Anything Political

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/12/2023 at 10:55 AM, HSR said:

Ask a civil question, to be greeted, by  an unspecified, apparently 'two word' answer..

 

Do you want to quote evidence to back up this allegation?

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/11/2023 at 5:20 PM, Brew said:

 

 A little disingenuous here, 94% is accurate and sounds a lot better than 'only 94', also accurate.

Only 100 LA's retain housing stock, (there are 317 in total)

The rest follows a similar theme, close to misdirection. and is purely personal opinion.

 

Land value is not the free for all he implies:  https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/land-value-estimates

 

Again, how many of us are so altruistic we would sell land for less than the full market price?

 

 

------------------------

 

 

Jim, I've looked at the 'Land Value' stuff and in all honesty I couldn't make much sense of it.  All wrapped up in financial gobbledegook as far as I could see, but I still get the impression the dice are loaded in favour of the Landowner.

To simplify it, it is my understanding that landowners are still pretty much allowed to demand some sort of 'imagined', or 'hoped for', free market price for their land. That, if true, is ridiculous, for the following reasons.  They can only sell their land at whatever price, if there is a buyer. There will only be a buyer, if there is planning permission. So.. if planning permission is only granted for social housing, their 'hoped for' price remains a fantasy and the true market value, as with anything.. is what someone else is prepared to pay. They can of course 'sit on', their land, as long as it is not compulsorily purchased, but if they cannot sell it, its sale value is zilch.

 

Quote

One council true, but that's not the point I'm making. What I'm trying to get across is that government regardless of colour do not dictate how councils spend their money. 

 

Actually, they do... but in a sneaky, subtle way.

Govt's decide what Local Authorities will be responsible for, and then decide how much money councils will get, both via controlling the Direct Grant, and by controlling  Council Tax.

Then.. when some council is unable to properly fulfil all of its obligations, because it doesn't have the money.. Govt. will insist 'But we gave them loads of money.. it's up to them how they spend it.'  You and I both know that that is a 'Cop Out', and a deeply cynical one.  Govts know full well that people love to blame Councils for stuff, mostly because people don't understand how Council funding operates. You know as well as I do that Govt Grants to local councils have been falling year on year since the Tories took over, and that Tories continue to load more and more responsibilities onto Councils. It's undeniable.

 

What it all comes down to is that the lack of Social, or Affordable housing, is ENTIRELY a political decision, and we know who has been making all the political decisions for the last 13 years.

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/11/2023 at 9:42 PM, letsavagoo said:

But the government are rather hampered by the left who thwart all attempts to do anything about the problem. An example of which is amply demonstrated in the Irim Ali video I posted. 
Just as well she was only being ‘a bit naughty’ I wonder if she was a Tory millionaire you’d be quite so forgiving. 
I’ll concede that the whole situation with the migrants is a total mess and the government have failed miserably. 

 

It's certainly a mess, we agree on that.  I just happen to believe that the Tories think it benefits them to keep 'The Boats', front and centre of the picture as they approach the next election. It's pretty much all they've got, given their appalling record on everything else...and it's a great distraction which keeps the focus of many away from the rest of it. In that sense, I believe the Tory 'Mandarins'  are happy to keep the frothers frothing.  The fact that 'the Boats', only account for 3% of immigration to the UK, is something they are rather less vocal about.

Not everyone who opposes this Govt's policies and methods is from 'the left'. There are, as Jim says.. plenty of 'Nimby's', who don't want immigrants housed near them.. etc.

 

I'll admit that 'a bit naughty' was a little too lenient with Irim Ali.  She's taking the p***, but she's also taking advantage of legal rules which allow her to do so.  Lawyers of all political persuasions do that routinely..  It's the Law which needs to change.. not the Lawyers.

[DJ360 6,733]

On 8/11/2023 at 3:47 PM, Brew said:

Actually, it is, there is no evidence of causality between government cuts to councils and the council's spending decisions. 

