Donnygate
Donnygate - Labour sleaze
'ello 'ello !... What 'av we 'ere ?
Labour Sleaze of mind-blowing proportions ?
No, Get Away!
The 'Donnygate' Fraud
http://www.doncasternet.com/donnygate.htm
The investigation into fraud within Doncaster Council has concluded. So far in the Donnygate scandal, 21 former or serving councillors
have been sentenced by the courts for fraud and 52 have been arrested since the investigation was launched in April 1997. 39 have been
charged so far, with offences including corruption and fraud.
One disgraced ex-councillor claimed that there are much bigger fish to catch and millions of pounds of corruption still to be uncovered.
He went on to say "the amounts involved run to £47 million. It is not just fiddling expenses, it is much bigger than that." He added "I
know I did wrong, I didn't do it to benefit myself. I did it because I didn't want to be seen standing out against the others. They
would have said 'why are you trying to be different? It was against the accepted culture"
Thousands of pounds worth of illegal expenses and gifts collected by councillors during the 'Donnygate' years have been repaid. The
exact amount is still being collated.
Donnygate police also investigated how a firm, Yorkshire Compensation Recovery Service, formed in 1996, offering advice on claiming
compensation to ex-miners was set up, using £60,000 of Doncaster council cash. The firm charges for the advice it provides, which is
available elsewhere for free.
Councillors are not to be named over their illegal expenses claims. Corporate Services chief, John Pitt in his progress report on the
recovery of the cash stated "This report is not in the business of naming and shaming". Twelve people who have been dealt with by the
courts in the 'Donnygate' scandal have received letters demanding repayment. A total of £2,790 has been recovered so far from eight of
them.
Council chiefs were said to be disappointed over the news that Doncaster had failed to receive city status in the recent millennium bid
to become a city. However they have vowed to continue their efforts.
Gordon Armitage, of Chesterfield is accused of helping Hughes reward Birks. He has been committed to stand trial at Sheffield Crown
court.
Peter Birks, of Stocksbridge farm, Bentley, the former chairman of the planning committee, and his partner Stephanie Higginson were
charged with planning irregularities. He was alleged to have been given the deeds to his Stockbridge farm house in Bentley by Alan
Hughes, as an inducement to influence planning decisions in his favour. Birks also faces separate charges of making false expenses
claims whilst on council business. He has been committed to stand trial at Sheffield Crown court.
Danny Buckley, of West End Avenue, Bentley, who was elected to represent Bentley North in 1994, and until May 2000 was chairman of the
Community Development Board has admitted to fiddling, and has been told by the judge in his trial, to prepare himself for jail. Danny
Buckley, the ruling labour group's chief whip since February 2000, was also the chairman of the Scrutiny Management Board, which looks
at policies and decisions made by the authority and he was also the chairman of the 'independent' Northern Corridor Regeneration Board,
which oversees a £14 million redevelopment programme for Bentley, Carcroft, Highfields and the surrounding areas. His case has been
adjourned for sentencing at Sheffield Crown court in January 2002.
John Dainty, of Bank End Road Blaxton, who represented South East ward has been charged with corruption in connection with allegations
of irregularities in planning matters, and is charged with receiving payments, including one for £5,000, which is said to have been made
by planning consultant John Hunt of Cross Hill, Old Skellow. He allegedly received money from property developer Alan Hughes for
planning favours. He is also charged with receiving money from Charles Fox in connection with another planning matter. Dainty also
faces separate charges of making false expenses claims whilst on council business. He has been committed to stand trial at Sheffield
Crown court.
Brian Day, a former Armthorpe Councillor, of Birchdale Close Edenthorpe, admitted to one charge of expenses fraud, after the Crown asked
for not guilty verdicts to be recorded for two other similar charges against him. He was fined £300, ordered to pay £250 costs and
reimburse the costs of the hotel accommodation he falsely claimed.
Roger Dearnley, who was Doncaster Council's principal valuer, was given 18 months jail in July 2000, for granting contracts to a
company. He accepted a gift of a £5,500 Fiat Uno car in 1993 from the Mexborough company's chief executive, Michael Threapleton.
Dearnley had his sentence reduced to one year on appeal. The court of appeal appeared to take the view, that the gift of the car had
been a modest one and Dearnley had now lost his professional qualification!.
Jean Elwick, of Wicket Hern Road, Armthorpe, previously vice chairman of Doncaster Social Services committee, has been given a two-month
jail sentence, suspended for 12 months, after pleading guilty to two fraud charges. Elwick, who is still a school governor, a
non-executive member of a health trust, and vice chairman of the civilian RAF cadet force in Doncaster said after sentence, "This is
what I get for all the good work, There is no justice in society". The Crown barrister said that in view of Elwick's guilty pleas, it
would not be proceeding with a trial of the other false accounting charges she had denied. These would rest on the court files,
unproven.
Michael Farrington, a former deputy leader of the council, has pleaded not guilty to two charges of fiddling his expenses.
Norman Fisher, of Sprotbrough Road Doncaster, who was deputy mayor of Doncaster at the time of his arrest in 1998, was jailed for nine
months for making false claims on his expenses. He is the fifth councillor to be jailed for fraud since the inquiry began more than
three years ago. The judge commented to him when passing sentence "I can give you nothing for your attempt to lie your way out of this
case. I can give you no credit for not pleading guilty."
Ron Gillies, of Wellingtonia Drive, Campsall, a former Mayor of Doncaster was charged with nine offences of furnishing false information
on council expenses documentation, the offences relate to incidents occurring between 1995 and 1997. He was the fourth former Mayor to
be involved in the probe into 'alleged' corruption at Doncaster council. He was a chairman of the Race committee and a member of the
Racecourse Association. During his career he held several key posts including Labour chief whip and chairman of the Amenities and
Leisure and Trading Services Committee. A former NUM Askern branch president, he served as a JP and was a member of the South Yorkshire
Police Authority. The prosecution decided not to offer any evidence, after it received a letter from Mr Gillies' GP, which stated that
he suffered from renal failure exacerbated by high blood pressure, which in turn has been aggravated by the court proceedings. The
prosecution added that in view of his age and the value of the proceedings they had decided that 'enough was enough'. The judge endorsed
the prosecution's view, bearing in mind Mr Gillies' health , and that a trial would therefore not be in the public interest.
Bill Gillies, of Cherry Garth, Norton, a former Mayor and ward councillor for Askern, accused of seven fraud charges was cleared by a
jury at Hull Crown Court. He always took his wife to conferences and claimed money in advance, which was against recommended guidelines.
He was the former chairman of the authority's public works committee. The court heard how when legislation was brought in to stop the
cash payments in advance, councillors would not accept it.
Malcolm Glover, a former leader of Doncaster council was sentenced to three months prison suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay
£1000 costs, He pleaded guilty to fiddling his expenses. He has been replaced in his Balby ward, by Christopher Watson, Labour, who beat
Liberal Democrat, Leila Ward by 359 votes in the October by-election, which saw only 13.8% of eligible voters bother to vote.
Alan Hughes, of Bawtry Road Bessacarr, faces three charges of making corrupt payments to Dainty and Stockhill and a gift to Birks.
Gordon James Armitage, financial adviser, from Ashove Road Chesterfield, is charged with aiding and abetting Hughes. Bernard Anthony
Wright, a funeral director of Trundle Lane, Fishlake and his two sons, Martin and Richard, were accused of trying to pervert the course
of justice by making false statements. Hughes has been committed to stand trial at Sheffield Crown court.
John Hunt, from Cross Hill Skellow, is alleged to have helped Dainty receive the £5,000 payment from Fox.
Gordon Jones, who represented the Central Ward for Doncaster, pleaded guilty to one charge of false accounting and was fined £442 by
Doncaster Magistrates.
Janet Jones, Stockhill's daughter, of Mitchell Close, Dunscroft and her husband Steven Andrew Jones, of Kingsley Crescent, Armthorpe,
are both alleged to have attempted to pervert the course of justice by making false statements about receiving a £3,000 payment. She
faces two counts of aiding and abetting the corrupt payments to Stockhill and also faces conspiracy charges. Both have been committed to
stand trial at Sheffield Crown court.
Steven Andrew Jones, of Kingsley Crescent, Armthorpe, is alleged, along with his wife Janet Jones, to have attempted to pervert the
course of justice by making false statements about receiving a £3,000 payment.
Keith Martin, of Washington Road Woodlands, who represented Adwick and gave up his seat on Doncaster Council last summer, faces a fifth
fraud charge in fiddling his expenses between June 1995 and February 1996. He already faces four charges relating to travel expenses
claimed during the same period.
Jack Meredith, of Howville road, Hatfield, a former mayor of Doncaster, is facing 16 charges of false accounting.
John Mordue, another former Doncaster councillor, faces charges of false accounting on his expenses.
Tommy Roebuck, from Mexborough an ex borough councillor, is not to stand trial because he is allegedly suffering from senile dementia.
Raymond Stockhill, of Cedar Grove Stainforth, a former councillor and mayor, who represented Stainforth ward, and four others, have
been charged over allegations of corrupt land deals and planning irregularities. He is accused of corruptly receiving payments from Alan
Hughes, to act in his interests in planning applications. Stockhill's daughter, Janet Jones of Mitchell Close, Dunscroft and her husband
Steven Andrew Jones, of Kingsley Crescent, Armthorpe, are alleged to have attempted to pervert the course of justice by making false
statements about receiving a £3,000 payment. Birks, Dainty and Stockhill also face separate charges of making false expenses claims
whilst on council business.
Peter Welsh, 47, a former council leader, has also been charged. He has four offences of false accounting against him. He was made the
leader of the council in May 1994 and held the post until May 1997. He was the Adwick ward councillor for 15 years.
Bernard Wright, of Trundle Lane FIshlake, along with Martin Wright and Richard Wright of the same address, are all charged with
conspiracy. They have all been committed to stand trial at Sheffield Crown court.
Since the Operation Danum investigation was launched three and a half years ago, 52 people have been arrested by detectives.
Sources: Doncaster Free Press, Doncaster Advertiser, DMBC,
Mel Rowing
> 'ello 'ello !... What 'av we 'ere ?
>
>
> Labour Sleaze of mind-blowing proportions ?
>
> No, Get Away!
>
>
> The 'Donnygate' Fraud
>
> http://www.doncasternet.com/donnygate.htm
[transcript snipped]
Speaking as one who used to live in Doncaster and who was acquainted
with one or two of these characters, might I suggest that this came as
no surprise to me and others like me.
To harp on about a previous post I made, this is a classic example of
waht happens when a bunch of nobodies are given reins of power, when
large sums of public money are placed at the disposal of people
accountable to only a few of the electorate.
No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
the best defence against corruption and waste.
Mel Rowing
Gaz
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
> the best defence against corruption and waste.
Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
Gaz
> Mel Rowing
Welsh Witch
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
**************************
I believe you (Mel Rowing) were the very first to tell us all about
this merry band of outlaws!!
I know there was something in Private Eye a couple of weeks ago...it
seems to have been going on for absolutely ages.
Someone (not us) was advertising in Private Eye a few months ago for
information re Salop County Council.
I don't know whether or not anyone complained to the LGOmbudsman about
Doncaster..if they did I should love to know what the LGO said!
Lots of things are said about councillors claiming expenses for
popping their heads round doors and asking friends to sign them in to
meetings when they are off somewher much more entertaining...the
understanding I have is that they get paid for attending.
There was a high court case in Salop re councillors downloading
inappropriate material from the Internet.
What the locals know and keep under their hats though is quite
amazing!
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/suicidebombers.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/warindex.htm
abelard
typed:
i would like to see a report detailing where every penny was
spent on the dome....
of course i am only interested in why a tent cost well over a
billion...and still rising....
ps...britain must pay more tax says mandleclot....
http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,615724,00.html
"we must get unemployment higher....most of our euro
neighbours are still far ahead of us.....this can't be right
under a labour government...."
he failed to add...
regards.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, docs on godel also inflation,
logic, ethics and much more...~1/3 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that a big stick.
good people do nothing trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
alan goss
The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
themselves out on their ears at the next election. I'm quite happy
with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
central taxation To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
wealth. Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
proportional tithe.
--
Alan G
Fight for a fairer tax system
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.goss/counciltax.htm#tax
alan goss
wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>>>
>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>>
>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>
>i would like to see a report detailing where every penny was
> spent on the dome....
>of course i am only interested in why a tent cost well over a
> billion...and still rising....
>
I know the original costs came from voluntary donations butwhere is
the money coming from for the upkeep?
>
>ps...britain must pay more tax says mandleclot....
Don't be a hypocrite. Yo want taxes raised and spent on your favourite
hobbyhorse.
