?
>>
>> Pay me 40-grand a year to do it but don't expect me to do anything!
>>
>> BTW, I thought it was Americans who were supposed to miss irony
>> when it's slapping them in the face.
>
>Ian is an American!
Is he? You live and learn.
>Councillors in Britain do not get 40 grand or anywhere near it.
>
>More like 5 grand if it is a big council!
A poor reference to how much one guy made allegedly in the Direct Works
department in one of the Scottish councils.
J. Henderson
: Neil (ne...@thump.org) wrote:
Aah the joys of (de facto) EMU - large transfer payments from rich folk
to poor folk, without any effective political control.
--
Jeremy.
(note busted reply-to address - make the obvious changes)
"he's an egotistical, nasty, self-opinionated hypocrite" - Sue Spence
Ian Johnston
: Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk wrote:
: > In <6ogdqv$7ht$4...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
: > >I would be ashamed to have friends in Scottish local government as it stands.
: > >Besides, what would I do with a road repair contract?
: >
: > Pay me 40-grand a year to do it but don't expect me to do anything!
: Ian is an American!
Oh no I'm notK!
: Councillors in Britain do not get 40 grand or anywhere near it.
: More like 5 grand if it is a big council!
We weren't talking about councillors - we were talking about councillors'
friends, relations, fellow Lodge members and so on, who in Scotland
traditionally are awarded large public works contracts for which they do
very little.
See?
Ian
Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk
>
>: Ian is an American!
>
>Oh no I'm notK!
Are you sure?
>: Councillors in Britain do not get 40 grand or anywhere near it.
>
>: More like 5 grand if it is a big council!
>
>We weren't talking about councillors - we were talking about councillors'
>friends, relations, fellow Lodge members
Well my Granny is 175 and comes from the east. Is the contract secure?
J. Henderson
: : opinion
: : > The Bank & monetary policy committee set interest rates as they see
: : >: fit - the long term aim being to reach the government's inflation
: : >: targets. This is very *normal* in developed western economies.
: : >: Lets say, this "best practice" approach seems to work, so we
: : >: shouldn't blame the Bank for infliction a little short term harm
: : >: for the sake of long term good.
: : >Interest rates are supposed to be the price of money are they not?
: : >Why then aren't interest rates always simply at the level where the
: : >amount of money voluntarily borrowed matches the amount of money
: : >voluntarily loaned? Is there some reason we shouldn't want the price
: : >mechanism to work?
: : God this is taking me back so I might get some of it totally wong.
Mike, you are a very bad bad person, deliberately ignoring my many sermons
on the non-linear nature of the economy, just to piss me off!! As you well
know, you can't predict very well what a given interest rate change will
have, and at the same time you have no guarantee that the system will find
any sort of optimum configuration.
Also - the state is the major borrower and lender of money, so it is not
possible (absent Libertaria!!) to have a completely Laissez Faire attitude to
interest rates. Also - you have to bear in mind taht the Bank changes interest
rates by mechanisms other than just selling and buying money (eh?) - they also
set reserve requirements for the banks, which influences their willingness to
lend and borrow.
M Holmes
: M Holmes (zapspa...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : However, when someone at the hands of the controls of a system doesn't
: : have up to date and accurate feedback of the actual state of the system,
: : there's a strong tendency to undercorrect or overcorrect and this leads
: : to large swings in the system rather than stability. This is easily
: : demonstrated if you put someone in a driving simulator (for example) and
: : make the screen feedback arrive a couple of seconds late.
: : We do get booms and busts in the economy and it seems not impossible
: : that this sort of effect might be part of the cause. Is there any
: : evidence supporting that? Brown claims to want to abolish boom and bust.
: : Wouldn't leaving interest rates to sort themselves out, rather than the
: : Bank interfering with them, make this more likely?
: Mike, you are a very bad bad person, deliberately ignoring my many sermons
: on the non-linear nature of the economy, just to piss me off!!
You misunderstand. I've very much taken them to heart.
: As you well
: know, you can't predict very well what a given interest rate change will
: have
Keep a hold of that thought...
: and at the same time you have no guarantee that the system will find
: any sort of optimum configuration.