Taking Nottingham as an example, do they build social housing to meet demands or build a loss-making prestige project like a tram... Five hundred million pounds, approx. losses, would build a fair number of affordable houses. Are we sure they have tier priorities, right? Then again it is a Labour Council what can we expect?

 

And this week the trams are losing so much they now need to spend a further £150,000 on consultants to advise. Which bit of the cuts does that come under? 

 

I've had a look at that.  I have no strong view either way re: the Trams... except that the deafening 'ping ping ping' every time they stop anywhere nearly drove me nuts on the day I decided to tour the whole system.

Still. as I understand it, NCC was keen to reduce car traffic etc., into the city., and trams were seen as one way to achieve that.

Seeing how passenger numbers seem to have increased year on year.. they may have been proven right.

So.. as to costs.  As I understand it, the Trams are based on a PFI financing deal....... not something I'd approve of, but at least it looks like NCC didn't stump up all the build/operating costs from Council Tax receipts.

 

So.. to 'operating losses'.  I emphasise that I have no strong opinion for or against the trams, but, just like all major public transport initiatives.. the value cannot be described simply in terms of operating costs'.  Traffic reductions, pollution reductions, the facilitation of increased  employment, business etc.. opportunies, all need to be factored in.

[Brew 5,422]

1 minute ago, DJ360 said:

She's taking the p***, but she's also taking advantage of legal rules which allow her to help people

 I inclined to  think she is more interested in helping her own ends rather then some poor unfortunate, Mother Teresa she 'aint.

With nothing to hide and everything to be proud of she would have stood her ground and told GBNews to go and do one! 

Isn't helping someone evade the law also called perverting...........

[DJ360 6,733]

I wouldn't argue with your first sentence.

GB News is a truly execrable channel in my view and I think their motives were simple racist/anti immigrant. Nothing as noble as defending the Law.

As for 'evading'..  No, I don't think so. She's helping people to exploit loopholes. Tax accountants do that all the time and it's perfectly legal.  It's called 'Tax Avoidance'.

Tax evasion on the other hand....

[Brew 5,422]

34 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I've had a look at that.  I have no strong view either way re: the Trams.

 

The trams and attendant looses were not the point, the utility to Nottingham will always be moot.

The losses over the last 19 years have been enormous. The money could have made a huge difference both to the city amenities an bank balance. As it is the city council is a hairs breadth away from special measures

 

Edit : the losses were of course very much the point...

[Brew 5,422]

Back to land prices it basically means it's open to negotiation and at the end of the day when push comes to shove they will use compulsory measures as per the HS2 and Crossrail.

Unless Jenrick gets his hands on it first of course.

 

---------------------

 

evading, avoiding, true enough but she's treading a very fine line

 

[DJ360 6,733]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

at the end of the day when push comes to shove they will use compulsory

 

Would that be Central or Local Govt.?

[Brew 5,422]

Notts county council, i think, has just used a comp order to acquire land for road improvements.

 

Value of the land taken

Valuation date

25. The legislation requires compensation claims to be assessed at a specific point of time called the ‘valuation date’. This is the earliest of:

the date of entry and taking possession if the acquiring authority has served a notice to treat and notice of entry; or

the vesting date if the acquiring authority has executed a general vesting declaration; or

the date when compensation is agreed if prior to either of the above

Market value

26. The law specifies that the compensation to be paid where land is compulsorily acquired shall reflect what that land might be expected to realise if it were sold in the open market by a willing seller at the valuation date. In other words, compensation is based on the market value of the land which is to be acquired.

27. However, the assessment of compensation ignores any increase or decrease in value caused by the acquiring authority’s proposed scheme (e.g. regeneration project, new road, railway line etc) or the prospect of that scheme. This is known as the ‘no scheme principle’. The basic premise is that compensation should reflect what your land would be worth if the scheme to which the CPO relates did not exist (i.e. in the ‘no scheme world’).

28. The acquiring authority will normally appoint a chartered surveyor to undertake the estimate of the market value. You may appoint a surveyor to carry out your own assessment and to negotiate with the acquiring authority on your behalf.