We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
>http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,615724,00.html
>"we must get unemployment higher....most of our euro
> neighbours are still far ahead of us.....this can't be right
> under a labour government...."
> he failed to add...
We need to limit what governments can do.
abelard
typed:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 15:23:19 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>>>>
>>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>>>
>>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>>
>>i would like to see a report detailing where every penny was
>> spent on the dome....
>>of course i am only interested in why a tent cost well over a
>> billion...and still rising....
>>
>
>I know the original costs came from voluntary donations butwhere is
>the money coming from for the upkeep?
not a billion shurely....
but i was far more interested in where it ended up....
>>ps...britain must pay more tax says mandleclot....
>
>Don't be a hypocrite. Yo want taxes raised and spent on your favourite
>hobbyhorse.
take it from the nhs....and education...
and let people with ability run them....
the gnp is steadily growing by at minimum 2% p.a...
the military budget has dropped from 5% gnp to half that in 20
years...
>We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
>spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
they would be close to paying back money at that level......
and we have rather serious problems around the world....
without adequate military power all the rest is at risk....
>>http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,615724,00.html
>>"we must get unemployment higher....most of our euro
>> neighbours are still far ahead of us.....this can't be right
>> under a labour government...."
>> he failed to add...
>
>We need to limit what governments can do.
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.goss/counciltax.htm#tax
i'll look.....
btw i am impressed to see the increasingly sophisticated
manner in which you are presenting your case!
Mel Rowing
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
> >> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
> >> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
> >> the best defence against corruption and waste.
> >
> >Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
> >problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
> >spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
> >
> The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
> voters on how the money is spent.
Except that the voters are not accountable to their own pockets!
> I'm quite happy with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes
> coming out of central taxation
So that they can promise the earth and when their performance fails to
match expectations level the blame at the central funding authority.
The lot in question did just that. Throughout the eighties you were
regularly getting 'free' council newsletters. From cover to cover
these criticised the levels of government spending with particular
reference to the block grant as well as other perceived inadequacies
in government poicy.
> To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
> power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
> poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
> wealth.
I don't know how you make this to be the case. Aren't the poorest
people in the borough on rent and rate rebate?
Mel Rowing
Marc Living
wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
>themselves out on their ears at the next election.
Except they aren't. What instead happens is that they spend all their
time banging on about how they aren't being given the "resources" from
the central government, in the expectation that their schools have
turned out sufficient numbers of people stupid enough to believe such
twaddle.
>I'm quite happy
>with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
>central taxation
I disagree. If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
political price which comes from raising it.
>To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>wealth.
If the people of that locality wish to allow some of their number not
to pay taxes, then they should elect a council which taxes on a
different basis ... except they aren't allowed to.
>Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
>proportional tithe.
Erm ... how can a tythe be proportional? It is, by definition, a tenth
of the extortee's income.
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
/dev/null
> I don't know whether or not anyone complained to the LGOmbudsman about
> Doncaster..if they did I should love to know what the LGO said!
Not too long ago, a barrister in planning law filled me on his dealings
with the LGO, (or at least the Coventry LGO)... On several occasions
the LGO has found in favour of his clients. Yes, they had "suffered an
injustice through maladministration" .. but unfortunately, while
the LGO may recommend compensation (and did) , and while the LGO may
recommend the levels of compensation (and did).. 'recommendations' are
as far as he may go because the LGO has absolutely no powers in law to
force an errant Council to pay one single penny to its victims. He
may 'recommend' they do, but that's it.
Manchester Council (NuLab-filth-controlled) was cited in particular.
That's the way LGO operates. He's a pointless, toothless gurney.
> Lots of things are said about councillors claiming expenses for
> popping their heads round doors and asking friends to sign them in to
> meetings when they are off somewher much more entertaining...the
> understanding I have is that they get paid for attending.
Another useless anecdote. I know a local government officer, now
retired, with many a tale to tell ;) Oxbridge, obscenely arrogant,
but he did put me in the picture about town hall corruption.
It took copious amounts of gin but we got there...
He asked me once, "Why do you think _every_ Councillor wants to
'serve' on the planning committee?" "I dunno, they're concerned
for the environment?" "Bwhwhahaha, you fool, planning is where
the biggest bribes are to found..." [snipped - long stories about
committees adjourning to the toilets, cash-packed envelopes
being passed under the cubicles etc..
I think I had better wait until the booze has finished him :( ]
Matthew M. Huntbach
> The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
> voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
> themselves out on their ears at the next election. I'm quite happy
> with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
> central taxation To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
> power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
> poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
> wealth. Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
> proportional tithe.
But you support taxing the poor through income tax, while leaving the
large amounts of profits the rich make through the housing system
untaxed.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
> spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
Remember those posters with a soldier with his hands in the air
labelled "Labour's defence policy"?
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> He asked me once, "Why do you think _every_ Councillor wants to
> 'serve' on the planning committee?" "I dunno, they're concerned
> for the environment?" "Bwhwhahaha, you fool, planning is where
> the biggest bribes are to found..." [snipped - long stories about
> committees adjourning to the toilets, cash-packed envelopes
> being passed under the cubicles etc..
I have sat on planning committees for many years, and never been
offered a bribe. If anyone had any evidence that bribes were being
offered, I would love to hear it, since that would surely be dynamite
in any local election campaign.
Matthew Huntbach
Gaz
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:9v26rd$qqe$4...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
Now that a lot more people own houses, we have a lot more rich people. Well
done Maggie.
Gaz
> Matthew Huntbach
Gaz
Much better to bribe the officers, their recommendations usually make or
fail an application, or go straight to the top and bribe the Chairman.
Gaz
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Mike Pellatt
</dev/nu...@devnull.com> wrote:
> Welsh Witch <welsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know whether or not anyone complained to the LGOmbudsman about
>> Doncaster..if they did I should love to know what the LGO said!
>
> Not too long ago, a barrister in planning law filled me on his dealings
> with the LGO, (or at least the Coventry LGO)... On several occasions
> the LGO has found in favour of his clients. Yes, they had "suffered an
> injustice through maladministration" .. but unfortunately, while
> the LGO may recommend compensation (and did) , and while the LGO may
> recommend the levels of compensation (and did).. 'recommendations' are
> as far as he may go because the LGO has absolutely no powers in law to
> force an errant Council to pay one single penny to its victims. He
> may 'recommend' they do, but that's it.
>
> Manchester Council (NuLab-filth-controlled) was cited in particular.
>
> That's the way LGO operates. He's a pointless, toothless gurney.
Except that if you fail to act on the Ombudsman's recommendation,
the complainant can then go back to the LGO, who will then find
further maladministration leading to injustice based on your
refusal to follow his recommendation.
My authority's judgement has been that following that route (even
if you feel the LGO is wrong in his conclusion, as we do in the
case of "Grasspost Ltd.") is likely to be more politically
damaging than following his recommendation. Especially if it
isn't going to cost the council taxpayer _too_ much :-).
[ crap about brown envelopes at planning committees, which, like
Matthew, I have never seen, snipped. Maybe 20+ years ago, but
most unlikely to happen these days ]
--
Mike Pellatt
John M Ward
> > He asked me once, "Why do you think _every_ Councillor wants to
> > 'serve' on the planning committee?" "I dunno, they're concerned
> > for the environment?" "Bwhwhahaha, you fool, planning is where
> > the biggest bribes are to found..." [snipped - long stories about
> > committees adjourning to the toilets, cash-packed envelopes
> > being passed under the cubicles etc..
> I have sat on planning committees for many years, and never been
> offered a bribe.
Essentially the same here, though for less than two years so far. However I
have been at site meetings where there were murmurings of bribes from those
residents who thought their views were being ignored -- they seriouslyb
thought that at least some of our Councillors have been "bought".
Fortunately, their suspicions were promptly laid to rest when we did what I
expected us to do: decide (in the subsequent planning sub-comm' meeting)
against the proposed development on sound planning grounds,
> If anyone had any evidence that bribes were being offered, I would love
> to hear it, since that would surely be dynamite in any local election
> campaign.
Indeed: this has been the (yet unproven) suspicion around here regarding the
threat to our local airport, and I am dearly looking forward to getting my
hands on conclusive evidence to prove what most of our residents believe to
be the case on this issue.
--
John M Ward : Councillor for Horsted ward, Medway Council
Apparently one of the "scum of the Earth" (if not the galaxy!)
My "Council" resource: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/johnward/council/
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <9v27v0$rb7$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>,
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > I have sat on planning committees for many years, and never been
> > offered a bribe.
> Essentially the same here, though for less than two years so far.
> However I have been at site meetings where there were murmurings of
> bribes from those residents who thought their views were being ignored
> -- they seriously thought that at least some of our Councillors have
> been "bought".
It seems to be an urban myth that most councillors are corrupt, and that
most people who go into local government do so in order to "line their
own pockets". I only wish just a fraction of those making those sort
of allegations was willing to put their time and money where there
mouths are and stand for election as "clean" candidates. Or tell us,
since they seem to have such a low opinion of democracy, how they would
prefer things to be run.
Matthew Huntbach
JNugent
news:9v2mkt$2l8$3...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> John M Ward (jo...@acornusers.org) wrote:
> > > I have sat on planning committees for many years, and never been
> > > offered a bribe.
> > Essentially the same here, though for less than two years so far.
> > However I have been at site meetings where there were murmurings of
> > bribes from those residents who thought their views were being ignored
> > -- they seriously thought that at least some of our Councillors have
> > been "bought".
> It [...is...] an urban myth that most councillors are corrupt, and that
> most people who go into local government do so in order to "line their
> own pockets".
Hear, hear.
I believe that most councillors go into local politics for noble enough
reasons, and I also believe that very few become corrupt. That is all the
more reason to come down hard on those who do become corrupt - and with
latest revelations on "OfficeRentGate" in mind, that thought is easily
extended to MPs, MEPs and MSPs.
alan goss
wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 20:16:20 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com>
>typed:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 15:23:19 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>>>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>>>>>
>>>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>>>>
>>>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>>>
>>>i would like to see a report detailing where every penny was
>>> spent on the dome....
>>>of course i am only interested in why a tent cost well over a
>>> billion...and still rising....
>>>
>>
>>I know the original costs came from voluntary donations butwhere is
>>the money coming from for the upkeep?
>
>not a billion shurely....
I understand all the money came from the lottery.
>but i was far more interested in where it ended up....
>
>>>ps...britain must pay more tax says mandleclot....
>>
>>Don't be a hypocrite. Yo want taxes raised and spent on your favourite
>>hobbyhorse.
>
>take it from the nhs....and education...
> and let people with ability run them....
>the gnp is steadily growing by at minimum 2% p.a...
> the military budget has dropped from 5% gnp to half that in 20
> years...
>
Percentages of anything are a crude way of measuring spending. Our
*known* military spending is still increasing. Around 36 billion usd
according to our american allies.
>>We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
>>spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
>
>they would be close to paying back money at that level......
>and we have rather serious problems around the world....
Who's * we*?
Any problems this country has around the world were caused by our
politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
>without adequate military power all the rest is at risk....
So lets argue about what is adequate and how to ensure we have it. I
reckon thet if the establishment didn't go brown trousered at the
thought of the common peasant being armed, we would have a perfect
defense force that nothing less than WOMD could crack. Offense is a
nother matter.
>
>>>http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,615724,00.html
>>>"we must get unemployment higher....most of our euro
>>> neighbours are still far ahead of us.....this can't be right
>>> under a labour government...."
>>> he failed to add...
>>
>>We need to limit what governments can do.
>
>>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.goss/counciltax.htm#tax
>
>i'll look.....
>btw i am impressed to see the increasingly sophisticated
> manner in which you are presenting your case!
>
Nowt sophisticated in fly posting alan milburn's phone number all over
town with a message to ring him and ask for a fairer tax system.
I do sedgefield on thursday.
Anthony Blair. phone [01429] 882202 fax[01429]880950
Hilary Armstrong [020]7219 5076 fax[020]7219 6693
Alan Milburn [020]7219 3000 fax[020]7219 5823
I'd do Hartlepool too but I reckon he's out of favour at the moment.
Might do Richmond. Just possible bald eagle might go for something to
worry the government with. Show he *really* cares.
alan goss
wrote:
Nope.
I know the Netherlands has a defense budget about a tenth of the UK. I
know the Swiss are trusted to have the personal means of self defense.
I know the british army are more likely to defend themselves and the
establishment than they are to defend me and my family.
alan goss
wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<aoq61ugio7urubn2r...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>
>> >> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>> >> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>> >> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>> >
>> >Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>> >problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>> >spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>> >
>> The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>> voters on how the money is spent.
>
>Except that the voters are not accountable to their own pockets!
>
>> I'm quite happy with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes
>> coming out of central taxation
>
>So that they can promise the earth and when their performance fails to
>match expectations level the blame at the central funding authority.