: Also - the state is the major borrower and lender of money, so it is
: not possible (absent Libertaria!!) to have a completely Laissez Faire
: attitude to interest rates. Also - you have to bear in mind taht the
: Bank changes interest rates by mechanisms other than just selling and
: buying money (eh?) - they also set reserve requirements for the banks,
: which influences their willingness to lend and borrow.
The question is whether there's really any point to pulling levers
(whatever those levers might be) in a chaotic non-linear system in which
the results of such lever pulling are impossible to predict. Indeed
given the dangers of undercompensation or overcompensation leading to
wild swings, it's quite possibly dangerous to do so.
There may be no guarantees if you leave the system to itself, but your
argument leads to the conclusion that there are certainly no guarantees
if you interfere with it either. Since that interference requires
expensive information gathering and bureaucracy, I'm suggesting that it
would at least be cheaper, and quite possibly wiser, to leave things to
themselves.
Surely that's the conclusion you'd have expected me to come to given
your arguments of the past few years?
: Jeremy.
FoFP
--
"The reason the Government doesn't like cash for questions is because it
diverts money from their own party coffers. They much prefer to have
the businessmen pay the Governing Party, the Government to dictate the
questions, and the taxpayer to pay the backbencher's reward." -- Marc
Living
Ian Johnston
: In <6on5nd$bgv$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
: >
: >: Ian is an American!
: >
: >Oh no I'm notK!
: Are you sure?
Let me just check ... nope, I'm definitely not American.
Ian
Christopher Bruce
>
> In <35ADB67F...@ks.sel.alcatel.de>, Christopher Bruce <br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de> writes:
> >Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> In <6ogdqv$7ht$4...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
> >> >Christopher Bruce (br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de) wrote:
> >> >: Ian Johnston wrote:
> >> BTW, I thought it was Americans who were supposed to miss irony
> >> when it's slapping them in the face.
> >
> >Ian is an American!
>
> Is he? You live and learn.
:-)
> >Councillors in Britain do not get 40 grand or anywhere near it.
> >
> >More like 5 grand if it is a big council!
>
> A poor reference to how much one guy made allegedly in the Direct Works
> department in one of the Scottish councils.
Still a poor reference! Was he a councillor? If not then it is all
rubbish.
To be expected I suppose!
Christopher Bruce
>
> Christopher Bruce (br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de) wrote:
> : Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> : > In <6ogdqv$7ht$4...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
>
> : > >Besides, what would I do with a road repair contract?
> : >
> : > Pay me 40-grand a year to do it but don't expect me to do anything!
>
>
> Oh no I'm notK!
:-)
> We weren't talking about councillors - we were talking about councillors'
> friends, relations, fellow Lodge members and so on, who in Scotland
> traditionally are awarded large public works contracts for which they do
> very little.
>
> See?
What I see Ian is:
> Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
> a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
> seeking bastards kept in powers mainly by the votes of those who pay
> little or no council tax and who therefore feel quite safe in soaking
> the rest of us as they feel like to line their own, their friends and
> their relatives pockets.
You did write that didn't you?
Do you notice that is is only the last 6 words include the
non-councillors?
The rest is a rather vitreolic and probably unwarranted attack on a
group of people who are actually tough enough to get up and stand for
election.
If you think it is that bad then it becomes your duty to get in there
and alter it, not just stand on the sidelines shouting badly aimed
abuse.
Unknown
the being calling itself "engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston)"
wrote:
> Gordon....@comlab.ox.ac.uk wrote:
> : In <6on5nd$bgv$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>, engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Ian Johnston) writes:
> : >
> : >: Ian is an American!
> : >
> : >Oh no I'm notK!
>
> : Are you sure?
>
> Let me just check ... nope, I'm definitely not American.
How can you tell?
Tattooed on your bum?
--
Iain A F Fleming <URL:http://www.galactic.co.uk/iainf/>
Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time
Ian Johnston
: > Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
: > a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
: > seeking bastards kept in powers mainly by the votes of those who pay
: > little or no council tax and who therefore feel quite safe in soaking
: > the rest of us as they feel like to line their own, their friends and
: > their relatives pockets.
: You did write that didn't you?
