|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 12, 2024 20:56:13 GMT
see
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 21:43:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 22:02:23 GMT
Nay govt gives a screw about Stoke. Its a tragedy it really is. So much promise Stoke has location wise. A main line, on the M6. Sandwiched between no2 and no3 UK cities and still it flounders. It needs a champion. A planning visionary to turn it round. They'd go down in fucking history and be up there with Wedgwood and the likes as a local historical legend.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 13, 2024 22:06:38 GMT
Nay govt gives a screw about Stoke. Its a tragedy it really is. So much promise Stoke has location wise. A main line, on the M6. Sandwiched between no2 and no3 UK cities and still it flounders. It needs a champion. A planning visionary to turn it round. They'd go down in fucking history and be up there with Wedgwood and the likes as a local historical legend. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, none of them could care less about this city. They want your vote, they don't want to represent you. That's the long and the short of it.
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 13, 2024 22:16:58 GMT
Nay govt gives a screw about Stoke. Its a tragedy it really is. So much promise Stoke has location wise. A main line, on the M6. Sandwiched between no2 and no3 UK cities and still it flounders. It needs a champion. A planning visionary to turn it round. They'd go down in fucking history and be up there with Wedgwood and the likes as a local historical legend. It really doesn't matter who you vote for, none of them could care less about this city. They want your vote, they don't want to represent you. That's the long and the short of it. I've spent most of my adult life in Manchester and my move here coincided with the rise of Howard Bernstein as council leader of Manchester. He was like Midas. An almost mythical character as someone working in the construction game with various of the national housebuilders. Now I know he probably wasn't the most honest of operators. Lots of rumours etc, but the way he changed the course of a stagnant underperforming city is the stuff of absolute legend in my opinion. Stoke needs one of him.....
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 14, 2024 7:53:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 14, 2024 12:04:36 GMT
Always worth remembering that the government will need to make sure that it uses the time between now and the 2025 Spending Review well if it is to deliver on public services. The performance of public services (and its chances of re-election) – depend on it.: - The government substantially increased spending on public services: the growth in day-to-day spending between 2023/24 and 2025/26 is more generous than any recent fiscal event, and of any of Blair and Brown’s spending reviews except 2002.
- The government avoided making cuts to unprotected departments by increasing the overall spending envelope, with justice and local government being the largest winners relative to previous plans.
- Capital spending is growing more quickly than day-to-day spending – a marked change in approach that should improve productivity over the long term.
- Given deep-seated issues in many services, growing demand and the effects of NIC and national living wage rises, it is unlikely that there will be a notable improvement in performance in 2025/26. But service quality and access should not decline substantially, with the possible exception of criminal courts, where case backlogs are likely to grow further.
- Spending is heavily front-loaded. Current plans beyond 2025/26 once again imply cuts to unprotected departments, which will make it difficult for some services – local government and the criminal justice system in particular – to improve before the next election.
(https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/impact-labour-first-budget-public-services)
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 14, 2024 12:40:20 GMT
The vast majority of Public Service Pensions are Defined Benefit. Could you explain why Reeves proposal affects this in any way?
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 14, 2024 13:35:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 14, 2024 14:17:57 GMT
The first paragraph in your link clearly says that Starmer said he would freeze it for one year due to cost of living crisis If people misinterpret what he said that's hardly his problem and Badenock is being disingenuous The Conservatives certainly didn't as they called it out at the time. The Tories say the commitment ‘isn’t worth the paper it’s written on’ because Labour has no plans to introduce it if in power.
But he has not committed to freezing council tax in the future if he can form a Labour government after the next election, expected next year.
The Conservatives said that means the pledge “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”, pointing to Labour councils having increased their tax in line with others.
Defending his pledge, Sir Keir told broadcasters during a campaign visit to Plymouth that the Tories could go forward with the policy to ease the cost-of-living crisis.
“Because if the Government said we’ll match Labour and have a freeze on council tax for the next year, we would obviously vote for it. The money is available. And if the Government was serious about dealing with the cost of living, they would take this Labour idea and run with it.” www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-conservatives-government-greg-hands-plymouth-b1071451.html
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 14, 2024 14:37:24 GMT
The first paragraph in your link clearly says that Starmer said he would freeze it for one year due to cost of living crisis If people misinterpret what he said that's hardly his problem and Badenock is being disingenuous The Conservatives certainly didn't as they called it out at the time. The Tories say the commitment ‘isn’t worth the paper it’s written on’ because Labour has no plans to introduce it if in power.