[letsavagoo 963]

I just wrote a long reply then realised I’m being drawn into posting on the political thread again so deleted it. Comparing Ms Ali’s conduct to tax avoidance and then saying the motives of the report were racist. Really!

 

[Brew 5,422]

2 hours ago, letsavagoo said:

I just wrote a long reply then realised I’m being drawn into posting on the political thread again so deleted it. Comparing Ms Ali’s conduct to tax avoidance and then saying the motives of the report were racist. Really!

 

 

Love the irony Lets...

 

I don't think either Col or I did any such thing. The reference to tax evasion/avoidance was merely to clarify the difference between the two words after I questioned whether she was close to evading due process - nothing to do with tax.

 

The comment about GBNews was in my view an opinion. Should you consider the word racist to be ill advised or controversial, then that is your opinion. I may or may not agree with it but as has been said repeatedly here, everyone has one and subject to law is free to express it.

 

But I've no doubt Col will speak for himself.

 

[DJ360 6,733]

There are I think two issues here.

 

1. What is Ms Ali doing and is it legal?

 

As far as I can tell, she is offering to help people to stay here, by exploiting 'legal loopholes'. As far as I know, that is not illegal, and even GBNews, I think, stopped short of accusing her of breaking the Law.

 

The fact that you or I, find her activities *(Insert suitable word of choice), is irrelevant to the legal position and yes.. what she is doing is similar to legal Tax Avoidance.  Exploiting the Law to get away with what can legally be got away with. The fact that she seems to be charging a standard fee of £1500, seems to me to support Jim's assertion that she is more interested in helping herself, than anyone else.

 

2. What was the GB News motivation for challenging Ms Ali in the street?

 

Well some might see GBNews activities as a 'public service'.  But I'm at a loss to understand what public benefit is derived from exposing this issue. 

She's offering legal services for a fee. Just like thousands of lawyers countrywide. 

Some, such as the defence Lawyers for criminals and murderers, might be seen as 'defending the indefensible' Some took a dislike to those lawyers who pronounced on Johnson's illegal 'prorogueing' of Parliament, whilst others praised them.. but at heart of it all is The Law, and if the Govt. of the day perceives that any Statute is open to abuse.. then it is up to them to fix it. It is not up to them or anybody else to blame those who exploit weaknesses in the Law.

 

It's not difficult to find GBNews articles based around the activities of Jenrick, for e.g. Yet I don't see GBNews pursuing him over the massive fraud he enabled whilst he was Housing Minister. Nor do I see them pursuing Lawyers who work on behalf of the very wealthy to ensure that they often pay little or no tax,, and all 'quite legal'.

 

So.. I'm still drawn to the view that the GBNews piece was inspired by their desire to constantly whip up the debate around immigration, by exploiting, and putting their own far right slant, on any related issue. The fact that Ms Ali is also clearly a muslim, just adds to the 'Dog Whistle' element of the GBNews piece.

 

*** At this point I see that Jim has responded too.  He's obviously more awake than me..

 

Finally. My take on GBNews is that it is a far right propaganda channel and as such is not worthy of the status of a genuine 'News' channel. It is more akin to the likes of 'Fox News' in the US, which constantly pushes a far right agenda.

It is also seemingly constantly under investigation by OFCOM for breaches of regulations around News Broadcasting.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_News

 

 

 

 

[letsavagoo 963]

Irony aside I disagree Brew. Col said

 

“She's helping people to exploit loopholes. Tax accountants do that all the time and it's perfectly legal. It's called 'Tax Avoidance'.”

 

I read that as comparing what Ms Ali is doing as no different to what lawyers do with tax avoidance. 
He may well be right. It’s the law that needs to change.

[Brew 5,422]

 

1 hour ago, letsavagoo said:

I read that as comparing what Ms Ali is doing as no different to what lawyers do with tax avoidance.

Well Col must speak for himself, but in terms of pure legality it's correct and without evidence to the contrary we have to accept her word for it.