Yes, and I stand by every word.
: Do you notice that is is only the last 6 words include the
: non-councillors?
Of course I did. But perhaps you hadn't noticed that discussion had moved on
to councillors' relations with public works contracts?
: The rest is a rather vitreolic and probably unwarranted attack on a
: group of people who are actually tough enough to get up and stand for
: election.
Greedy enough.
: If you think it is that bad then it becomes your duty to get in there
: and alter it, not just stand on the sidelines shouting badly aimed
: abuse.
Bollocks. I don't think much of the regime in Rampton Hospital, but I
don't intend to retrain as a psychiatric nurse.
Ta ta,
Ian
Ian Johnston
: In ed.general
: wrote:
: > Let me just check ... nope, I'm definitely not American.
: How can you tell?
I can get through doors face-on rather than sideways.
I don't own a white or light grey overcoat.
I don't own a gun.
I didn't spend my childhood with a mouthful of metal.
Ian
Bryn Fraser
<engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
_ _
(')(')
( "*)
(###)
*
Bryn Fraser
glůinean geal
Ian Johnston
: : The rest is a rather vitreolic and probably unwarranted attack on a
: : group of people who are actually tough enough to get up and stand for
: : election.
: Greedy enough.
I forgot to mention that the whole problem here - you may not realize this
from afar - is that it _isn't_ hard to get elected. Get the Labour Party
nomination in most of Glasgow or Edinburgh, for example, and you are
effectively guaranteed to get in. The electorate is a handful of activists
at a selection meeting.
Of course the electorate is partly to blame for this - perhaps the relative
SNP vs Labour support figures in recent polls mean that supine acquiesence
has had its day. I certainly hope so.
Ian
Christopher Bruce
> : > a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
> : > seeking bastards
>
>
> Yes, and I stand by every word.
>
> : Do you notice that is is only the last 6 words include the
> : non-councillors?
>
> Of course I did. But perhaps you hadn't noticed that discussion had moved on
> to councillors' relations with public works contracts?
Your mail, to which I was responding, identified very clearly that you
are almost exactly the typle of person you were describing on the
council.
Self centred, greedy, don't know and don't want to know whether the rest
is true!
Ignorant generalisations appear to be your forte.
Your government at all levels is made up of people that want to change
things for the better, in their opinions.
Your totally negative, repugnant and ignorant view is not even
justifiable.
If a decent human being was aware as you say you are as the the wrong
doing of these people then you should be taking action, with the police
if necessary and you are failing your society by not doing so.
Walk by on the other side Ian, walk by on the other side and shout
profanities at thos trying to clear the mess up.
Very constructive I must say.
> : group of people who are actually tough enough to get up and stand for
> : election.
>
> Greedy enough.
How much do they get?
> Bollocks. I don't think much of the regime in Rampton Hospital, but I
> don't intend to retrain as a psychiatric nurse.
They don't let the inmates do those kinds of courses!
You're off the track again, You are entitled to elect your councillors,
what influence do you have at Rampton?
Ian Johnston
: Ian Johnston wrote:
: > Of course I did. But perhaps you hadn't noticed that discussion had moved on
: > to councillors' relations with public works contracts?
: Your mail, to which I was responding, identified very clearly that you
: are almost exactly the typle of person you were describing on the
: council.
It wasn't mail, it was a posting.
: Self centred, greedy, don't know and don't want to know whether the rest
: is true!
And you can tell that how, exactly, from the fact that I have a fairly
common view of single party rule in local government?
: Ignorant generalisations appear to be your forte.
Oh no - I do intelligent ones much better.
: Your government at all levels is made up of people that want to change
: things for the better, in their opinions.
Bollocks. Nonsense. Rubbish. I have no doubt that there are some
honourable exceptions, but local government in central Scotland - about
which you appear to know very little - is rotten to the core.
: If a decent human being was aware as you say you are as the the wrong
: doing of these people then you should be taking action, with the police
: if necessary and you are failing your society by not doing so.
Um, perhaps you haven't noticed the news about enquiries into local
government here.
: > Greedy enough.
: How much do they get?
