The Labour Government

Manc in London said:
Some get discounts (is Council Tax Support). It is a statutory tax.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. I've worked in central Government for 45 years, dealing with the unemployed and people on low income. I understand that about 20 years ago people on benefits paid nothing towards CT, but now (for example) a single person on benefits in their own house has to pay about 20 quid a month. And I also understand how that might be hard for some people. Yet millions of unpaid CT doesn't come from them alone. And that's just Oldham.
So if it is illegal why aren't steps being taken?
It always used to be.
 
mackenzie said:
Yes, I know. I've worked in central Government for 45 years, dealing with the unemployed and people on low income. I understand that about 20 years ago people on benefits paid nothing towards CT, but now (for example) a single person on benefits in their own house has to pay about 20 quid a month. And I also understand how that might be hard for some people. Yet millions of unpaid CT doesn't come from them alone. And that's just Oldham.
So if it is illegal why aren't steps being taken?
It always used to be.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

CTS is quite a bit lower, although this varies by LA area.

The point I was initially making is that many people who were paying nothing / next to nothing pre 2012, are now paying full amounts.

Many have had real terms cuts in incomes, as you know from your extensive experience in the civil service. Plus,Council Tax rates have been rising higher than inflation for a decade or so.

Collection rates, to my knowledge, have decreased significantly. Unsurprising. Councils do take action via threats, debt collection agencies etc.. However, in most instances they are asking for money from people who often do not have a pot to piss in. Plus, councils are facing political pressure to tone down the use of court action and debt collection agencies. Many have set up emergency relief funds to assist those who have the least money.
 
Manc in London said:
Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

CTS is quite a bit lower, although this varies by LA area.

The point I was initially making is that many people who were paying nothing / next to nothing pre 2012, are now paying full amounts.

Many have had real terms cuts in incomes, as you know from your extensive experience in the civil service. Plus,Council Tax rates have been rising higher than inflation for a decade or so.

Collection rates, to my knowledge, have decreased significantly. Unsurprising. Councils do take action via threats, debt collection agencies etc.. However, in most instances they are asking for money from people who often do not have a pot to piss in. Plus, councils are facing political pressure to tone down the use of court action and debt collection agencies. Many have set up emergency relief funds to assist those who have the least money.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply, it's interesting and informative.. I'll come back to it and discuss soon.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Before the game starts, let this sink in for a moment: Apparently Starmer is concerned that Trump may effectively block the Chaos deal.

Why would anyone who was remotely patriotic, be concerned? He should be *delighted*, not concerned!

I get that he felt obliged to hand Chagos over due to the court’s advisory note. I don’t agree with that but I get it. But we should be handing it over reluctantly, not with glee. It should come as a relief if it is blocked.

This single act demonstrates Starmer is a traitor.
Click to expand...
Daftest post of the new year, in any thread.

A traitor for following legal advice on doing the right thing and giving up a bit of our overseas empire. You've lost it.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Before the game starts, let this sink in for a moment: Apparently Starmer is concerned that Trump may effectively block the Chaos deal.

Why would anyone who was remotely patriotic, be concerned? He should be *delighted*, not concerned!

I get that he felt obliged to hand Chagos over due to the court’s advisory note. I don’t agree with that but I get it. But we should be handing it over reluctantly, not with glee. It should come as a relief if it is blocked.

This single act demonstrates Starmer is a traitor.
Click to expand...
Or, another way of putting it Chippers.

Starmer is concerned that a foreign power, is trying by force, to overthrow our lawful decision to hand over a bit of the old empire.

This single act proves he is following the democratic principles this country adheres to.

Which do you think is closer to the truth?
 
BridgyDids said:
Or, another way of putting it Chippers.

Starmer is concerned that a foreign power, is trying by force, to overthrow our lawful decision to hand over a bit of the old empire.

This single act proves he is following the democratic principles this country adheres to.

Which do you think is closer to the truth?
Click to expand...
My version is OBVIOUSLY the truth.

1. Mauritius has NEVER owned the Chagos Islands
2. Chagos is 1000+ miles from Mauritius. IIRC it's nearer to the Maldives and the Seychelles
3. The court ruling was ADVISORY and has no legal bearing upon us whatsoever
4. Where is the Chargassian's preferences in all this. Why does Starmer say the future of Greenland MUST be entirely up to the Greenlanders, whereas the Chargassian's can just suck it up?
5. Why are we PAYING vast sums to hand over OUR island? For Fucks Sake. We should be charging THEM.
6. Mauritius has close ties with China yet under the proposed agreement, we would have to notify them of planned military activities - a serious security risk.

No mate, the evidence is clear. Starmer is extremely keen to act NOT in the interests of the United Kingdom. Given his former Trotskyte mindset, I would not even be shocked if it transpires he's in the pocket of China.

If his motivations were the best interests of the UK then OBVIOUSLY he would be delighted to see the Chagos deal scrapped. Any patriot would.
 
Vic said:
Daftest post of the new year, in any thread.

A traitor for following legal advice on doing the right thing and giving up a bit of our overseas empire. You've lost it.
Click to expand...
Legal advice from whom Vic? You're a reliable idiot, I'll give you that. The court ruling has no jurisdiction over the UK - as you probably know but decided to overlook.

