The Conservative Party

doesn't happen now - spent weeks trying to get through to someone at HMRC - they say I am due a rebate but I am not sure - in the end I have just accepted their decision
VAT/tax people in HMRC have always been very helpful to me when I've called.
Took you weeks now? Think it would be better or worse if offshore?

Calling Hyderabad wouldn't fill me with confidence.
Civil service 475,000 employees
HMRC 90,000+ employees
DWP 60,000+ employees
If you're going to lose up to 91,000 then easy to see the likely targets.
 
VAT/tax people in HMRC have always been very helpful to me when I've called.
Took you weeks now? Think it would be better or worse if offshore?

Calling Hyderabad wouldn't fill me with confidence.
Civil service 475,000 employees
HMRC 90,000+ employees
DWP 60,000+ employees
If you're going to lose up to 91,000 then easy to see the likely targets.

Yeah - I wasn't on the blower 24/7honestly but at least one call every day - got through to the stupid automated press 1, 2 or 3 answering bit but could never actually speak to a person. And no of course I don't think it will be any good outsourced in the UK or abroad - I still doubt it will happen I just think its todays dead cat
 
Today in the Express the spiteful Carole Malone's column is entitled " Our fat cat GP's do they even care about us anymore" - didn't click on it and won't post it because I don't want to give that harridan any more publicity but you can see the culture war's next victims - I do hope that she can no longer get any GP care in the UK as a result
The right wing press already tried to use teachers like canaries in a mine right at the height of Covid...

CE7B29A4-C794-47A6-A44A-2D52194EEF60.jpeg
 
This crisis must’ve confirmed to all how this country now treats those in trouble, even if themselves backed the system.

Probably my last post in this area as the disgusting behaviour by this government is not worth mentioning, let alone debating.

No defence, for them or you.
 
This crisis must’ve confirmed to all how this country now treats those in trouble, even if themselves backed the system.

Probably my last post in this area as the disgusting behaviour by this government is not worth mentioning, let alone debating.

No defence, for them or you.
You must keep mentioning it - they are desperate to stifle political debate, we must keep the level of awareness up and keep reminding people of what’s being done to them and why.
 
Sorry about the bandwith, but below is just clause 98 of the Levelling Up bill. We have 38 bills in the Queen's Speech - not all as convoluted as this, but there's a price for all this tinkering to make things worse. How many civil servants were needed to draft 325 pages like this?


98 Minor variations in planning permission

(1)
TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 73A insert—
73B Applications for permission substantially the same as existing permission

(1) An application for planning permission in respect of land in England
is to be determined in accordance with this section if the applicant—
(a) requests that it be so determined,
(b) makes a proposal as to the conditions (if any) subject to which permission should be granted, and
(c) identifies an existing planning permission by reference to which the application is to be considered (“the existing permission”).

(2) The existing permission must not have been granted—
(a) under section 73, section 73A or this section, or
(b) other than on application.

(3) The applicant may also identify, for the purposes of an application to
be determined in accordance with this section, a planning permission—
a) that was granted under section 73 or this section by reference
to the existing permission, or
(b) that forms part of a sequence of planning permissions granted under section 73 or this section, the first of which was granted by reference to the existing permission.

(4) A development order must set out how an applicant is to do as mentioned in subsections (1) and (3).

(5) Planning permission may be granted in accordance with this section only if the local planning authority is satisfied that its effect will not be substantially different from that of the existing permission.

(6) Planning permission may not be granted in accordance with this section in a way that differs from the existing permission as to the time by which a condition requires—
(a) development to be started, or
(b) an application for approval of reserved matters (within the
meaning of section 92) to be made.

(7) In determining an application in accordance with this section, the local
planning authority must limit its consideration to those respects in
which the permission being applied for would, if granted in accordance
with the proposal under subsection (1)(b), differ in effect from—
(a) the existing permission, and
(b) each planning permission (if any) identified in accordance with
subsection (3).
Section 70(2) is subject to this subsection.

(8) If the local planning authority decides not to grant planning permission
in accordance with this section, it must refuse the application.

(9) For the purposes of this section, the effect of a planning permission
is to be assessed by reference to both the development it authorises
and any conditions to which it is subject.

(10) In assessing the effect of an existing planning permission for the
purposes of subsection (5) (but not for the purposes of subsection (7)),
any change to the permission made under section 96A is to be
disregarded.

(11) The following provisions apply in relation to the condition under
paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A (biodiversity gain condition)—
(a) nothing in this section authorises the disapplication of the
condition
(b) the condition is to be disregarded for the purposes of
subsections (1)(b), (5) and (7);
(c) where—
(i) the existing planning permission is subject to the
condition,
(ii) a biodiversity gain plan (“the earlier biodiversity gain
plan”) was approved for the purposes of the condition
as it attaches to that permission,
(iii) planning permission is granted in accordance with this
section, and
(iv) that planning permission is consistent with the
post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat
as specified in the earlier biodiversity gain plan,
the earlier biodiversity gain plan is to be regarded as approved
for the purposes of the condition as it attaches to the planning
permission granted in accordance with this section.

(12) In relation to an application for planning permission that is made to, or is to be determined by, the Secretary of State, a reference in this section to the local planning authority is to be read as a reference to the Secretary of State.

(13) The preceding provisions of this section apply in relation to an application for permission in principle as if—
(a) each reference to planning permission were a reference to
permission in principle, and
(b) the provisions of this section relating to conditions were
omitted.

(14) Permission in principle granted in accordance with this section is to be taken, for the purposes of section 70(2ZZC), as having come into force when the existing permission in principle identified under subsection (1)(c) came into force.”

(3) In section 62A(2) (applications that may be made directly to the Secretary of State), after “73(1)” insert “, an application that is to be determined in accordance with section 73B”.

(4) In section 70A (power to decline to determine application similar to an earlier one)—
(a) in subsection (8), for “subsection (9)” substitute “subsections (9) to (11)”;
(b) at the end insert—
“(10) An application that is to be determined in accordance with
section 73B is not similar to an earlier application that was not
determined in accordance with that section.
(11) An application that is to be determined in accordance with
section 73B is similar to an earlier application that was
determined in accordance with that section only if the local
planning authority think that the difference of effect referred
to in subsection (7) of that section is (both in kind and in degree) the same or substantially the same in the case of both applications.”

(5) In section 70B (power to decline to determine application similar to a pending one)—
(a) in subsection (5), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsections (5A) and (5B),”;
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) An application that is to be determined in accordance with section 73B is not similar to another application that is not to be determined in accordance with that section.
(5B) An application that is to be determined in accordance with section 73B is similar to another application that is to be determined in accordance with that section only if the local planning authority think that the difference of effect referred to in subsection (7) of that section is (both in kind and in degree) the same or substantially the same in the case of both
applications.”
Sounds quite reasonable.
What's the problem?

;-)
 
This 91,000 reduction in the civil service (or up to 91,000) is a set up for another con.

Somewhere like HMRC or DWP where you need to speak to someone for help?
Imagine it will be answered by a call centre in India.
Or speak face to face?
A zoom call to the zoom centre.

The process designed by a consulting company, probably one where ex-ministers take an advisory role.

Perhaps the call/zoom centre set up and run by a company such as Infosys, you know, the company owned by Mrs Sunak's dad.

A winning plan, works well for all those banks and airlines and utility companies.

Maybe just a coincidence that Boris was in India a couple of weeks ago.
Its just another plan to hammer pensions
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.