Perhaps you ought to compare the attendance allowances which members of
the new councils voted themselves andcompare them with a) the equivalent
amounts in predecessor authorities and b) the savings made by cutting
services.
That's to say nothing of the perks, employment of family members and
so on.
Ian
A Brown
>What I see Ian is:
>> Because like most of the local councils in Scotland, Edinburgh is run by
>> a bunch of barely-literate, corrupt, money grabbing, nepotistic, self
>> seeking bastards kept in powers mainly by the votes of those who pay
>> little or no council tax and who therefore feel quite safe in soaking
>> the rest of us as they feel like to line their own, their friends and
>> their relatives pockets.
>The rest is a rather vitreolic and probably unwarranted attack on a
>group of people who are actually tough enough to get up and stand for
>election.
Translation:
The rest is a factual and correct description of a group of people who
are ego-centric and loudmouthed enough to get up and stand in an
election, because they know that they do not ever have a hope in hell of
holding down a job in the real world due to their unbelieveable incompetance.
And then of course there's all the numpties that never actually get
elected but get 'co-opted' on to these council things by their mates....
As someone who has himself been tough enough to stand in an election
(albeit a student one) against some people who are now councillors (in
Edinburgh and elsewhere), I can certainly say that for the most part,
these people were the most disorganised, useless bunch of wasters I have
ever known... Their only redeeming characteristic (if you want to call
it that) being their ability to talk loudly on subjects that they know
nothing about, and make mountains out of molehills.
Which is fine, until they ask you to pay their wages...
GtB
Ian Johnston
: these people were the most disorganised, useless bunch of wasters I have
s/ast/ank surely?
Ian
David Marsh
Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>I forgot to mention that the whole problem here - you may not realize this
>from afar - is that it _isn't_ hard to get elected.
You forgot the "but only if you.."
>Get the Labour Party
>nomination in most of Glasgow or Edinburgh, for example, and you are
>effectively guaranteed to get in. The electorate is a handful of activists
>at a selection meeting.
Why would I want to sell out and be elected under the rather tattered
NuL a bor party flag? :-(
>Of course the electorate is partly to blame for this - perhaps the relative
>SNP vs Labour support figures in recent polls mean that supine acquiesence
>has had its day. I certainly hope so.
Me too! ;-)
This is the problem: many people don't vote in local elections, and when
the sheep do vote, they tend to vote Labour "to stop the Tories getting in".
Makes it very hard for anybody else to make any difference, especially when
other parties don't even field candidates.. :-(
When we get a fairer voting system, it'll be very interesting to see how
the voting pattern changes. Shame it won't be STV, though..
Dave.
--
David Marsh,drm...@bigfoot.comPLEX | http://squelch.home.ml.org/ |
Glasgow/Glaschu, Scotland. *If urgent, phone: +44 141 400-0577*|
> CYCLEWAY: cycle activism GB/IE: http://squelch.home.ml.org/cycleway/ <
> includes bikes on public transport, & cycle organisation directories <
Roland Watson
>
> On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:20:49 +0200, Christopher Bruce <br...@ks.sel.alcatel.de>
> had this opinion
>
> >
> >The rest is a rather vitreolic and probably unwarranted attack on a
> >group of people who are actually tough enough to get up and stand for
> >election.
>
> power. With that flows money and influence...
>
> Can't say I know everything, but I've those are my humble observations from 10
> years in politics. Now out and leaving it all well alone.
>
> Neil
And to Charlie Wood who replied to my first proposition that the Tories
may get in if counciltax keep on rising at triple the rate of
inflation.
They couldn't do a worse job than the incompetents up the road could!
Of course, the Tories have the distinct advantage of advocating the only
ethically sound economic system - the free market. Not much chance of
plumbers on 50 grand a year bonuses, suicidal bidding for contracts, 4
million quid going missing and junkets to far flung countries to "learn"
about completely irrelevant subjects ... in a competitive bidding
scenario!
What a destatable and corruptible thing Scottish Socialism is!
There, I feel better now.
Also, I must be some kind of masochist if I pay for the privilege (as
a council tax payer) of having whole sections of Edinburgh frustratingly
cut off so that a meeting of mainly failed commonwealth socialist
leaders can get together for a knees up.
Roland Watson.