But he has not committed to freezing council tax in the future if he can form a Labour government after the next election, expected next year.
The Conservatives said that means the pledge “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”, pointing to Labour councils having increased their tax in line with others.
Defending his pledge, Sir Keir told broadcasters during a campaign visit to Plymouth that the Tories could go forward with the policy to ease the cost-of-living crisis.
“Because if the Government said we’ll match Labour and have a freeze on council tax for the next year, we would obviously vote for it. The money is available. And if the Government was serious about dealing with the cost of living, they would take this Labour idea and run with it.” www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-conservatives-government-greg-hands-plymouth-b1071451.htmlWhy spout performative bollocks in the first place, other than to provide headlines to get elected on, is what I should have said.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 14, 2024 14:58:20 GMT
The first paragraph in your link clearly says that Starmer said he would freeze it for one year due to cost of living crisis If people misinterpret what he said that's hardly his problem and Badenock is being disingenuous The Conservatives certainly didn't as they called it out at the time. The Tories say the commitment ‘isn’t worth the paper it’s written on’ because Labour has no plans to introduce it if in power.
But he has not committed to freezing council tax in the future if he can form a Labour government after the next election, expected next year.
The Conservatives said that means the pledge “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”, pointing to Labour councils having increased their tax in line with others.
Defending his pledge, Sir Keir told broadcasters during a campaign visit to Plymouth that the Tories could go forward with the policy to ease the cost-of-living crisis.
“Because if the Government said we’ll match Labour and have a freeze on council tax for the next year, we would obviously vote for it. The money is available. And if the Government was serious about dealing with the cost of living, they would take this Labour idea and run with it.” www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-conservatives-government-greg-hands-plymouth-b1071451.htmlWhy spout performative bollocks in the first place, other than to provide headlines to get elected on, is what I should have said. It's what Politicians do and they usually choose their words carefully
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 14, 2024 15:37:45 GMT
Why spout performative bollocks in the first place, other than to provide headlines to get elected on, is what I should have said. It's what Politicians do and they usually choose their words carefully Let me introduce you to Mr Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Matt Hancock, George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn.......
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Nov 14, 2024 17:45:52 GMT
Do we really want pension funds 'investing' in UK infrastructure when our track record of delivering such things on time and in budget is absolutely dog shit?
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 14, 2024 19:26:30 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4ld4evq3oThurrock Council said it put money into more than 50 energy generating sites which turned out to be worth far less than it believed, costing an estimated £200m. The dispute is with the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) which valued the assets, of which the Preston authority is a member. Thurrock is threatening to take legal action against 23 councils across the country as it tries to recoup £50m of its losses, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said. If Thurrock is successful and each of the 23 councils sued had to pay an equal share, Preston would have to pay almost £2.2m, just under 10% of its annual day-to-day £23.7m revenue budget. Thurrock Council leader John Kent said the authority would leave no stone unturned in its attempts to recover public money that was lost through its "well-publicised poor investments". What could possibly go wrong by using pension funds to do this on a mega scale?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 14, 2024 19:41:52 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4ld4evq3oThurrock Council said it put money into more than 50 energy generating sites which turned out to be worth far less than it believed, costing an estimated £200m. The dispute is with the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) which valued the assets, of which the Preston authority is a member. Thurrock is threatening to take legal action against 23 councils across the country as it tries to recoup £50m of its losses, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said. If Thurrock is successful and each of the 23 councils sued had to pay an equal share, Preston would have to pay almost £2.2m, just under 10% of its annual day-to-day £23.7m revenue budget. Thurrock Council leader John Kent said the authority would leave no stone unturned in its attempts to recover public money that was lost through its "well-publicised poor investments". What could possibly go wrong by using pension funds to do this on a mega scale? Cool story bro but this has nothing to do with Pension Funds Thurrock Council went on a mad borrowing spree of £1Bn from up to 150 other Councils and made some questionable investment decisions. It's a familiar tale of many Councils unfortunately It resembled a Ponzi scheme as it took out some loans to repay interest on other loans. Crazy stuff www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-11-12/thurrock-crisis-this-is-a-bizarre-twist-to-the-solar-farm-scandal/