 

I am at a loss as to quite what your point is. Several days ago as part of another post I included a criticism of those who put up legal challenges to every scheme the government comes up with. Reading back you made a similar comment so we seem to be broadly aligned on the subject if not in detail.

 

Are you defending GBNews and dislike the disparaging remarks made about them?

[letsavagoo 963]

20 hours ago, Brew said:

 

I don't think either Col or I did any such thing.

I disagreed as Col did say that to which you………

6 hours ago, Brew said:

Well Col must speak for himself, but in terms of pure legality it's correct and without evidence to the contrary we have to accept her word for it.

It seems you do you accept he did say that now.  
A difference is I’m sure those seeking tax avoidance pay their own legal fees and don’t use legal aid and aren’t encouraged or coached as to what to say. However I don’t think ‘morals’ and ‘lawyers’ fit in the same sentence very often. 
I think we are broadly in agreement. 

I wonder how many Ms Ali’s would work pro bono.

I don’t watch GB news so I have no view of them one way or other. No desire to defend or criticise them. The story was run by several news outlets.
Finally I was tempted to post the link to the video and it has created some interesting food for thought. As distasteful as I find it I concede that ‘factually’ tax avoidance is exploiting the legal loopholes as is the challenges to deportation. Just not on legal aid though. 
This was a rare excursion for me on the politics thread and the last for some time. 

[DJ360 6,733]

 

Lets, I think there was an element of gentle sarcasm in the opening to your first post on Ms Ali.

You opened with:

Quote

 

I said I wouldn’t post in this thread again but I just could resist this.

I think we all know that I rarely miss an opportunity to warn against the activities of the Labour lefties

 

 

Which I found amusing and took as a reference to this comment which I made in the 'Electric cars..etc' thread, last Thursday.

 

Quote

Thing is Lets.. I think we all know that I rarely miss an opportunity to warn against the activities of the Political Right Worldwide. The World is turning Right and Democracy is threatened everywhere.( I'll leave that discussion for the Politics thread) But.. when it comes to Climate Change, my comment wasn't just me being a 'Leftie', it was simply stating the political reality.

 

So, you found a 'lefty' stick with which to metaphorically beat me.. It's allowed..

 

I think between you, me and Jim, we've pretty much exhausted analysis of Ms Ali's activities and we seem to all now agree that what she is up to is somewhere between 'distasteful' and 'disgusting', but not illegal.

 

Next, we have the issue of Legal Aid.  I don't know the rules under which Ms Ali enables her 'clients' to access Legal Aid, but presumably she isn't breaking them, so, just like any 'Legal Loopholes' she employs, the fault, if any, lies with the Law and the state of our Legal System. I'm moved to ask once again whther GBNews expends equal energy in seeking out Lawyers who exploit other 'Legal Loopholes' on behalf of wealthy clients, using Legal Aid or not...

 

And also, as I understand it, Ms Ali is a Labour Councillor, but given her apparent 'opportunism' in cashing in on the 'misfortunes' of her clients.. I'd be bound to question the extent to which her Political standing is also just the result of 'opportunism'.

 

I don't subscribe to the view that 'The Left' is constantly frustrating the Govt. I'd argue that there are numerous people, including many of the Govt's own backbenchers, who are uncomfortable with this Govt's handling of the issue, and for many reasons.

The Law is the Law and as I've said many times previously, it seems to me to be somewhat puzzling that a Govt. with such a massive majority is unable to solve the one 'problem', which it constantly publicises. You'd think they'd want to keep their failure to control immigration quiet, but they seem to revel in the 'horror' of it all, whilst also repeatedly failing to emphasise that 'The Boats' represent only 3% of immigration.

As I've also repeatedly opined.. the immigration issue, and the presentation of it as a 'poor beleaguered Govt., fighting on several fronts' against determined 'lefty/woke/snowflake' opposition, .. is pure 'Politicking' and 'Dog Whistle' stuff.

 

Finally, although the Ms Ali story may have featured in several 'outlets', the original encounter was contrived and published by GBNews.

 

[Brew 5,422]

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Finally, although the Ms Ali story may have featured in several 'outlets', the original encounter was contrived and published by GBNews.