And you're trying to claim we should be KEEN to hand over the islands, EVEN IF the law says we don't need to do, and in fact there is perhaps a contractual commitment with the US that we cannot.

I can see where YOU'RE coming from.
 
Vic said:
How many?

Or is this another baseless comment?
Click to expand...
The Eye consistently publishes the councils where individual councillors are in arrears. I suspect it covers every party represented across the kingdom. Difficult to get a piece of arithmetic but I can't see The Eye printing the info without some base to it!
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
My version is OBVIOUSLY the truth.

1. Mauritius has NEVER owned the Chagos Islands
2. Chagos is 1000+ miles from Mauritius. IIRC it's nearer to the Maldives and the Seychelles
3. The court ruling was ADVISORY and has no legal bearing upon us whatsoever
4. Where is the Chargassian's preferences in all this. Why does Starmer say the future of Greenland MUST be entirely up to the Greenlanders, whereas the Chargassian's can just suck it up?
5. Why are we PAYING vast sums to hand over OUR island? For Fucks Sake. We should be charging THEM.
6. Mauritius has close ties with China yet under the proposed agreement, we would have to notify them of planned military activities - a serious security risk.

No mate, the evidence is clear. Starmer is extremely keen to act NOT in the interests of the United Kingdom. Given his former Trotskyte mindset, I would not even be shocked if it transpires he's in the pocket of China.

If his motivations were the best interests of the UK then OBVIOUSLY he would be delighted to see the Chagos deal scrapped. Any patriot would.
Click to expand...
So, you are a fan of an unelected foreign power ruling over our courts (whether advisory or not)?

Well, colour me shocked.

The rest is utter nonsense - constant non-sequitur, based off of GB News ragebait (at best).
 
Chippy_boy said:
My version is OBVIOUSLY the truth.

1. Mauritius has NEVER owned the Chagos Islands
2. Chagos is 1000+ miles from Mauritius. IIRC it's nearer to the Maldives and the Seychelles
3. The court ruling was ADVISORY and has no legal bearing upon us whatsoever
4. Where is the Chargassian's preferences in all this. Why does Starmer say the future of Greenland MUST be entirely up to the Greenlanders, whereas the Chargassian's can just suck it up?
5. Why are we PAYING vast sums to hand over OUR island? For Fucks Sake. We should be charging THEM.
6. Mauritius has close ties with China yet under the proposed agreement, we would have to notify them of planned military activities - a serious security risk.

No mate, the evidence is clear. Starmer is extremely keen to act NOT in the interests of the United Kingdom. Given his former Trotskyte mindset, I would not even be shocked if it transpires he's in the pocket of China.

If his motivations were the best interests of the UK then OBVIOUSLY he would be delighted to see the Chagos deal scrapped. Any patriot would.
Click to expand...
So why did the Tories initiate the deal that until last week Trump liked?

Starmer as a Trotskyite? Yes, you've lost it.

politicsuk.com

The Chagos Deal: A Factual Breakdown - Politics UK

The transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius is not a sudden policy shift by the current government but the conclusion of a multi-year
politicsuk.com politicsuk.com
 
Vic said:
So why did the Tories initiate the deal that until last week Trump liked?

Starmer as a Trotskyite? Yes, you've lost it.

politicsuk.com

The Chagos Deal: A Factual Breakdown - Politics UK

The transfer of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius is not a sudden policy shift by the current government but the conclusion of a multi-year
politicsuk.com politicsuk.com
Click to expand...
Answer: Because they were a very poor government that got lots of things wrong and made some very poor judgements.

And regards the absolute tosser you are always desperate to defend,

1769763466053.jpeg
 
BridgyDids said:
So, you are a fan of an unelected foreign power ruling over our courts (whether advisory or not)?

Well, colour me shocked.

The rest is utter nonsense - constant non-sequitur, based off of GB News ragebait (at best).
Click to expand...
No, I am supportive of us not paying another country to take our own sovereign property off us. Der.

And regards the rest of your post, you clearly cannot counter any of my points with any actual argument. QED.

I find it amusing that the various Starmer / Labour apologists on here tie themselves in such knots trying to endlessly defend the indefensible.

Just on this one topic for example, a legally binding commitment we have we the US to *not* sell Chagos should be ignored; a court with no legal jurisdiction over us, their opinion *must* be obeyed. The people of Chagos can have *no say* in which nation they should be part of; the people of Greenland should be *the only* people who should decide who they should be part of.

Such nonsense is commonplace on here when you try to defend lunacy.

Even putting all of this lunacy aside, why on earth have we agreed to PAY Mauritius in order to give them something? Even if I accept that we should hand Mauritius over (which clearly we do not) it is at the very least incompetent and piss poor negotiation.
 
Last edited:
metalblue said:
Imagine being a Labour MP having to defend government policy only for them to u turn. What’s that 14 now?

news.sky.com

Pubs and music venues to be handed business rates relief after government U-turn

Treasury minister Dan Tomlinson says pubs are a special case, but there's fury more widely over the further squeeze on bottom lines as costs facing businesses continue to grow.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

This didn’t age well…
View attachment 181852
Click to expand...
I don't see why ' u turns' are a bad thing. At least the govt are listening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top