ISTR there was a lot of sleight of hand about the block grant. I
propose an open formula wherebye there is no argument about how much
each LA gets.
>The lot in question did just that. Throughout the eighties you were
>regularly getting 'free' council newsletters. From cover to cover
>these criticised the levels of government spending with particular
>reference to the block grant as well as other perceived inadequacies
>in government poicy.
>
If they get their money under the same circumstances as all other
local LA's then it's up to them and their voters how the money is
spent.
>> To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>> power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>> poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>> wealth.
>
>I don't know how you make this to be the case. Aren't the poorest
>people in the borough on rent and rate rebate?
>
No. Rent and Rate rebates were discontinued pre poll tax days.
The tories were anxious to do something for private landlords so they
created the money pit of housing benefit. Instead of the state
providing cheap but servicable housing the private sector was
permitted to supply expensive but crap accommodation which is paid for
by the taxpayer.
Council tax is rates by another name. In keeping with tory ideals of
orwellian newspeak they called rate rebate a benefit. 'We won't pick
your pocket so we are giving you a benefit'. A bit like saying 'prove
you haven't any money and we won't bother threatening to beat the crap
out of you for it' . Taxation as practised by the Krays. Council tax
doesn't apply to everyone but those very poor people to whom it does
apply are treated like dirt. That is the sick, pensioners, the
unemployed (who are likely to be sick or disabled).
There is a presumption of criminality applied to every person who asks
for relief from council tax. I know this cos I've just experienced it.
I suggest you see my site for a message and some links.
alan goss
<black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 18:54:31 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
>>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>
>>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>
>>The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>>voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
>>themselves out on their ears at the next election.
>
>Except they aren't.
That's up to the voters.
> What instead happens is that they spend all their
>time banging on about how they aren't being given the "resources" from
Much of the resources of local government comes from council tax. A
tax which is not applied equally (according to personal resources)
and impartially to every voter.
>the central government, in the expectation that their schools have
>turned out sufficient numbers of people stupid enough to believe such
>twaddle.
A bit like having the tories running the government for nearly 20
years then
>
>>I'm quite happy
>>with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
>>central taxation
>
>I disagree. If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
>from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
>political price which comes from raising it.
Easily done by having the money come from within the income rax
system. That way everybody contributes to local government.
>
>>To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>>power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>>poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>>wealth.
>
>If the people of that locality wish to allow some of their number not
>to pay taxes, then they should elect a council which taxes on a
>different basis ... except they aren't allowed to.
Indeed. That is the message I get all too often
'We are only obeying orders' :(
>
>>Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
>>proportional tithe.
>
>Erm ... how can a tythe be proportional? It is, by definition, a tenth
>of the extortee's income.
I see.
I think I should have added ' of income'.
Is that clearer?
alan goss
wrote:
>alan goss (al...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
>
>> The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>> voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
>> themselves out on their ears at the next election. I'm quite happy
>> with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
>> central taxation To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>> power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>> poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>> wealth. Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
>> proportional tithe.
>
>But you support taxing the poor through income tax, while leaving the
Depends on what you define as poor.
I define as poor those forced into the state benefits system who can't
get out. Poor is the pensioner who doesn't get enough pension to pay
income tax.
>large amounts of profits the rich make through the housing system
>untaxed.
You sell one house you got to buy another. If it isn't your primary
dwelling you're taxed on the profits.
I sold mine a few years ago and got over twice what I originally paid
for it. Had to buy another though and didn't make a profit.
alan goss
<black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 18:54:31 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>
>>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>
>>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>
>>The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>>voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
>>themselves out on their ears at the next election.
>
>Except they aren't.
That's up to the voters.
> What instead happens is that they spend all their
>time banging on about how they aren't being given the "resources" from
Much of the resources of local government comes from council tax. A
tax which is not applied equally (according to personal resources)
and impartially to every voter.
>the central government, in the expectation that their schools have
>turned out sufficient numbers of people stupid enough to believe such
>twaddle.
A bit like having the tories running the government for nearly 20
years then
>
>>I'm quite happy
>>with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
>>central taxation
>
>I disagree. If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
>from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
>political price which comes from raising it.
Easily done by having the money come from within the income rax
system. That way everybody contributes to local government.
>
>>To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>>power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>>poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>>wealth.
>
>If the people of that locality wish to allow some of their number not
>to pay taxes, then they should elect a council which taxes on a
>different basis ... except they aren't allowed to.
Indeed. That is the message I get all too often
'We are only obeying orders' :(
>
>>Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
>>proportional tithe.
>
>Erm ... how can a tythe be proportional? It is, by definition, a tenth
>of the extortee's income.
I see.
I think I should have added ' of income'.
Is that clearer?
JNugent
> Marc Living <black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
> >from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
> >political price which comes from raising it.
> Easily done by having the money come from within the income rax
> system. That way everybody contributes to local government.
....except for those who pay no income tax (know a good accountant?)...
> >>Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
> >>proportional tithe.
> >Erm ... how can a tythe be proportional? It is, by definition, a tenth
> >of the extortee's income.
> I see.
> I think I should have added ' of income'.
> Is that clearer?
I thought it was the church which got the tithe?
JNugent
> ISTR there was a lot of sleight of hand about the block grant. I
> propose an open formula wherebye there is no argument about how much
> each LA gets.
...the loony lefties would never stand for that - "their" areas always have
"special needs", you see..
> >> To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
> >> power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
> >> poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
> >> wealth.
> >I don't know how you make this to be the case. Aren't the poorest
> >people in the borough on rent and rate rebate?
> No. Rent and Rate rebates were discontinued pre poll tax days.
Rent Rebates were re-named Housing Benefit. Rate Rebates kept their name
(IIRC) until the introduction of the Community Charge, when Community Charge
Benefit replaced Rate Rebates (logically enough). Council Tax Benefit
replaced Community Charge Benefit. The names may have changed, but the
system is still in place.
> The tories were anxious to do something for private landlords so they
> created the money pit of housing benefit.
Where do you get that from? HB was just RR by another name.
> Instead of the state
> providing cheap but servicable housing the private sector was
> permitted to supply expensive but crap accommodation which is paid for
> by the taxpayer.
That situation (ie, benefit to assist with the paying of rent for those on
low incomes [as defined]) came into being long before the conversion of Rent
and Rate Rebates into Housing Benefit, etc. Are you *against* helping
private tenants on low incomes to pay their rent? Should such assistance
*only* be available to serfs, er... I mean, council tenants?
> Council tax is rates by another name. In keeping with tory ideals of
> orwellian newspeak they called rate rebate a benefit.
But only because that is what it is. It is money taken from Peter's pocket
to pay Paul's Council Tax. Just like Income Support for Paul's Sunday dinner
comes out of Peter's pocket also.
> 'We won't pick
> your pocket so we are giving you a benefit'. A bit like saying 'prove
> you haven't any money and we won't bother threatening to beat the crap
> out of you for it' . Taxation as practised by the Krays
If you are calling for the total abolition of Rates/Council Tax (and its
non-replacement by anything remotely as unfair and vindictive against
householders - and certainly not a discriminatory income tax), count me a
supporter.
> Council tax
> doesn't apply to everyone but those very poor people to whom it does
> apply are treated like dirt. That is the sick, pensioners, the
> unemployed (who are likely to be sick or disabled).
We are all treated like that by LAs collecting Council Tax. The only people
as bad are the accounts departments of the water companies (authorities as
they were in some places, but not all). They have been honing their skills
for several decades to my knowledge.
> There is a presumption of criminality applied to every person who asks
> for relief from council tax. I know this cos I've just experienced it.
Your council must be a bad'un then. It isn't like that everywhere, I assure
you.
abelard
typed:
>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>>
>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>
>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
i would like to see a report detailing where every penny was
spent on the dome....
of course i am only interested in why a tent cost well over a
billion...and still rising....
ps...britain must pay more tax says mandleclot....
http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,615724,00.html
"we must get unemployment higher....most of our euro
neighbours are still far ahead of us.....this can't be right
under a labour government...."
he failed to add...
regards.
Mel Rowing
> ISTR there was a lot of sleight of hand about the block grant. I
> propose an open formula wherebye there is no argument about how much
> each LA gets.
Well I can think of one or two arguments.
Number one is that such a system would divorce the service consumer
from the bill payer. Whilst it is true that all earners are tax
payers in one form or another there is no way that they can influence
the level of local authority spending through the ballot box. The
council would spend that waht it receives via the black grant full
stop.
A second and perhaps more fundamental argument is that local authority
areas are so diverse in so many ways other than population density.
You seek a one size fits all formula. I think you would find your
goal ellusive.
> If they get their money under the same circumstances as all other
> local LA's then it's up to them and their voters how the money is
> spent.
Ah but only if all accept this. I would think local councillors would
tend to become very ept in arguing why their area should be treated
more generously than others or alternatively why some areas can or
seem to do better with their monies derived form the same formula.
> >..........................Aren't the poorest
> >people in the borough on rent and rate rebate?
> >
> No. Rent and Rate rebates were discontinued pre poll tax days.
Fair enough but most people still refer to these benefits as such.
We are arguing about principles rather than labels.
> The tories were anxious to do something for private landlords so they
> created the money pit of housing benefit. Instead of the state
> providing cheap but servicable housing the private sector was
> permitted to supply expensive but crap accommodation which is paid for
> by the taxpayer.
I wish you wouldn't keep rattling on about Tories. I really am not a
party political animal you know.
You neglect to mention that Council tenants too are eligible for
housing benefit. It was not created for the benefit of the private
landlord as you suggest. Perhaps you are suggesting that private
tenants should not qualify. It sounds a bit iniquitous to me but
there you are.
Speaking as a former reluctant private landlord I did not let a slum.
Only one of my tenants (nice chap) was in receipt of housing benefit.
After that experience I would have nothing more to do with it.
Nothing to do with the tenant it was just too much hassle. I couldn't
be arsed with it.
> Council tax is rates by another name. In keeping with tory ideals of
> orwellian newspeak they called rate rebate a benefit. 'We won't pick
> your pocket so we are giving you a benefit'. A bit like saying 'prove
> you haven't any money and we won't bother threatening to beat the crap
> out of you for it' .
I suppose you mean that it is means tested. Yes it is. It is
intended to help poor people. The only real way of identifying poor
people is to ask them.
> Council tax doesn't apply to everyone but those very poor people to whom it
> does apply are treated like dirt.
Treated by whom? Who administers Housing benefit? Are you telling me
that employees of your council treat citizens of Carlisle badly? This
is indeed an indictment.
I must remember to take a hard copy of your post with me when I visit
my son in Burgh-by-Sands next week.
> There is a presumption of criminality applied to every person who asks
> for relief from council tax. I know this cos I've just experienced it.
And, if this is true, you are in the best position to do something
about it.
Mel Rowing
Welsh Witch
"/dev/null" </dev/nu...@devnull.com> wrote in message
news:faUQ7.18801$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
********************
We've been hearing about the usual overnight cases passed from hand to
hand in the middle of ploughed fields!! BUT the biggest story we heard
about was a council forcing the sale of a house because the man owed
a comparatively small amount of council tax.....The house was bought
by a builder/developer for a equally small sum. He of course knew his
way round the council grants they have for restoring houses of
historical interest... The house a few weeks after the forced sale was
after all the grants that could be obtained was sold for £300,000
which was several multiples of the amount the poor chap with the
council tax outstanding sold it for.....Weren't the council good and
kind to afford a builder such wonderful opportunities?
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/suicidebombers.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/warindex.htm!!!
blow butt
> We've been hearing about the usual overnight cases passed from hand to
> hand in the middle of ploughed fields!! BUT the biggest story we heard
> about was a council forcing the sale of a house because the man owed
> a comparatively small amount of council tax.....The house was bought
> by a builder/developer for a equally small sum. He of course knew his
> way round the council grants they have for restoring houses of
> historical interest... The house a few weeks after the forced sale was
> after all the grants that could be obtained was sold for £300,000
> which was several multiples of the amount the poor chap with the
> council tax outstanding sold it for.....Weren't the council good and
> kind to afford a builder such wonderful opportunities?
There was a glorious little article in our local parish magazine. Too
small scale to reach the "Rotten Boroughs" column in Private Eye...
Only minor corruption, planning committee members bought for £5000 a head,
purportedly.
I'll duplicate it, some time.
allegations of corruption then allegations of libel then counter allegations
of libel and then finally, resignation. Short and sweet and highly funny.
It could have been out of a Gilbert and Sullivan.
blow butt
> crap about brown envelopes at planning committees, which..
> I have never seen.. Maybe 20+ years ago, but most unlikely to
> happen these days
hmm...