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 14, 2024 20:04:26 GMT
Do we really want pension funds 'investing' in UK infrastructure when our track record of delivering such things on time and in budget is absolutely dog shit? Got to bail out HS2 somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 14, 2024 21:55:27 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy4ld4evq3oThurrock Council said it put money into more than 50 energy generating sites which turned out to be worth far less than it believed, costing an estimated £200m. The dispute is with the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) which valued the assets, of which the Preston authority is a member. Thurrock is threatening to take legal action against 23 councils across the country as it tries to recoup £50m of its losses, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said. If Thurrock is successful and each of the 23 councils sued had to pay an equal share, Preston would have to pay almost £2.2m, just under 10% of its annual day-to-day £23.7m revenue budget. Thurrock Council leader John Kent said the authority would leave no stone unturned in its attempts to recover public money that was lost through its "well-publicised poor investments". What could possibly go wrong by using pension funds to do this on a mega scale? Cool story bro but this has nothing to do with Pension Funds Thurrock Council went on a mad borrowing spree of £1Bn from up to 150 other Councils and made some questionable investment decisions. It's a familiar tale of many Councils unfortunately It resembled a Ponzi scheme as it took out some loans to repay interest on other loans. Crazy stuff www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-11-12/thurrock-crisis-this-is-a-bizarre-twist-to-the-solar-farm-scandal/I didn't say it was, per se, Wankabee. Please do not quote me again as I have no interest in responding to your shit any further.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 14, 2024 22:07:15 GMT
I didn't say it was, per se, Wankabee. Please do not quote me again as I have no interest in responding to your shit any further. Per se means something that is inherently true on its own merit, your post clearly wasn't which was why I corrected it Feel free to use the ignore function if you wish, i won't be offended, but if you post further rubbish I'll correct it irrespective of whether you learn by reading it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Nov 14, 2024 22:08:52 GMT
I didn't say it was, per se, Wankabee. Please do not quote me again as I have no interest in responding to your shit any further. Per se means something that is inherently true on its own merit, your post clearly wasn't which was why I corrected it Feel free to use the ignore function if you wish, i won't be offended, but if you post further rubbish I'll correct it irrespective of whether you learn by reading it or not. Blocked
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 14, 2024 22:15:41 GMT
I didn't say it was, per se, Wankabee. Please do not quote me again as I have no interest in responding to your shit any further. Per se means something that is inherently true on its own merit, your post clearly wasn't which was why I corrected it Feel free to use the ignore function if you wish, i won't be offended, but if you post further rubbish I'll correct it irrespective of whether you learn by reading it or not. Jeez. You remind me of someone else…..
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 14, 2024 22:23:37 GMT
Per se means something that is inherently true on its own merit, your post clearly wasn't which was why I corrected it Feel free to use the ignore function if you wish, i won't be offended, but if you post further rubbish I'll correct it irrespective of whether you learn by reading it or not. Jeez. You remind me of someone else….. Who’s that then?🤔😉
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 14, 2024 22:25:17 GMT
Per se means something that is inherently true on its own merit, your post clearly wasn't which was why I corrected it Feel free to use the ignore function if you wish, i won't be offended, but if you post further rubbish I'll correct it irrespective of whether you learn by reading it or not. Jeez. You remind me of someone else….. Pray tell whom, better yet why
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 14, 2024 23:27:23 GMT
Do we really want pension funds 'investing' in UK infrastructure when our track record of delivering such things on time and in budget is absolutely dog shit? I'm all for increasing investment in the UK, but think you have a very valid point. In my experience when politicians and civil servants get involved in business they generally make a hash of it. There are repeated calls for businesses to be taken into public ownership, but I remember how it was with British Railways, British Road Services, the Gas Board, the Water Board, the Electricity Board, National Coal Board, British Steel Corporation, British Leyland, etc. etc. People point the finger at the poor water companies' environmental performance, but that is because successive governments fail to regulate and control. The only efficient nationalised business that actually works well is the royal family. The Crown has assets of over £15 billion which are publicly owned and the profits of over £300 m go to the government, part of which is returned to the monarch to "run the business". fullfact.org/online/royal-family-320-million-taxpayer/Before Thatcher sold them off, nationalised industries were costing the UK tax payer a fortune. Gordon Brown destroyed final salary pension schemes (except for government employees) and I hope this government isn't going to finish the job.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 15, 2024 0:23:51 GMT