 

Would it be more relevant if they stumbled across the story by accident as per the Washington Post?

 

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

repeatedly failing to emphasise that 'The Boats' represent only 3% of immigration.

 

I've read this from you before Col, where  did you get 3% from? Gov data shows 46,000 as the number of boat people for 2022. If 46000 is 3% then the total is north of 1.5 Million!

[DJ360 6,733]

I'll look again Jim but 46000 is nearly 1000 per week, week in week out..

I got the 3% from a TV prog but don't recall which.

[Brew 5,422]

On 8/13/2023 at 5:52 PM, DJ360 said:

Actually, they do... but in a sneaky, subtle way.

Govt's decide what Local Authorities will be responsible for, and then decide how much money councils will get, both via controlling the Direct Grant, and by controlling  Council Tax.

 

I think you're wrong about the council tax Col. Councils have control, and keep the proceeds.

(Quote - LGA: A council tax is set by each individual authority and authorities are able to retain all of the funding raised from council tax in their area to support their budget).

 

 

[DJ360 6,733]

Not so sure I am Jim.

 

https://www.britpolitics.co.uk/a-level-politics-uk-central-government-controls/

 

Quote

 

Governments have continued to use powers to cap the Council Tax and, under the Coalition, every local authority was limited to Council Tax increases of 2% a year unless the electorate voted for a higher increase in a referendum. 

As part of plans to reduce the deficit, the Coalition and recent Conservative Governments, have made large reductions in the grant to local authorities. They have needed to cut back on almost all of their services.

 

 

The above admittedly only runs to 2010, but I am pretty sure Central Govt. retains the power to 'cap' Council Taxs and to take over councils it deems 'unfit'.

Similarly, I recall some issue fairly recently, where Central Govt 'gave permission' to Local Authorities to raise Council Tax to fund something or other. Can't recall what though.. maybe something to do with Covid? Dunno, but at the time it was widely seen as a 'stealth tax' and yet another case of Central (Tory) Govt., using LAs to manage Public Spending restrictions.

[Brew 5,422]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

The above admittedly only runs to 2010, but I am pretty sure Central Govt. retains the power to 'cap' Council Taxs and to take over councils it deems 'unfit'.

 Quote:  Local authorities, fire authorities, and Police and Crime Commissioners are required to determine whether the amount of council tax they plan to raise is 'excessive'. The Secretary of State sets thresholds of excessiveness, known as 'referendum principles', for different classes of authority,

 

Which seems perfectly reasonable to me or the more radical would introduce exorbitant rises. Within those limits councils can and do whatever they like.

Thus the Labour controlled Nottingham City Council decreed they would charge the second highest rates in the country with no government intervention. Without some sort of overarching restraint and the  huge financial mess they're in, it's anybody's guess how high the tax would go.

 

Lack of government interference or control also allowed them to misappropriate money for the social housing budget, and so badly screwed up the city's finances HMG have appointed an overseer. 

 

Quote: The unlawful spending of money which should have been saved for Nottingham City Council's housing is now predicted to eventually cost up to £51 million.

 

My original statement then seems borne out. Government determines how much (as you say), but councils say where, what and when. The government only steps in when the situation is not only out of control but also illegal.

[philmayfield 6,152]

 

Next May the citizens of Nottingham will have the opportunity to vote their council out. I bet they won't.

[Brew 5,422]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Dunno, but at the time it was widely seen as a 'stealth tax'

The term 'stealth tax' was first used against the Blair government when Brown made pension fund profits subject to tax and created the massive 'black holes' that means many pension are deep into into deficit.

Including the Nottingham City Pension scheme where one of the misappropriated monies from the social housing fund and elswhere was virtually the same amount as the pension fund deficit...

[Brew 5,422]

1 minute ago, philmayfield said:

 

Next May the citizens of Nottingham will have the opportunity to vote their council out. I bet they won't.

 

Why would they? £888.000.000 in debt and £1000,000 a WEEK they're paying in interest no problems!