What exactly happened 20+ years ago that
spelt the end of corruption in local government?
Mike Pellatt
i. I didn't say it had ended, I said it was most unlikely to
happen. Basically, the scale of it is far less than people
like to think
ii. Nothing specific happened 20+ years ago, there has just
been a gradual increase in the legislation, control
and scrutiny of councils, particularly the planning
process, over the years.
--
Mike Pellatt
Marc Living
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I thought it was the church which got the tithe?
Robber Barons, Robber Abbots. Made little difference to the extortees
- although the Abbotts do appear to have been considerably worse
landlords than Barons.
Marc Living
wrote:
>>>The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>>>voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
>>>themselves out on their ears at the next election.
>>Except they aren't.
>That's up to the voters.
>> What instead happens is that they spend all their
>>time banging on about how they aren't being given the "resources" from
>Much of the resources of local government comes from council tax. A
>tax which is not applied equally (according to personal resources)
>and impartially to every voter.
Quite little of their resources comes from Council Tax. The bulk comes
from the block (central) grant.
>>the central government, in the expectation that their schools have
>>turned out sufficient numbers of people stupid enough to believe such
>>twaddle.
>A bit like having the tories running the government for nearly 20
>years then
Schools were run by local authorities - until they started to be
allowed to opt out by the central Government. Given the predilection
of Labour pols to send their own children to opted out schools,
notwithstanding that it was a policy which they opposed tooth and
nail, they appear to be one of the few success stories.
>>>I'm quite happy
>>>with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
>>>central taxation
>>I disagree. If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
>>from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
>>political price which comes from raising it.
>Easily done by having the money come from within the income rax
>system. That way everybody contributes to local government.
But (unless you are suggesting a local income tax set by Councils)
that would not impose on local councillors the political price of
raising the money which they spend.
>>>To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>>>power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>>>poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>>>wealth.
>>If the people of that locality wish to allow some of their number not
>>to pay taxes, then they should elect a council which taxes on a
>>different basis ... except they aren't allowed to.
>Indeed. That is the message I get all too often
>'We are only obeying orders' :(
That, together with "Tory cuts" and "lack of resources", is one of the
favourite excuses of incompetent councillors and public "servants".
>>>Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
>>>proportional tithe.
>>Erm ... how can a tythe be proportional? It is, by definition, a tenth
>>of the extortee's income.
>I see.
>I think I should have added ' of income'.
>Is that clearer?
Not really, but I think I get the meaning.
Gaz
> that employees of your council treat citizens of Carlisle badly? This
> is indeed an indictment.
I think you're confusing me with him.
Gaz
>
>
> Mel Rowing
Gaz
"blow butt" </dev/nu...@blowbutt.com> wrote in message
news:exgR7.162$6r6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Welsh Witch <welsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Only minor corruption, planning committee members bought for £5000 a head,
> purportedly.
Neil Hamilton recieved little more, bringing donw the major gvt, small fry
compared to NuLab doing a Bernie though.
Gaz
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 10 Dec 2001 11:40:37 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach) wrote:
> >alan goss (al...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
> >> We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
> >> spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
> >Remember those posters with a soldier with his hands in the air
> >labelled "Labour's defence policy"?
> Nope.
During the 1980s, one of the main attacks used by the Conservative Party
against Labour was its supposed weakness on defence. The same attack
was also used to silence the left wing of the Liberal/SDP alliance.
The argument was that it was a huge vote loser to support cuts in
defence spending. The Tory victory in 1983 in particular was held up
as evidence of that.
Matthew Huntbach
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>>the central government, in the expectation that their schools have
>>turned out sufficient numbers of people stupid enough to believe such
>>twaddle.
>
>A bit like having the tories running the government for nearly 20
>years then
Nearly? Doesn't from 1979-2001 come to more than 20? :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Mark Holland
> Who's * we*?
> Any problems this country has around the world were caused by our
> politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
Any problems this country *at home* were caused by our
politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
The MOD and the police are about the only things taxpayers should pay the state
for. Everything else can be supplied by private companies.
--
Posted from [193.128.170.146]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Mark Holland
>
> During the 1980s, one of the main attacks used by the Conservative Party
> against Labour was its supposed weakness on defence. The same attack
> was also used to silence the left wing of the Liberal/SDP alliance.
> The argument was that it was a huge vote loser to support cuts in
> defence spending. The Tory victory in 1983 in particular was held up
> as evidence of that.
Except the Ostritch like Leftie (ie my inlaws) mantra eversince has been
"Thatcher only got in because of the Falklands". Get a grip!
Joe Hutcheon
>
>
>"blow butt" </dev/nu...@blowbutt.com> wrote in message
>news:exgR7.162$6r6....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> Welsh Witch <welsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Only minor corruption, planning committee members bought for £5000 a head,
>> purportedly.
>
>Neil Hamilton recieved little more, bringing donw the major gvt, small fry
>compared to NuLab doing a Bernie though.
I doubt if Neil Hamilton's shennanigans had much to do with the downfall of the
Major government. Basically the voters were bored with the Tories.
Joe
Gaz
"Paul Hyett" <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WNgDHdA0...@activist.demon.co.uk...
1997-2001 gvt was not Tory, in was certainly monetarist, but to compare
these unprincipled bastards to Conservatives is beyond the pale.
Nulab, to obtain power, said and done anything to enable their grab for
power, and say and do anything to maintain power.
Gaz
Gaz
"Joe Hutcheon" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:xfnR7.57263$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
Maybe so, but the charge of sleaze, made the difference between losing and
the landslide.
Gaz
> Joe
Matthew M. Huntbach
> 1997-2001 gvt was not Tory, in was certainly monetarist, but to compare
> these unprincipled bastards to Conservatives is beyond the pale.
> Nulab, to obtain power, said and done anything to enable their grab for
> power, and say and do anything to maintain power.
I don't see them as unprincipled. They said exactly what they were
going to do - run the country on Tory economic policy - and they did it.
Matthew Huntbach
JNugent
news:9v4o9o$9ji$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> alan goss (al...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
> > m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach) wrote:
> > >alan goss (al...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
> > >> We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
> > >> spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
> > >Remember those posters with a soldier with his hands in the air
> > >labelled "Labour's defence policy"?
> > Nope.
> During the 1980s, one of the main attacks used by the Conservative Party
> against Labour was its supposed weakness on defence. The same attack
> was also used to silence the left wing of the Liberal/SDP alliance.
> The argument was that it was a huge vote loser to support cuts in
> defence spending. The Tory victory in 1983 in particular was held up
> as evidence of that.
The poster to which you refer was used in the 1987 GE campaign. I remember
it well.
The 1983 victory (a much bigger success) was in the "What (of anything at
all) would Michael Foot have done about the Falklands?" election.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > During the 1980s, one of the main attacks used by the Conservative Party
> > against Labour was its supposed weakness on defence. The same attack
> > was also used to silence the left wing of the Liberal/SDP alliance.
> > The argument was that it was a huge vote loser to support cuts in
> > defence spending. The Tory victory in 1983 in particular was held up
> > as evidence of that.
> The poster to which you refer was used in the 1987 GE campaign. I remember
> it well.
> The 1983 victory (a much bigger success) was in the "What (of anything at
> all) would Michael Foot have done about the Falklands?" election.
Maybe it was. However these two elections in particular established the
notion that it would be electoral suicide for a party to make a big
issue out of large defence cuts. As with a lot of things in politics,
while a lot of silly people like to argue that it's wicked politicians
forcing things on the country, like spending large amounts of tax on
defence, the reality is that election results have suggested that's
what the people want them to do.
Matthew Huntbach
abelard
typed:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 15:23:19 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 12:21:18 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:e1b1d184.01120...@posting.google.com...
>>>> donn...@filthylot.com (Donnygate - Labour sleaze) wrote in message
>>>news:<kjCQ7.15254$0P2.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
>>>>
>>>> No council should be tasked with spending money that it does not
>>>> raise. The discipline of raisng the funds they spend is, in my view,
>>>> the best defence against corruption and waste.
>>>
>>>Right on, the new proposed Regional Assemblies will suffer exactly the same
>>>problem, they are there to decided how the block grant from London is to be
>>>spent. Imagine corruption on a much larger scale.
>>
>>i would like to see a report detailing where every penny was
>> spent on the dome....
>>of course i am only interested in why a tent cost well over a
>> billion...and still rising....
>>
>
>I know the original costs came from voluntary donations butwhere is
>the money coming from for the upkeep?
not a billion shurely....
but i was far more interested in where it ended up....
>>ps...britain must pay more tax says mandleclot....
>
>Don't be a hypocrite. Yo want taxes raised and spent on your favourite
>hobbyhorse.
take it from the nhs....and education...
and let people with ability run them....
the gnp is steadily growing by at minimum 2% p.a...
the military budget has dropped from 5% gnp to half that in 20
years...
>We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
>spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
they would be close to paying back money at that level......
and we have rather serious problems around the world....
without adequate military power all the rest is at risk....
>>http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,615724,00.html
>>"we must get unemployment higher....most of our euro
>> neighbours are still far ahead of us.....this can't be right
>> under a labour government...."
>> he failed to add...
>
>We need to limit what governments can do.
>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.goss/counciltax.htm#tax
i'll look.....
btw i am impressed to see the increasingly sophisticated
manner in which you are presenting your case!
i've looked...i don't see how what you are prosing differs from the
current situation....
btw last i checked the local contribution was under 20%
(iir it was a while ago)
JNugent
> JNugent (JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk) wrote:
> > The poster to which you refer was used in the 1987 GE campaign. I
remember
> > it well.
> > The 1983 victory (a much bigger success) was in the "What (of anything
at
> > all) would Michael Foot have done about the Falklands?" election.
> Maybe it was. However these two elections in particular established the
> notion that it would be electoral suicide for a party to make a big
> issue out of large defence cuts. As with a lot of things in politics,
> while a lot of silly people like to argue that it's wicked politicians
> forcing things on the country, like spending large amounts of tax on
> defence, the reality is that election results have suggested that's
> what the people want them to do.
There is an interesting sub-discipline in political science (oops!, better
make that Political Science...) which deals with the theory of governmental
service-provision (in terms of taxation). It also deals with the psychology
of the recipients of government services (ie, all of us, of course, as they
include law and order and defence) and how it interacts with the
individual's willingness to be taxed.
I didn't study it myself (I hasten to add), but at uni, I once came across a
lecture-room white-board full of jotted down illustrations of how (for
instance), an individual may value a service like defence very highly
indeed, but will still fiddle his/her taxes to gain £20 because the
government's lack of *their* £20 does not make them feel less protected by
the defence services. I immediately saw that it was nothing more than an
illustration of the fact that whatever services we value, we are much
happier to force others to pay for them (or to see others forced to pay for
them) than we are to pay for them ourselves.
T'was ever thus.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> > Maybe it was. However these two elections in particular established the
> > notion that it would be electoral suicide for a party to make a big
> > issue out of large defence cuts. As with a lot of things in politics,
> > while a lot of silly people like to argue that it's wicked politicians
> > forcing things on the country, like spending large amounts of tax on
> > defence, the reality is that election results have suggested that's
> > what the people want them to do.
> I didn't study it myself (I hasten to add), but at uni, I once came across a
> lecture-room white-board full of jotted down illustrations of how (for
> instance), an individual may value a service like defence very highly
> indeed, but will still fiddle his/her taxes to gain £20 because the
> government's lack of *their* £20 does not make them feel less protected by
> the defence services. I immediately saw that it was nothing more than an
> illustration of the fact that whatever services we value, we are much
> happier to force others to pay for them (or to see others forced to pay for
> them) than we are to pay for them ourselves.
Yes, of course. But in the end we can mostly see that if there is a system
which compels a large number of people to pay, as well as us personally,
that may have an advantage over the service not existing at all, or having
to be paid for individually. It's like any sort of pact - it only works
if the pact simultaneously binds everyone in it. It's no good having
a voluntary pact and then saying to one member, X, of the pact "if you
want it, you do it personally", because the whole point is that X does
it on the understanding that Y, Z etc all do it as well.
If, for example, I share a flat, and there is a washing-up rota, I am
happy to do the washing up on the day when it's my turn so long as
everyone else does so on their turn. But the whole point is that there
is an obligation to do it. It would not work if it everyone left it to
everyone else to do the washing up. Neither would it be fair to say to
someone who proposes introducing a rota "right, you want a washing up rota,
so you do the all the washing up", and then accusing him of being a
hypcorite if he objected.
Matthew Huntbach
alan goss
wrote:
Like I said...........:)
--
Alan G
Fight for a fairer tax system
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alan.goss/counciltax.htm#tax
alan goss
wrote:
>i've looked...i don't see how what you are prosing differs from the
> current situation....