Do we really want pension funds 'investing' in UK infrastructure when our track record of delivering such things on time and in budget is absolutely dog shit? I'm all for increasing investment in the UK, but think you have a very valid point. In my experience when politicians and civil servants get involved in business they generally make a hash of it. There are repeated calls for businesses to be taken into public ownership, but I remember how it was with British Railways, British Road Services, the Gas Board, the Water Board, the Electricity Board, National Coal Board, British Steel Corporation, British Leyland, etc. etc. People point the finger at the poor water companies' environmental performance, but that is because successive governments fail to regulate and control. The only efficient nationalised business that actually works well is the royal family. The Crown has assets of over £15 billion which are publicly owned and the profits of over £300 m go to the government, part of which is returned to the monarch to "run the business". fullfact.org/online/royal-family-320-million-taxpayer/Before Thatcher sold them off, nationalised industries were costing the UK tax payer a fortune. Gordon Brown destroyed final salary pension schemes (except for government employees) and I hope this government isn't going to finish the job. Your original point is totally invalid because there is no intention for Politicians or Civil Servants becoming involved in Investment decisions of Pension Funds The point is that if 10 Pension Funds with say £1Bn of funds under management amalgamate then via economies of scale they become a) more efficient and b) able to participate in larger projects It is quite obvious that 10 individual Funds need to employ at least one Fund Manager and one Investment Manager plus the ancillary administration staff. A combined Fund of £10Bn can attract one high calibre Fund Manager and Investment Manager rather than 10 Fund Managers and Investment Manager, plus the ancillary staff are not a multiple of 10. With regard to your second point on Charlie's Crown Estates being economically efficient it is complete nonsense. A Return on Assets ROA of 2% £300M/£15Bn is an appalling return, the minimum expectation in Business would be 5% and up to 20%. But it really is academic to Charlie because he got a sweetheart deal from Cameron that not only preserves and increases his Capital base there is no incentive to live in the Real World, which of course he doesn't. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/how-tory-royal-funding-deal-gave-rise-to-king-charless-potential-cash-windfallEdit: Stop living in the past, Thatcher and her misguided sale of the Family Silver and flawed Trickle Down Economics are a thing of the past, as is she thankfully, its not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 15, 2024 14:39:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kpsje on Nov 15, 2024 15:08:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 15, 2024 15:14:46 GMT
I'm all for increasing investment in the UK, but think you have a very valid point. In my experience when politicians and civil servants get involved in business they generally make a hash of it. There are repeated calls for businesses to be taken into public ownership, but I remember how it was with British Railways, British Road Services, the Gas Board, the Water Board, the Electricity Board, National Coal Board, British Steel Corporation, British Leyland, etc. etc. People point the finger at the poor water companies' environmental performance, but that is because successive governments fail to regulate and control. The only efficient nationalised business that actually works well is the royal family. The Crown has assets of over £15 billion which are publicly owned and the profits of over £300 m go to the government, part of which is returned to the monarch to "run the business". fullfact.org/online/royal-family-320-million-taxpayer/Before Thatcher sold them off, nationalised industries were costing the UK tax payer a fortune. Gordon Brown destroyed final salary pension schemes (except for government employees) and I hope this government isn't going to finish the job. Your original point is totally invalid because there is no intention for Politicians or Civil Servants becoming involved in Investment decisions of Pension Funds The point is that if 10 Pension Funds with say £1Bn of funds under management amalgamate then via economies of scale they become a) more efficient and b) able to participate in larger projects It is quite obvious that 10 individual Funds need to employ at least one Fund Manager and one Investment Manager plus the ancillary administration staff. A combined Fund of £10Bn can attract one high calibre Fund Manager and Investment Manager rather than 10 Fund Managers and Investment Manager, plus the ancillary staff are not a multiple of 10. With regard to your second point on Charlie's Crown Estates being economically efficient it is complete nonsense. A Return on Assets ROA of 2% £300M/£15Bn is an appalling return, the minimum expectation in Business would be 5% and up to 20%. But it really is academic to Charlie because he got a sweetheart deal from Cameron that not only preserves and increases his Capital base there is no incentive to live in the Real World, which of course he doesn't. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/how-tory-royal-funding-deal-gave-rise-to-king-charless-potential-cash-windfallEdit: Stop living in the past, Thatcher and her misguided sale of the Family Silver and flawed Trickle Down Economics are a thing of the past, as is she thankfully, its not relevant. Yep. You most definitely remind me of someone else
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 15, 2024 20:48:32 GMT
We’ve all lied on our CV* I haven’t
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Nov 15, 2024 20:51:45 GMT
We’ve all lied on our CV* I haven’t That is a lie
|
|