Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
cheers mate
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So what was the outcome, Keith, did DDC and any other district councils manage to obtain from central Government any concessions for keeping a higher proportion of council tax?
Or did Gov. say: No!
Perhaps you could explain some details and the outcomes, Keith.
That I know of, the Government always declines to allow local Councils, District or County, to increase their revenue income.
Any attempt by councils to have a higher proportion of local revenue, be it from council tax or from any other local income (not just council tax), always receives a cold shoulder from the Cabinet.
Which proves my point that we live under a Dictatorship of the few in the Cabinet.
And it's probably the reason why 90% of party members have abandoned political parties over the past few decades.
Because only a few make any policy decisions.
And they won't listen to what other people say, even if they are party members, or councillors, or anyone for that matter.
Or can you prove the opposite, Keith, that you and others have been listened to in the Government?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Even Barryw would probably agree with me(maybe even watty lol) The least amount of interference from central govt has been lobbied for by the Local Govt Assoc, but govts dont like to give up there powers/dosh.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Yes Keith.
The only way for local government to shake off central government is for it to be given the ability to raise all its spending with nothing coming from the centre,
Business rates should be the first to be kept locally where it is raised. I would suggest a county based (or large City outside the counties) sales tax to replace VAT. That should be enough for councils to raise their own dosh with no support from the centre. A few areas might have a problem and will need transitional support.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
note
barryw and keith agree lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the problem would then be that dover district is a low rate council, so others like shepway and canterbury would have more money to play with.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Thats the point baz was making
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
"The only way for local government to shake off central government is for it to be given the ability to raise all its spending with nothing coming from the centre"
This is the essence - in equivalent words - of my second thread on Dover Forum in 2010, about the economy, and has been a standard stance of mine throughout ever since.
And it's part of my standing policy for Britain's future Economy.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
barry only referred to transitional support so the next logical step would be for ddc to raise council tax to the levels of neighbouring local authorities.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not necessarily - it would help if DDC were able to keep all the business rates collected in the district Howard. Dover is not one of the areas where transitional help would be needed, these would be the more deprived inner city areas. There was a report out back in about 2005 that looked at all this.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Cut the crap.........East Kent Council..............simples.............
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Going by 2010 data, Dover District's income, including business rates and council tax, was about £27 million a year, but a lot more goes to the central Treasury (the "Government") than comes back.
This was explained to me in 2010 at a DDC meeting for prospect councillors.
Consequently, DDC would have no need to raise council tax, but could actually reduce it significantly, if districts didn't need to hand over almost all the money to the nanny state, just to get three pennies and a pittance back in return.
And the figure mentioned above doesn't include income tax, fuel tax, VAT and so many other taxes collected in Dover District.
WE ARE BEING RIPPED OFF!
The central Government then goes and flings the money gathered from all districts and counties, flinging it far and wide, to Brussels, and to pay off interest on the Public Debt, on quangos, on Job Centre staff and on the NHS, to cater for the millions of unemployed victims of an insane central governing policy, victims who depend on benefits to survive.
As a result, local Government is not held accountable for the immense money-squandering done by the centralised Soviet-style system, there is no curb on mass immigration, and the costs of NHS and education and housing benefits and job-seekers allowances and child allowances for millions of people and their dog from all and sundry just sky-rocket.
The Chancellor just borrows more money to equalise the "balance" sheet, or gets the Bank of England to print a few more tens of billions of pounds. Job done.
What we need is local Government receiving all its own revenues - and responsible for all benefits paid - in its own administrative area, receiving nothing from the central Treasury and in return keeping a higher proportion of taxes collected locally.
And very importantly, local Government WOULD NOT under any circumstance be allowed to accumulate debt of any sort, nor print its own money or bonds or any paper values.
All this would bring about accountability, our social services would not be open to everyone from everywhere in the world, and local jobs would be created and given to local people for whom the local Government would otherwise have to pay benefits FROM OUR LOCAL TAXES.
The employers would be held accountable if they turned down local people for no acceptable reason, and made to pay the outstanding bills for benefits and social services in a proportionate measure.
And we wouldn't be paying a penny to the EU, and our manufacture would be made in Britain, not in China or India, except for Chinese vases and Indian teak ornaments, which are typically not made in Britain.
We would not be importing manufacture from countries, such as India, that have "Clarks" written underneath the sole, or "Wedgewood" printed on the box.
Our trousers would be made in the UK, not China, and so, if a war broke out and all trade stopped flowing, we wouldn't suddenly find ourselves running around without trousers.
The current situation will not last long, it has to change.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Maybe I could make a few observations on the last post;
Whilst I'm not into world affairs, or even how the UK trades, but I suspect from what I do read that we export as much as we import, trade wise, and If we took Alexander at his word and stopped imports only having british goods, the idea is applaudable, but probably unworkable, there are a number of reasons for this;
1; We dont produce a lot of these goods
2; if we stopped say, china trading in the UK surely they would say, well ok guv you aint sending your goods here either
this probably would result in UK job losses?
We do depend on trade going both ways??
Dosh wise, everyone supports decisions being made as local as possible, unfortunatly all govts are control freaks not wanting
to give away to much control.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You are correct Keith.
Trade is the life-blood of the UK and we depend on it. Protectionism does not work, we have seen how economically damaging that can be in the past.. We must have open markets to survive and prosper.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Barryw
I have framed that last comment lol
the first 4 words I nearly fell out of my chair lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
we are and have been for many decades a nett importer.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well i hope the NETT is of good quality lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,no its gross.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My future UK Economy policy is based on principles:
firstly, imports of manufacture that were typically made in Britain until a few decades ago, are manufactured out of principle in low-wage countries, where the average workers' wage is a fraction of the UK workers' wage.
This is NOT fair trade.
Some countries, in particular India, even use child slave labour in their factories, where children are sold to factories.
This is NOT fair trade.
(I'm not suggesting that this is always the case in India, but it is something that is there, and is documented as relatively wide-spread).
British factory workers have been laid off in mass so the production could be out-sourced to China and India, and to some other low-wage countries. And millions of young people here have no chance of entering these manufacturing sectors.
This creates mass unemployment and poverty at home, and costs the Country tens of billions of pounds a year on unemployment and housing benefits.
We have a trade deficit that is drying us out financially, and millions of young unemployed people who have no - or scant - work experience because of the current UNFAIR trading policies.
I have not said that there would be NO TRADE with other countries, but that it must be FAIR.
My Economy policies are those which will prevail, the present system will go bankrupt and come to an end.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,you have to much time on your hands,i hear that the humber bridge needs repainting.