>btw last i checked the local contribution was under 20%
> (iir it was a while ago)
Prolly bout right.
It's the screw on the low income person I'm campaigning against. It's
just happened to me. A few pence over the governments limit on income
means we're worse off. It takes a big increase in income to get out of
the council tax trap and at the moment we just can't manage it. A
local income tax would see us out of council tax liability until our
income had crested and then it would be proportional. Might not mean
much to you but my wife and I have just flipped a coin to decide which
of us gives up our part time work. I'd even consider starting my own
business even though I'm not far off retirement but I'd become
immediately liable for council tax with all the bureaucracy that
brings. I'm no longer fit enough to take the stress. I've survived two
heart attacks. I'm not rusting my luck again.
>
£93. 24 = survival but not in luxury
£93. 25 = getting chivvied by every petty bureaucrat who didn't get a
job with the gestapo rounding up jews and gypsies. + loss of £40 per
month + loss of exemption from prescription charges + loss of
exemption from dental and other charges.
Until it's been experienced it is hard to comprehend how soul
destroying treatment by bureaucracy can be.
alan goss
<cabell...@lycosmail.com> wrote:
>"alan goss" <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:2dl91u0op3qp0dvr9...@4ax.com...>
>
>> Who's * we*?
>> Any problems this country has around the world were caused by our
>> politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
>
>
>Any problems this country *at home* were caused by our
>politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
As always.
Would you say there were any times politicians *should* stick their
pointy noses in.
>
>The MOD and the police are about the only things taxpayers should pay the state
Why?
We don't need a professional army for home defense and the role of the
police could just as easily be returned to the citizens from whom it
was usurped.
>for. Everything else can be supplied by private companies.
--
alan goss
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:k3n91uohg814fjn47...@4ax.com...
>
>> ISTR there was a lot of sleight of hand about the block grant. I
>> propose an open formula wherebye there is no argument about how much
>> each LA gets.
>
>...the loony lefties would never stand for that - "their" areas always have
>"special needs", you see..
Up to them how they spend it then.
>
>> >> To my mind the biggest abuse of local government
>> >> power is the right and the statutory duty to attempt to tax the
>> >> poorest people in the borough at the same rate as those with more
>> >> wealth.
>
>> >I don't know how you make this to be the case. Aren't the poorest
>> >people in the borough on rent and rate rebate?
>
>> No. Rent and Rate rebates were discontinued pre poll tax days.
>
>Rent Rebates were re-named Housing Benefit. Rate Rebates kept their name
>(IIRC) until the introduction of the Community Charge, when Community Charge
>Benefit replaced Rate Rebates (logically enough). Council Tax Benefit
>replaced Community Charge Benefit. The names may have changed, but the
>system is still in place.
It's a different system.
>
>> The tories were anxious to do something for private landlords so they
>> created the money pit of housing benefit.
>
>Where do you get that from? HB was just RR by another name.
>
>> Instead of the state
>> providing cheap but servicable housing the private sector was
>> permitted to supply expensive but crap accommodation which is paid for
>> by the taxpayer.
>
>That situation (ie, benefit to assist with the paying of rent for those on
>low incomes [as defined]) came into being long before the conversion of Rent
>and Rate Rebates into Housing Benefit, etc. Are you *against* helping
>private tenants on low incomes to pay their rent? Should such assistance
Nope.
I'm agin private landlords jacking up the rent and neglecting the
houses. The average rent for a privately rented 2 room flat round here
is £65 per week. A housing association flat goes for £42. The council
brought in a limit on what they would pay but by that time the market
rent had already been set. There are two rented houses near me and
they are woefully neglected. The area isn't the richest part of town
but the home owners do their best to keep their homes in good
condition. Not so the private landlords.
>*only* be available to serfs, er... I mean, council tenants?
>
>> Council tax is rates by another name. In keeping with tory ideals of
>> orwellian newspeak they called rate rebate a benefit.
>
>But only because that is what it is. It is money taken from Peter's pocket
no it isn't. A tax is always a grab. If someone hasn't got the money
then no amount of argument is going to get it off him.
>to pay Paul's Council Tax. Just like Income Support for Paul's Sunday dinner
>comes out of Peter's pocket also.
>
>> 'We won't pick
>> your pocket so we are giving you a benefit'. A bit like saying 'prove
>> you haven't any money and we won't bother threatening to beat the crap
>> out of you for it' . Taxation as practised by the Krays
>
>If you are calling for the total abolition of Rates/Council Tax (and its
>non-replacement by anything remotely as unfair and vindictive against
>householders - and certainly not a discriminatory income tax), count me a
>supporter.
I certainly call for an income tax levied on all voters. If we have to
have a tax then it should be payable according to ability. Not
dragging the widow on £70 a week down to the council tax office to
prove that's the only money she has while the youth next door pisses
off on a carribbean holiday after getting a pre tan in the subsidised
leisure centre. .
>
>> Council tax
>> doesn't apply to everyone but those very poor people to whom it does
>> apply are treated like dirt. That is the sick, pensioners, the
>> unemployed (who are likely to be sick or disabled).
>
>We are all treated like that by LAs collecting Council Tax. The only people
>as bad are the accounts departments of the water companies (authorities as
>they were in some places, but not all). They have been honing their skills
>for several decades to my knowledge.
I paid full council tax until last year when my income dropped
disasterously. Because I could afford it I didn't complain. I didn't
realise until now just how it was applied to those who couldn't pay.
>
>> There is a presumption of criminality applied to every person who asks
>> for relief from council tax. I know this cos I've just experienced it.
>
>Your council must be a bad'un then. It isn't like that everywhere, I assure
>you.
>
Give me leave to doubt that. I have retired members of my family
spread widely around the country and they all agree with me. It's a
nasty tax. I wish I could think of a suitable punishment for the
people who thought of it. I'll set the video for that prog on torture
tonight. Might cheer me up.
alan goss
wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<k3n91uohg814fjn47...@4ax.com>...
>
>> ISTR there was a lot of sleight of hand about the block grant. I
>> propose an open formula wherebye there is no argument about how much
>> each LA gets.
>
>Well I can think of one or two arguments.
>
>Number one is that such a system would divorce the service consumer
>from the bill payer. Whilst it is true that all earners are tax
>payers in one form or another there is no way that they can influence
>the level of local authority spending through the ballot box. The
>council would spend that waht it receives via the black grant full
>stop.
That is done anyway except at present not all voters pay taxes to the
council.
>
>A second and perhaps more fundamental argument is that local authority
>areas are so diverse in so many ways other than population density.
>You seek a one size fits all formula. I think you would find your
>goal ellusive.
Maybe. Maybe not. I don't have the facilities or the information to
set up a model.
>
>> If they get their money under the same circumstances as all other
>> local LA's then it's up to them and their voters how the money is
>> spent.
>
>Ah but only if all accept this. I would think local councillors would
Who runs the country?
>tend to become very ept in arguing why their area should be treated
>more generously than others or alternatively why some areas can or
>seem to do better with their monies derived form the same formula.
Not much change for councils then.
>
>> >..........................Aren't the poorest
>> >people in the borough on rent and rate rebate?
>> >
>> No. Rent and Rate rebates were discontinued pre poll tax days.
>
>Fair enough but most people still refer to these benefits as such.
>
Not here
>We are arguing about principles rather than labels.
>
>> The tories were anxious to do something for private landlords so they
>> created the money pit of housing benefit. Instead of the state
>> providing cheap but servicable housing the private sector was
>> permitted to supply expensive but crap accommodation which is paid for
>> by the taxpayer.
>
>I wish you wouldn't keep rattling on about Tories. I really am not a
>party political animal you know.
Neither am I but the tories were responsible for removing large
swathes of publicly owned cheap, serviceable accommodation from the
public sector and permitting the private landlord to dip his hands
into the money pit.
>
>You neglect to mention that Council tenants too are eligible for
>housing benefit. It was not created for the benefit of the private
>landlord as you suggest. Perhaps you are suggesting that private
>tenants should not qualify. It sounds a bit iniquitous to me but
>there you are.
I have plenty of arguments against the system of rented property in
this country but at the moment I'm attacking the system of council
tax.
>
>Speaking as a former reluctant private landlord I did not let a slum.
>Only one of my tenants (nice chap) was in receipt of housing benefit.
>After that experience I would have nothing more to do with it.
>Nothing to do with the tenant it was just too much hassle. I couldn't
>be arsed with it.
So how do you think the tenants feel when they think they're likely to
be evicted because the LA has Shpxrq hc?
>> Council tax is rates by another name. In keeping with tory ideals of
>> orwellian newspeak they called rate rebate a benefit. 'We won't pick
>> your pocket so we are giving you a benefit'. A bit like saying 'prove
>> you haven't any money and we won't bother threatening to beat the crap
>> out of you for it' .
>
>I suppose you mean that it is means tested. Yes it is. It is
>intended to help poor people. The only real way of identifying poor
>people is to ask them.
If they had an income tax the council wouldn't have to ask anyone. It
would be collected the same way income tax is collected by Gordon and
his merry men. Prolly a lot cheaper and a lot less hassle for
everyone.
>
>> Council tax doesn't apply to everyone but those very poor people to whom it
>> does apply are treated like dirt.
>
>Treated by whom? Who administers Housing benefit? Are you telling me
>that employees of your council treat citizens of Carlisle badly? This
I wouldn't know if employees of my council have anything to do with
the citizens of carlisle. I don't live in carlisle.
>is indeed an indictment.
>
>I must remember to take a hard copy of your post with me when I visit
>my son in Burgh-by-Sands next week.
>
>> There is a presumption of criminality applied to every person who asks
>> for relief from council tax. I know this cos I've just experienced it.
>
>And, if this is true, you are in the best position to do something
>about it.
>
Why I'm campaigning
alan goss
wrote:
He might be drunk.
I've noticed these Yorkies on market day. Some of em can't hold their
tetleys. :)
alan goss
OOPS!
alan goss
wrote:
>Mike Pellatt <news...@pellatt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> crap about brown envelopes at planning committees, which..
>> I have never seen.. Maybe 20+ years ago, but most unlikely to
>> happen these days
>
>hmm...
>
>
>What exactly happened 20+ years ago that
>spelt the end of corruption in local government?
>
Well they arrested Dan Smith and his mate Poulson. Personally I
believe a lot of criminals got away scot free and just continued in a
more circumspect manner. I recall there wern't as many blatant
examples of councils riding roughshod over local opinion after smith
was convicted. I was very suspicious about Sunderland town hall
though. They demolished a fine victorian building and replaced it with
an exceptionally ugly concrete block house. I could never make my mind
up whether this was corruption somewhere or just stupidity . I lean
more towards the latter though, knowing the calibre of north east
councils on all sides at that time.
alan goss
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:v8v91ugngq25f05i8...@4ax.com...
>
>> Marc Living <black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
>> >from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
>> >political price which comes from raising it.
>
>> Easily done by having the money come from within the income rax
>> system. That way everybody contributes to local government.
>
>....except for those who pay no income tax (know a good accountant?)...
Not many Vestys about but do you begrudge the very poorest being
exempt?
>
>> >>Even the robber barons of the middle ages only collected a
>> >>proportional tithe.
>
>> >Erm ... how can a tythe be proportional? It is, by definition, a tenth
>> >of the extortee's income.
>
>> I see.
>> I think I should have added ' of income'.
>> Is that clearer?
>
>I thought it was the church which got the tithe?
IIR my history lessons there was a tithe for the church, one for the
lord and one for the king. Don't know how accurate that is cos I've
discovered I was lied to at school quite a lot.
Steve Glynn
"Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9v29sa$ch3pm$1...@ID-49507.news.dfncis.de...> news:9v27v0$rb7$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> > /dev/null (/dev/nu...@devnull.com) wrote:
> >
> > > He asked me once, "Why do you think _every_ Councillor wants to
> > > 'serve' on the planning committee?" "I dunno, they're concerned
> > > for the environment?" "Bwhwhahaha, you fool, planning is where
> > > the biggest bribes are to found..." [snipped - long stories about
> > > committees adjourning to the toilets, cash-packed envelopes
> > > being passed under the cubicles etc..
> >
> > I have sat on planning committees for many years, and never been
> > offered a bribe. If anyone had any evidence that bribes were being
> > offered, I would love to hear it, since that would surely be dynamite
> > in any local election campaign.
>
> Much better to bribe the officers, their recommendations usually make or
> fail an application, or go straight to the top and bribe the Chairman.
>
> Gaz
>
There speaks an experienced Councillor!
At times, though, it gets completely out of hand. I'm just about old
enough to remember a certain late Nottingham alderman and chairman of the
planning committee whose land dealings -- whoops, sorry, whose wife's
brother's land dealings -- got completely out of hand (coincidentally, my
wife tells me she was at school in Hull with his niece, who used to refer to
her uncle Bill who had to leave Hull under a cloud, moved to Nottingham, and
the family preferred not to talk about him).
Doncaster, though, is something else. Despite being from Nottingham, I'm
ethnically South Yorkshire Labour (aged mum's from Balby, and granddad
helped set up the Labour Party there), and it's always been notorious that
the National Union of Mineworkers around there kept the best men for Union
work, sent the deserving chaps to Parliament (bit like booting them upstairs
to the Lords or something) and put the dross into the local councils.
It's a scandal, and I'm very glad it's eventually being sorted out after
generations -- not least because of the efforts of perfectly decent
Doncaster Labour Party members (there are such beings) who've had enough.
Steve
Mel Rowing
> It seems to be an urban myth that most councillors are corrupt, and that
> most people who go into local government do so in order to "line their
> own pockets".
You are perhaps overstating here a little.
Nonetheless, in this particular case, it cannot be said too often that
suspicion of this state of affairs was common gossip in the area over
a good number of years. You cannot be corrupt on your own and people
talk (particularly when in drink). The fact is that in spite of this
these people continuously managed to get themselves re-elected.
Moreover, the eventual investigation of these events went back over a
number of years (and could have gone back over some years further)
Over this time the Labour controlled Doncaster Council did have
opposition in the form of Tory and Liberal Democrat Councillors as
well as Council Officials (some of whom were also found to be corrupt)
who were much closer to these events than were the general public.
They must have been aware at least of what was said at the time to
have been going on. However, it was left to the Audit Commission to
blow the whistle.
These two facts are in themselves an indictment of the ssytem we use
to elect our representatives to office.
> I only wish just a fraction of those making those sort
> of allegations was willing to put their time and money where there
> mouths are and stand for election as "clean" candidates. Or tell us,
> since they seem to have such a low opinion of democracy, how they would
> prefer things to be run.
Let me make it clear that I believe strongly in the democratic
process.
Nonetheless there are two aspects of our and other systems that serve
it badly.
The first is the party system. It is this that turns wards and indeed
constutiencies into fiefdoms controlled by small numbers of people.
It further tends to deny opportunity to those who refuse or decline to
mutually scratch backs from serving as elected representatives.
The second is the emergence of the professional politician in modern
times. It is this development which has slowly indeed inperceptively
shifted power away from the electorate to the party overlords and
whips. It is this development which has turned our House of Commons
into little more than an electoral college.
I feel that these two issues must be addressed if our democracy is to
progress.
These two influences need to be neutralised.
The first could be addressed by once more denying candidates the
freedom to indicate party allegiences on polling documents. It would
not perhaps be a bad idea also to deny them the freedom to declare
such allegiences on election literature in general.
The second by following the US example and deny elected
representatives freedom to serve indefinitely. If our Councillor/M.P.
were only allowed to serve say three terms then we could be sure that
during that last term he/she had at least the potential to enjoy an
independence from the party machine only enjoyed by members of the
House of Lords.
Mel Rowing
Mel Rowing
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:e1b1d184.01121...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Treated by whom? Who administers Housing benefit? Are you telling me
> > that employees of your council treat citizens of Carlisle badly? This
> > is indeed an indictment.
>
> I think you're confusing me with him.
>
Mel Rowing
abelard
typed:
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 22:33:30 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>>take it from the nhs....and education...
>> and let people with ability run them....
>>the gnp is steadily growing by at minimum 2% p.a...
>> the military budget has dropped from 5% gnp to half that in 20
>> years...
>>
>Percentages of anything are a crude way of measuring spending.
sometimes yes...sometimes no....
> Our
>*known* military spending is still increasing. Around 36 billion usd
>according to our american allies.
so are crude numbers....i am out of date...my last
figure is 23 billion in '96....36 therefore looks wrong...
>>>We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
>>>spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
>>
>>they would be close to paying back money at that level......
>>and we have rather serious problems around the world....
>
>Who's * we*?
i'll take most any reasonable definition...and discuss from there.....
>Any problems this country has around the world were caused by our
>politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
i think there is need...much need...
i could not care less what the lunatics in afghanistan or serbia
'wanted'....
>>without adequate military power all the rest is at risk....
>
>So lets argue about what is adequate and how to ensure we have it. I
>reckon thet if the establishment didn't go brown trousered at the
>thought of the common peasant being armed, we would have a perfect
>defense force that nothing less than WOMD could crack. Offense is a
>nother matter.
i want what you call 'offensive' capacity....to stop offensive
nuisances...
as for the level...i want american levels of equipment capability
plus expenditure relative to population size...
i am happy to see france with similar capability.....
at present, i want both to remain effectively independent.....
i would like to see other eu countries paying their way in
cash and personnel...for the services rendered in protecting
their interests...
organisationally pretty much the status quo...with russia steadily
drawn in.....
mostly i agree with your comments re the home side....
disarming the public is just another of bliar's highly irresponsible
acts....as bob would say...he is a useless flea...me, i just regard
him as a mindless posturing poltroon....
i still want to know where every penny of dome spending went!
any confusions or re-posts due to posting difficulties once more
with my servers...
abelard
<cabell...@lycosmail.com>
typed:
>"alan goss" <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:2dl91u0op3qp0dvr9...@4ax.com...>
>
>> Who's * we*?
>> Any problems this country has around the world were caused by our
>> politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
>
>
>Any problems this country *at home* were caused by our
>politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
>
>The MOD and the police are about the only things taxpayers should pay the state
>for. Everything else can be supplied by private companies.
and the courts?
and the monopoly effect?
Mel Rowing
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 09:36:11 -0000, "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:e1b1d184.01121...@posting.google.com...
> >> alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<k3n91uohg814fjn47...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> Treated by whom? Who administers Housing benefit? Are you telling me
> >> that employees of your council treat citizens of Carlisle badly? This
> >> is indeed an indictment.
> >
> >I think you're confusing me with him.
> >
>
> He might be drunk.
> I've noticed these Yorkies on market day. Some of em can't hold their
> tetleys. :)
Only when someone else is buying
Mel.
Gaz
> Nope.
> I'm agin private landlords jacking up the rent and neglecting the
> houses. The average rent for a privately rented 2 room flat round here
> is £65 per week. A housing association flat goes for £42. The council
> brought in a limit on what they would pay but by that time the market
> rent had already been set. There are two rented houses near me and
> they are woefully neglected. The area isn't the richest part of town
> but the home owners do their best to keep their homes in good
> condition. Not so the private landlords.
The gvt has the solution, all social landlords, have to, over a period of
ten years increase their rents to 80% (I think, maybe 75%) of average rents
in their area.
Gaz
Gaz
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:adtR7.1176$TI5.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9v29sa$ch3pm$1...@ID-49507.news.dfncis.de...
>
Nah, just quick to learn :) Though, I have never sat on a planning committee
(or wish to), our Chairman was a police officer in the met, and unusually,
for Met officers, straight as they come.
>>
> It's a scandal, and I'm very glad it's eventually being sorted out after
> generations -- not least because of the efforts of perfectly decent
> Doncaster Labour Party members (there are such beings) who've had enough.
Why do Unions still have such control, are the selection committees not on
one man one vote??
Gaz
> Steve
>
>
Gaz
news:<9v2mkt$2l8$3...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
>
> freedom to indicate party allegiences on polling documents. It would
> not perhaps be a bad idea also to deny them the freedom to declare
> such allegiences on election literature in general.
I remember, at one of the lectures I stumbled across on the way to the
student bar, the the issue of party affiliation on ballot papers came up (by
me.....). Apparently, it made little difference to the voting patterns,
whether or not the name was linked with the party.
> The second by following the US example and deny elected
> representatives freedom to serve indefinitely. If our Councillor/M.P.
> were only allowed to serve say three terms then we could be sure that
> during that last term he/she had at least the potential to enjoy an
> independence from the party machine only enjoyed by members of the
> House of Lords.
Interesting, and something, that Adam Gray has imposed on himself
voluntarily.
But, how do we get PMs with experience? Look at Blair, he is still in his
prime, talented, charismatic, obvious leader material, yet it took him ten
years to get charge of his party, not exactly brimming with talent, and only
after a premature death, it then took him a few years to get PM. 14 yrs to
get PM, one would be expecting at least two terms from a strong leader, at a
max of five years.
You're looking at 25yrs, how long was Major, Thatcher Heath etc in the House
before they could take control of their respective party?
Gaz
> Mel Rowing
alan goss
<black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:21:24 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>>The council or whatever elected authority is still accountable to the
>>>>voters on how the money is spent. If services decline they will find
>>>>themselves out on their ears at the next election.
>
>>>Except they aren't.
>
>>That's up to the voters.
>
>>> What instead happens is that they spend all their
>>>time banging on about how they aren't being given the "resources" from
>
>>Much of the resources of local government comes from council tax. A
>>tax which is not applied equally (according to personal resources)
>>and impartially to every voter.
>
>Quite little of their resources comes from Council Tax. The bulk comes
>from the block (central) grant.
Agreed. so why not collect it all from income tax?
>
>>>the central government, in the expectation that their schools have
>>>turned out sufficient numbers of people stupid enough to believe such
>>>twaddle.
>
>>A bit like having the tories running the government for nearly 20
>>years then
>
>Schools were run by local authorities - until they started to be
>allowed to opt out by the central Government. Given the predilection
>of Labour pols to send their own children to opted out schools,
>notwithstanding that it was a policy which they opposed tooth and
>nail, they appear to be one of the few success stories.
My youngest left in the mid eighties. The school was crap but we had
no choice except move again. I don't know much about education these
days.
>
>>>>I'm quite happy
>>>>with the idea of all local finance raised through taxes coming out of
>>>>central taxation
>
>>>I disagree. If people wish to gain the political credit which comes
>>>from spending (other people's) money, then they should pay the
>>>political price which comes from raising it.
>
>>Easily done by having the money come from within the income rax
>>system. That way everybody contributes to local government.
>
>But (unless you are suggesting a local income tax set by Councils)
>that would not impose on local councillors the political price of
>raising the money which they spend.
It would if they spent it unwisely. See if it comes to a choice
between home helps for the housebound or a municipal golf course.
>
I'd like to limit the amount government could raise in taxes too:)
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Doncaster, though, is something else. Despite being from Nottingham, I'm
> ethnically South Yorkshire Labour (aged mum's from Balby, and granddad
> helped set up the Labour Party there), and it's always been notorious that
> the National Union of Mineworkers around there kept the best men for Union
> work, sent the deserving chaps to Parliament (bit like booting them upstairs
> to the Lords or something) and put the dross into the local councils.
> It's a scandal, and I'm very glad it's eventually being sorted out after
> generations
Everyone in Doncaster had a vote, and they were not compelled to vote
for the "dross". If they did so, they have only themselves to blame.
This is the point I KEEP making - people seem to feel the councillors
they have are imposed upon them by Act of God, and there is nothing you
can do about it but whinge about how bad they are. We live in a democracy -
we all have a vote, we can vote for who we want, and we all have a right
to stand in oublic elections.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> I certainly call for an income tax levied on all voters. If we have to
> have a tax then it should be payable according to ability. Not
> dragging the widow on Ł70 a week down to the council tax office to
> prove that's the only money she has while the youth next door pisses
> off on a carribbean holiday after getting a pre tan in the subsidised
> leisure centre. .
And while I struggle to gain a foothold in London, I have to pay a
substantial chunk of the money I work to earn in income tax. While
some lazy bum can sit waiting for granny to die and get what it would
take years for me to earn tax-free. Fair? You seem to believe the rich
should live tax-free, only those who are actually earning money and
trying to build up a little wealth should get taxed on it.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach) wrote in message news:
> > I only wish just a fraction of those making those sort
> > of allegations was willing to put their time and money where there
> > mouths are and stand for election as "clean" candidates. Or tell us,
> > since they seem to have such a low opinion of democracy, how they would
> > prefer things to be run.
> Let me make it clear that I believe strongly in the democratic
> process.
> Nonetheless there are two aspects of our and other systems that serve
> it badly.
> The first is the party system. It is this that turns wards and indeed
> constutiencies into fiefdoms controlled by small numbers of people.
> It further tends to deny opportunity to those who refuse or decline to
> mutually scratch backs from serving as elected representatives.
No-one is compelled to vote for a party candidate. It is very easy for
independents to get on the ballot paper in England, and most local
government wards are of a size small enough for one person and a few
friends and family to run an effective campaign across it.
The reason people don't do it is because in this country we love to sit
on our arses whingeing, but we hate to actually go out and do something
abouyt what we whinge about.
Matthew Huntbach
JNugent
> Marc Living <black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
> >>Much of the resources of local government comes from council tax. A
> >>tax which is not applied equally (according to personal resources)
> >>and impartially to every voter.
> >Quite little of their resources comes from Council Tax. The bulk comes
> >from the block (central) grant.
> Agreed. so why not collect it all from income tax?
How would income tax non-payers get the chance to contribute?
And what new magic mechanism would cause them to consider the pockets of
others when they voted?
> I'd like to limit the amount government could raise in taxes too:)
Not allowing councils to set income taxes is a start on that road.
Mel Rowing
> "Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:e1b1d184.01121...@posting.google.com...
> > m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach) wrote in message
> news:<9v2mkt$2l8$3...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>...
> >
> > The first could be addressed by once more denying candidates the
> > freedom to indicate party allegiences on polling documents. It would
> > not perhaps be a bad idea also to deny them the freedom to declare
> > such allegiences on election literature in general.
>
> I remember, at one of the lectures I stumbled across on the way to the
> student bar, the the issue of party affiliation on ballot papers came up (by
> me.....). Apparently, it made little difference to the voting patterns,
> whether or not the name was linked with the party.
Well I am old enough to remember the days when such information did
not appear on the paper. I used to earn a few extra bob as a poll
official in those days and the omission did cause confusion and even
argument.
It occurs to me that if voters had to differentiate between candidates
on the basis of the policies for which they declared their support as
opposed to a party label then at least they might have some idea as to
for what as opposed to for who they were voting.
Incidently in local elections where there was multiple voting, many
voter relied upon a card handed out by "checkers" outside the polling
station. These cards took the form of a facimilie ballot paper
bearing the names of their own candidates only with a X marked against
each name.
When it came to the count afterwards you would be amazed as to how
many voters marked a X against the name of every candidate. Some of
them are as conversant with the process as that. My best sroty is
about the guy (not old by any means) who placed his cross on the
depiction of the ballot paper on the notice of instructions in the
polling booth.
> > The second by following the US example and deny elected
> > representatives freedom to serve indefinitely. If our Councillor/M.P.
> > were only allowed to serve say three terms then we could be sure that
> > during that last term he/she had at least the potential to enjoy an
> > independence from the party machine only enjoyed by members of the
> > House of Lords.
> But, how do we get PMs with experience? Look at Blair, he is still in his
> prime, talented, charismatic, obvious leader material, yet it took him ten
> years to get charge of his party, not exactly brimming with talent, and only
> after a premature death, it then took him a few years to get PM. 14 yrs to
> get PM, one would be expecting at least two terms from a strong leader, at a
> max of five years.
>
> You're looking at 25yrs, how long was Major, Thatcher Heath etc in the House
> before they could take control of their respective party?
Easy you simply cannot get the "dead man's boots" situation. How does
one get experience of prime ministership? I would envisage a future
leader's career to comprise of term as M.P., 1 term in
government/shadow cabinet, 1 term as prime minister/leader of the
opposition.
I conceed that there might be a case for allowing a limited number of
post holders from each party an extra term but certainly no more.
The advantages are obvious. You undermine the position of the career
politician. To a large extent you cut out the lobby fodder. At a
stroke you grant approximately 30% of M.P.'s freedom from the party
machine and the whips.
If one really has something extra to offer to the extent that he
deserves to be an M.P. then three terms should be adeqaute for him to
express himself. He can then stand aside to make room for someone
else that has something extra to offer. A generous flow of fresh
minds and ideas is guaranteed to blow through the house.
Mel Rowing
alan goss
wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<24lc1u03l4vtb1mhm...@4ax.com>...
I've noticed that deformity.
Short arms.
Difficulty in reaching pockets.
I've found out how to mimic it.:)
alan goss
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 18:19:57 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com>
>
> typed:
>
>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 22:33:30 +0100, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>
>>>take it from the nhs....and education...
>>> and let people with ability run them....
>>>the gnp is steadily growing by at minimum 2% p.a...
>>> the military budget has dropped from 5% gnp to half that in 20
>>> years...
>>>
>>Percentages of anything are a crude way of measuring spending.
>
>sometimes yes...sometimes no....
>
>> Our
>>*known* military spending is still increasing. Around 36 billion usd
>>according to our american allies.
>
>so are crude numbers....i am out of date...my last
> figure is 23 billion in '96....36 therefore looks wrong...
I'm giving it as US dollars. 36.8 billion in 97 according to the handy
dandy cia online book of facts.
>
>>>>We could quite easily save 20 billion a year by cutting defence
>>>>spending. Someting you would disagree with but many would agree to.
>>>
>>>they would be close to paying back money at that level......
>>>and we have rather serious problems around the world....
>>
>>Who's * we*?
>
>i'll take most any reasonable definition...and discuss from there.....
You tell me.
*We* meaning me and my family have no immediate problems outside of
this country. We might have some in the future but the immediate
problems need sorting first. If we don't do that then some supposed
threat from abroad is no threat at all. We won't be around to be
threatened.
>
>>Any problems this country has around the world were caused by our
>>politicians sticking their pointy noses in where there was no need.
>
>i think there is need...much need...
>i could not care less what the lunatics in afghanistan or serbia
> 'wanted'....
Neither could I.
The biggest threat to my well being coming from overseas comes
directly from the USA. Their military spokespersons have already
announced an intention to control near space.
>
>>>without adequate military power all the rest is at risk....
>>
>>So lets argue about what is adequate and how to ensure we have it. I
>>reckon thet if the establishment didn't go brown trousered at the
>>thought of the common peasant being armed, we would have a perfect
>>defense force that nothing less than WOMD could crack. Offense is a
>>nother matter.
>
>i want what you call 'offensive' capacity....to stop offensive
> nuisances...
>as for the level...i want american levels of equipment capability
> plus expenditure relative to population size...
No good if the US has more capacity. They aren't to be trusted.
We need to be a tough nut to crack and have sufficient retaliatory
strength to scare even the US. Long range deployment is too expensive
and only gets up the noses of potential customers.
> i am happy to see france with similar capability.....
>at present, i want both to remain effectively independent.....
>i would like to see other eu countries paying their way in
> cash and personnel...for the services rendered in protecting
> their interests...
So would I. That means a federal europe from where I stand. Anything
less is in danger of falling apart.
>organisationally pretty much the status quo...with russia steadily
> drawn in.....
Agreed
Big USA, big Europe and big Russia.
Equal partners in NATO.
>
>mostly i agree with your comments re the home side....
>disarming the public is just another of bliar's highly irresponsible
Happened a long time before blair. He just continued the exercise.
This gives a reason for the original gun control legislation as
enacted in 1920 with some bits on pre 1900 laws.
http://www.cybersurf.co.uk/johnny/dunblane/index.html
> acts....as bob would say...he is a useless flea...me, i just regard
> him as a mindless posturing poltroon....
The politicians are in power. You are in (France?) Not in power
anyway.
>
>
>i still want to know where every penny of dome spending went!
Then write to camelot and ask.
alan goss
wrote:
That's totally stupid!
All that does is suck more people into benefits and into the poverty
trap.
The answer is more housing that people can afford. When I got married
in the early 60's we lived in two rooms for 19 shillings and 6 pence a
week. The landlord paid the rates from the rent. We didn't have to
plead with any of these bastards for money to pay the rent.
Steve Glynn
In some parts of the country, councillors are imposed not by an Act of God
but by an act of the local party and of sociology, Labour in some areas and
Tory in some others.
When you end up with a situation in which only one party has a look-in,
there's always the possibility for corruption and contempt for the
electorate. Most people, whatever their political views, don't like
corruption and contempt for the voters.
In most places, it's kept under control. Remember, I'm from Red
Nottingham, which used to have the reputation for being a bent city. It
got beyond a joke there, to the extent that ordinary people, like you and
me, got well pissed off.
Running Alderman Bill and his colleagues out wasn't achieved by putting up
alternative candidates in council elections in their wards, however. It
was acheived by action within their own parties, by boycotts of their
businesses and business connections (there were a couple of national house
building chains that could not sell a house in Nottingham for a year or so),
and by relentless pressure from the local paper.
What's been going on in Doncaster is a disgrace, and I'm glad it's
eventually being cleaned up. It's not, however, to my mind, to do with one
party or another. Rather, it's to do with crooks seeing that there is
nothing short of an Act of God that will shift the governing party in some
areas, and their then trying to take advantage of this fact.
Steve
Marc Living
wrote:
>The answer is more housing that people can afford. When I got married
>in the early 60's we lived in two rooms for 19 shillings and 6 pence a
>week. The landlord paid the rates from the rent.
From what wage?
--
Marc Living (remove "bounceback" to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
Mel Rowing
>
>
> No-one is compelled to vote for a party candidate. It is very easy for
> independents to get on the ballot paper in England, and most local
> government wards are of a size small enough for one person and a few
> friends and family to run an effective campaign across it.
No one suggests otherwise. At least the two last general elections
have shown that an independent candidate has a chance of defeating the
established parties provided either ther incumbant candididate is
vulnerable (i.e Hamilton) or a local issue stands higher in people's
minds than national politics (i.e. the doctor who stood in the last
election on the issue of the closure of a local hospital.
However, this is not the point. I think you will agree that, by and
large, an independent candidate has no hope against any party
candidate and for very obvious reasons not least he/she usually lacks
the resources of a party organisation.
I make no argument as to why this shouldn't be the case. Clearly the
complexity of the political scene is such that it is desirable if not
essential that we organise ourselves into groups of like minded
people. That is not the issue.
Rather the point I make is that in order to be a political success one
needs the support of a party. To enjoy such one is required to appeal
to the conservatism that tends to characterise all organisations. In
short party organisations do not engender progressive thought. On the
contrary the tendancy is towards repression of such.
Beyond that the dominance of the party political machines is such that
we are conditioned to believe that elections are about choosing
between Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat, a choice which always
carries with it strong overtones of blind allegence issues becoming at
least to a point secondary.
It is, in my view, a fallacy that party politics catalyse political
debate. On the contrary, they polarise and stifle it. All lay claim
to being the sole repository of wisdom and vision. All claim that the
success of the others over them in elections to be catastrophic. It
never turns out to be the case.
It so happens that there has been a recent political event that
illustrates my point admirably. We are all aware of Blunket's recent
utterances. What has been said that has not been said before? Can
you imagine what the political reaction would have been if say IDS had
said it? How is Blunket's message been received with less rancour
than similar messages from Tebbit and indeed Powell?
The answer is of course that in the political sphere the messenger is
at least as important as the message. Political socialisation
sublinearly induces us to believe or disbelieve certain messengers as
appropriate. Political parties must carry responsibility for much of
this.
These are the reasons wahy I believe that we must at least examine
ways of reducing the influence of political parties on our politics if
our democracy is to prosper. The trade union movement used to stand
accused of being undemocratic in that very small proportions of their
memberships, the activists, decided the actions of all. A similar
situation exists with regard to the political parties. In spite of
increasing amounts of column inches they spawn, the numbers of their
activists as a proportion of the electorate are in decline.
Mel Rowing.
alan goss
wrote:
>alan goss (al...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
>
>> I certainly call for an income tax levied on all voters. If we have to
>> have a tax then it should be payable according to ability. Not
>> dragging the widow on £70 a week down to the council tax office to
>> prove that's the only money she has while the youth next door pisses
>> off on a carribbean holiday after getting a pre tan in the subsidised
>> leisure centre. .
>
>And while I struggle to gain a foothold in London, I have to pay a
>substantial chunk of the money I work to earn in income tax. While
>some lazy bum can sit waiting for granny to die and get what it would
Granny or grandad probably worked for years to get that. You want the
state to tax your inheritance too or is it only houses you want taxed?
>take years for me to earn tax-free. Fair? You seem to believe the rich
>should live tax-free, only those who are actually earning money and
Everyone has income unless they live on capital. Everyone pays income
tax. Even children.
Your trouble is you want it all now. Why not work for it and leave it
to your children?
>trying to build up a little wealth should get taxed on it.
I managed.
Then the tories decided to move the goalposts and my savings went
alan goss
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:rfoc1uom7r3ba0akl...@4ax.com...
>
>> Marc Living <black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Much of the resources of local government comes from council tax. A
>> >>tax which is not applied equally (according to personal resources)
>> >>and impartially to every voter.
>
>> >Quite little of their resources comes from Council Tax. The bulk comes
>> >from the block (central) grant.
>
>> Agreed. so why not collect it all from income tax?
>
>How would income tax non-payers get the chance to contribute?
In many cases by being able to build up their income until they were
in a position to pay income tax.
>
>And what new magic mechanism would cause them to consider the pockets of
>others when they voted?
>
you can't win em all. You can't get money from those who have none
either.
>> I'd like to limit the amount government could raise in taxes too:)
>
>Not allowing councils to set income taxes is a start on that road.
They don't have to have that power. Just give them the administrative
right on how the money is spent. Subject to the electorate electing
them.
JNugent
> "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The gvt has the solution, all social landlords, have to, over a period of
> >ten years increase their rents to 80% (I think, maybe 75%) of average
rents
> >in their area.
> That's totally stupid!
> All that does is suck more people into benefits and into the poverty
> trap.
What makes you conclude that? It is completely unsupported by what Gaz
posted.
If the average person can (by definition) afford the average rent (and that
is axiomatic), then they must be even more able to afford 75% or 80% of it.
> The answer is more housing that people can afford.
There is no such thing as housing that people can't afford. The price of
housing (or anything) is defined by what people are prepared to pay for it.
If you attempt to reduce the price by force, other ways of rationing it will
emerge.
> When I got married
> in the early 60's we lived in two rooms for 19 shillings and 6 pence a
> week. The landlord paid the rates from the rent. We didn't have to
> plead with any of these bastards for money to pay the rent.
A good job too, as rent rebates (now known as Housing Benefit) were not
introduced until the early 70s (by the Edward Heath government).
JNugent
> <JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Agreed. so why not collect it all from income tax?
> >How would income tax non-payers get the chance to contribute?
> In many cases by being able to build up their income until they were
> in a position to pay income tax.
What if they *never* pay any income tax?
> >And what new magic mechanism would cause them to consider the pockets of
> >others when they voted?
> you can't win em all.
So it would be just as corrupt as the rates were.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Everyone in Doncaster had a vote, and they were not compelled to vote
> > for the "dross". If they did so, they have only themselves to blame.
> > This is the point I KEEP making - people seem to feel the councillors
> > they have are imposed upon them by Act of God, and there is nothing you
> > can do about it but whinge about how bad they are. We live in a democracy> > - we all have a vote, we can vote for who we want, and we all have a
> > right to stand in oublic elections.
> In some parts of the country, councillors are imposed not by an Act of God
> but by an act of the local party and of sociology, Labour in some areas and
> Tory in some others.
There is nothing which forces people in those areas to vote Labour or Tory.
They do so of their own free will, or by not voting allow those who do
vote to impose those councillors. If the local councillors are bad, but
people go on voting for them or letting them stay on by not voting at all,
they have only themselves to blame.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:35:19 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> > wrote:
> >The answer is more housing that people can afford. When I got married
> >in the early 60's we lived in two rooms for 19 shillings and 6 pence a
> >week. The landlord paid the rates from the rent.
> From what wage?
House prices and market rent levels have risen at a faster rate than
wages. However, Mr Goss actively opposes the sort of measures that would
be needed to stop house cost inflation.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 12 Dec 2001 12:06:00 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
> wrote:
> >And while I struggle to gain a foothold in London, I have to pay a
> >substantial chunk of the money I work to earn in income tax. While
> >some lazy bum can sit waiting for granny to die and get what it would
> Granny or grandad probably worked for years to get that. You want the
> state to tax your inheritance too or is it only houses you want taxed?
No, I believe all inherited wealth should be taxed at the same rate as
any other income. If I choose to use my income, which is taxes, to pay
someone else to do a job for me, that other peerson has to pay income
tax on it as well. He cann ot say "Matthew Huntbach worked for years
to earn that money he's used to pay my wages, so why should I pay income
tax on it?".
Although, as I have said, one of the advantages of more tax on property
and ineritance is that income tax could be greatly reduced, and I would
suggest removed altogether from people on lowish wages. This would mean
it would be easier to employ people, and reward work and enterprise.
> Your trouble is you want it all now. Why not work for it and leave it
> to your children?
I would rather my children have decent housing when they are young, and
need it, than have to wait till I am ancient and die, and they too will
be pensioners by then. Inheritance makes a lot less sense in these days
when very few of us stay living in our parents' houses.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> > The answer is more housing that people can afford.
> There is no such thing as housing that people can't afford. The price of
> housing (or anything) is defined by what people are prepared to pay for it.
That is why a tax on land values does not increase land prices.
> If you attempt to reduce the price by force, other ways of rationing it
> will emerge.
Yes, and so long as housing is the most profitable investmemnt there is,
people will hold onto as much of it as they can get. That is why you cannot
build your way out of a housing shortage - all you are doing is providing
more chips in the housing gambling casino.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Pellatt
<gazter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Steve Glynn" <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:adtR7.1176$TI5.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9v29sa$ch3pm$1...@ID-49507.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> There speaks an experienced Councillor!
>
> Nah, just quick to learn :) Though, I have never sat on a planning committee
> (or wish to), our Chairman was a police officer in the met, and unusually,
> for Met officers, straight as they come.
Hmm. I think I'll pass that comment on to the 2 ex-Met officers who are
members of my authority.....
--
Mike Pellatt
Mike Pellatt
>> to your children?
>
> I would rather my children have decent housing when they are young, and
> need it, than have to wait till I am ancient and die, and they too will
> be pensioners by then. Inheritance makes a lot less sense in these days
> when very few of us stay living in our parents' houses.
I've absolutely no idea what's in my parents' will. But if I do see
a significant proportion of their equity, we have some interesting
plans which would involve a lot of commitment to a lesser-economically
developed country. No current taxation schemes would give us a tax
break on that plan, so under your suggestions we'd be stuffed. Well,
not stuffed, but the decision would be a lot harder.
We might go ahead and do it anyway - that lass on Woman's Hour
a few weeks ago who'd given up everything to teach in a village
in Tanzania was some inspiration !!
And if someone could compound up 6.8K in 1966 into real terms based
on wage inflation today, and compare it with around 220K, I'd be
interested to know what the real, and thus taxable [1], capital gain
would be. Might be not as huge as Matthew imagines. And this is in
Surbiton, Surrey.
[1] under any equitable scheme. I hope Matthew can confirm this is
what he proposes. But I suspect he'd like to tax the whole 220K....
--
Mike Pellatt
JNugent
news:9v9rnh$jbs$7...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> JNugent (JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk) wrote:
> > alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > The answer is more housing that people can afford.
> > There is no such thing as housing that people can't afford. The price of
> > housing (or anything) is defined by what people are prepared to pay for
it.
> > If you attempt to reduce the price by force, other ways of rationing it
> > will emerge.
> Yes, and so long as housing is the most profitable investmemnt there is,
> people will hold onto as much of it as they can get. That is why you
cannot
> build your way out of a housing shortage - all you are doing is providing
> more chips in the housing gambling casino.
<thinks: "you cannot build your way out of a housing shortage... you cannot
build your way out of a housing shortage... you cannot build your way out of
a housing shortage... hmmmm...">
Can this be the same Matthew Huntbach who wants to build ever more and more
council and/or housing association houses in his borough, because there is a
"housing shortage"?
alan goss
<black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:35:19 +0000, alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The answer is more housing that people can afford. When I got married
>>in the early 60's we lived in two rooms for 19 shillings and 6 pence a
>>week. The landlord paid the rates from the rent.
>
>From what wage?
Between 5 and 6 pounds a week. IIRC I paid about 7s 6d in NI. No
family allowance for first child either. Food cost us about 3 pounds a
week. Electric was on a slot meter.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Yes, and so long as housing is the most profitable investmemnt there is,
> > people will hold onto as much of it as they can get. That is why you
> > cannot build your way out of a housing shortage - all you are doing is
> > providing more chips in the housing gambling casino.
> <thinks: "you cannot build your way out of a housing shortage... you cannot
> build your way out of a housing shortage... you cannot build your way out
> of a housing shortage... hmmmm...">
> Can this be the same Matthew Huntbach who wants to build ever more and more
> council and/or housing association houses in his borough, because there is
> a "housing shortage"?
No, it cannot because that is not a line I have ever taken.
If you have ever believed that was my line, you were wrong.
Matthew Huntbach
alan goss
wrote:
>alan goss (al...@ntlworld.com) wrote:
>> On 12 Dec 2001 12:06:00 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
>> wrote:
>
>> >And while I struggle to gain a foothold in London, I have to pay a
>> >substantial chunk of the money I work to earn in income tax. While
>> >some lazy bum can sit waiting for granny to die and get what it would
>
>> Granny or grandad probably worked for years to get that. You want the
>> state to tax your inheritance too or is it only houses you want taxed?
>
>No, I believe all inherited wealth should be taxed at the same rate as
>any other income.
Fair e nuff
> If I choose to use my income, which is taxes, to pay
>someone else to do a job for me, that other peerson has to pay income
>tax on it as well. He cann ot say "Matthew Huntbach worked for years
>to earn that money he's used to pay my wages, so why should I pay income
>tax on it?".
Cos we all pay income tax if we have an income. That's what makes it
reasonably fair way of gaining revenue for the state to fritter away.
>
>Although, as I have said, one of the advantages of more tax on property
>and ineritance is that income tax could be greatly reduced, and I would
>suggest removed altogether from people on lowish wages. This would mean
>it would be easier to employ people, and reward work and enterprise.
Indeed.
I've long believed we start to pay income tax at a ridiculously low
level of earnings.
>
>> Your trouble is you want it all now. Why not work for it and leave it
>> to your children?
>
>I would rather my children have decent housing when they are young, and
Then move or build it.
>need it, than have to wait till I am ancient and die, and they too will
>be pensioners by then. Inheritance makes a lot less sense in these days
>when very few of us stay living in our parents' houses.
shouldn't we consider staying with our parents and recreating the
traditional family bonds the state has almost destroyed.
alan goss
wrote:
>Marc Living (black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com) wrote:
Because you advocate national legislation to treat a local problem.
Find another way.
alan goss
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:s5af1ugrprnj4junc...@4ax.com...
>
>> "Gaz" <gazter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >The gvt has the solution, all social landlords, have to, over a period of
>> >ten years increase their rents to 80% (I think, maybe 75%) of average
>rents
>> >in their area.
>
>> That's totally stupid!
>> All that does is suck more people into benefits and into the poverty
>> trap.
>
>What makes you conclude that? It is completely unsupported by what Gaz
>posted.
Raise rents and unless people can get higher incomes they will be
forced to apply for benefits
>
>If the average person can (by definition) afford the average rent (and that
>is axiomatic), then they must be even more able to afford 75% or 80% of it.
How many of the population on average income rely on rented housing?
I would imagine the majority of tenants are on below average income to
benefit level.
>> The answer is more housing that people can afford.
>
>There is no such thing as housing that people can't afford. The price of
>housing (or anything) is defined by what people are prepared to pay for it.
If a house is £80 per week rent and you only earn £79 then you can't
afford it. Not without grovelling to the state for help.
>If you attempt to reduce the price by force, other ways of rationing it will
>emerge.
Build basic cheap accommodation.
>
>> When I got married
>> in the early 60's we lived in two rooms for 19 shillings and 6 pence a
>> week. The landlord paid the rates from the rent. We didn't have to
>> plead with any of these bastards for money to pay the rent.
>
>A good job too, as rent rebates (now known as Housing Benefit) were not
>introduced until the early 70s (by the Edward Heath government).
>
And developed into the money pit for the private sector. I want to
abolish direct cash housing subsidies not extend the system.
alan goss
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>alan goss <al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:hjef1ukdj5d1jou5t...@4ax.com...
>
>> <JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> Agreed. so why not collect it all from income tax?
>
>> >How would income tax non-payers get the chance to contribute?
>
>> In many cases by being able to build up their income until they were
>> in a position to pay income tax.
>
>What if they *never* pay any income tax?
Some people will never pay taxes anyway. They'll never earn enough. No
reason to keep the poverty trap of benefits related income for others
who could manage it though.
>
>> >And what new magic mechanism would cause them to consider the pockets of
>> >others when they voted?
>
>> you can't win em all.
>
>So it would be just as corrupt as the rates were.
>
Nope. No more corrupt than national tax rates. Some people never pay
tax and still get to vote in national elections.
More people paying tax. More people want to know how the money is
spent. I don't pay tax now. If I'd been left alone I might have been
paying it by next year. The present system doesn't give me that
option. No gradual phasing in.
Marc Living
wrote:
>> Your trouble is you want it all now. Why not work for it and leave it
>> to your children?
>I would rather my children have decent housing when they are young, and
>need it, than have to wait till I am ancient and die, and they too will
>be pensioners by then.
And what - if you have sufficient to bequesth them enough to house
themselves after you are dead - is stopping you from housing them now?
Marc Living
wrote:
>Marc Living (black...@ntlworld.BOUNCEBACK.com) wrote:
>> From what wage?
House prices certainly have, but I would need some convincing that
market rent levels have.
(Unless you are confusing market rents with "fair" rents under the
Rent Acts - which were explicitly precluded from being set at market
rates.)