Marple Website Community Calendar
Archive => Archived Boards => Local Issues => Topic started by: Cyberman on April 22, 2013, 10:41:41 AM
-
I'm tempted to run as a councillor to shake the council and get rid of all the dead wood.
Why not go for Chief Exec - if you can survive the salary cut to £175k p.a. :)
http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/councildemocracy/your_council/documentsandfacts/budgetsfinancialmonitoringreports/payandexpenses (http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/councildemocracy/your_council/documentsandfacts/budgetsfinancialmonitoringreports/payandexpenses)
-
I had an experience of dealing with the council end of the town team / Portas thing. There was an amazing change of attitude in finding a way to kick some life into Stockport town centre, however, it needed a sign off from a pen-pusher within the council and the deal fell apart as the guy could not see past the end of his nose.
I'm tempted to run as a councillor to shake the council and get rid of all the dead wood.
Over the years I've known dozens of people that have said to me that they are going to "stand for the Council". In fact at one time I was one of them. We are all different types of people with all different motives but we all have one thing in common - We never actually DO stand.
-
You need a machine to be able to run to take on the parties of I would estimate about 50 to 70 people and on polling day itself you would need over 100 people and if you wanted to run for 2014 its almost too late to start.
Personally I am not interested in supporting a local person I want to support an ideology/philosophy.
Duke you would be elected for the whole town not just a Marple ward and would need to apply your mind to wider corporate issues and on occasions vote against the best interest of Marple. Could you do that if not forget it ...
-
I had an experience of dealing with the council end of the town team / Portas thing. There was an amazing change of attitude in finding a way to kick some life into Stockport town centre, however, it needed a sign off from a pen-pusher within the council and the deal fell apart as the guy could not see past the end of his nose.
I'm tempted to run as a councillor to shake the council and get rid of all the dead wood.
Go for it duke .
-
You need a machine to be able to run to take on the parties of I would estimate about 50 to 70 people and on polling day itself you would need over 100 people and if you wanted to run for 2014 its almost too late to start.
Duke you would be elected for the whole town not just a Marple ward and would need to apply your mind to wider corporate issues and on occasions vote against the best interest of Marple. Could you do that if not forget it ...
I don't think I've given any indication that i could not do such a thing.
Personally I am not interested in supporting a local person I want to support an ideology/philosophy.
I think ideology gets in the way of logic, Philosophy? Perhaps. I was thinking of speaking to the good people of Heald Green rate payers. But my philosophy is:
Reduce council tax bills by:
Reducing council services to the core.
Increase new employee's working hours and reduce paid holiday in line with the private sector.
Work with the shopping centres to have free parking in Stockport area to compete with the Trafford Centre.
-
You would be elected for the whole town covering all services, so lets here your views on Adult social care, education, Leisure services, regeneration of Brinnington I could go on.
And Duke what you outline are not principles or philophies but tactices.
The Healed Green Independents are a long established well respected organisation with a very large membership that operate as the leading political force in the area so don't lets pretend they are a bunch of well meaning unaccountable to a membership group of people.
-
I don't think I've given any indication that i could not do such a thing.
I think ideology gets in the way of logic, Philosophy? Perhaps. I was thinking of speaking to the good people of Heald Green rate payers. But my philosophy is:
Reduce council tax bills by:
Reducing council services to the core.
Increase new employee's working hours and reduce paid holiday in line with the private sector.
Work with the shopping centres to have free parking in Stockport area to compete with the Trafford Centre.
Duke
Am I mistaken or did the ..."good people of Heald Green ratepayers" recently vote with the Libdems for an increase in council tax.
"Reduce Council services to the core"? What would happen to; Old People, kids in care, cemetarys, parks, schools, planning, licencing, roads, pavements, mad dogs, wild rats, the poor old Chief Exec at Stockport Council on his 175k per year?
Aren't many "new employees" our children. Do we want them to have reduced terms and conditions ?
We know what you would do for car park charges and Council tax bills but after you'd given all the Council tax payers and car park users a few extra quid in their pocket what would you actually do for people ?
Duke, are you sure your not a bit of a Tory? If you are you'll never get in you know, 25 years ago they used to rule Stockport with many of your ideas but there is only about 10 or 11 left of them now, they are on their way to wipeout in Stockport come 2015.
-
Reduce council tax bills by:
Reducing council services to the core.
And the 'core' is.......?
Increase new employee's working hours and reduce paid holiday in line with the private sector.
AFAIK council staff work a 37 hour week and get 25 days annual leave, plus public holidays, and there is little or no difference between that and what staff get in other areas of employment. There is not much money to be saved there, I fear.
-
You would be elected for the whole town covering all services, so lets here your views on Adult social care, education, Leisure services, regeneration of Brinnington I could go on.
Well, for adult education, i'd drive home the difference between "hear" adn in hearing and "here" the present here and now.
And Duke what you outline are not principles or philophies but tactices.
We're still on education, aren't we.
The Healed Green Independents are a long established well respected organisation with a very large membership that operate as the leading political force in the area so don't lets pretend they are a bunch of well meaning unaccountable to a membership group of people.
We all start somewhere, The Marple ratepayershas a ring to it
-
Duke
Am I mistaken or did the ..."good people of Heald Green ratepayers" recently vote with the Libdems for an increase in council tax.
"Reduce Council services to the core"? What would happen to; Old People, kids in care, cemetarys, parks, schools, planning, licencing, roads, pavements, mad dogs, wild rats, the poor old Chief Exec at Stockport Council on his 175k per year?
Most of those services are core services. I'd have a radical review of every penny being spent questioning what needs spending and what jobs are needed.
Aren't many "new employees" our children. Do we want them to have reduced terms and conditions ?
Putting in a few extra hours never hurt anyone, I put in around 65 hours in my job. If Stockport employees are known for hard work, I'll take the credit.
We know what you would do for car park charges and Council tax bills but after you'd given all the Council tax payers and car park users a few extra quid in their pocket what would you actually do for people ?
I've given them more money to spend on things that they want rather than allow a faceless self-fullfilling council decide what is good for individiuals. By making Stockport a cheaper place to shop, it's more likely that they will spend it in Stockport and thereby create emplyment and encourage self-fullfillment.
Duke, are you sure your not a bit of a Tory? If you are you'll never get in you know, 25 years ago they used to rule Stockport with many of your ideas but there is only about 10 or 11 left of them now, they are on their way to wipeout in Stockport come 2015.
We'll see, I've got you down as undecided.
-
And the 'core' is.......?
AFAIK council staff work a 37 hour week and get 25 days annual leave, plus public holidays, and there is little or no difference between that and what staff get in other areas of employment. There is not much money to be saved there, I fear.
So, if we reduce the starting holiday entitlement to 21 and hours to 39 hours we'll get 127 extra hours out of each employee thereby reducing staffing levels and improving efficiency. There are lots of council emplyees so saving £££££££££££'s.
I'd also review all empty buildings operated by the council adn either get them sold or (in the case of the daft lease back arrangement) transfer office space to residential.
-
Duke, the vast majority of any Councils expenditure is statutory expenditure over which you would have no control.
Don't offer up what isn't deliverable
-
Much more interesting and relevant than Dukes doomed campaign is to watch the various political groups AGMs in the coming month. Which of the Marple 3 will be banished to the outer darkness. Who will be the new Deputy Leader given that the current post holder is sure to be challenged. An interesting month of observing lies ahead.
-
Duke, the vast majority of any Councils expenditure is statutory expenditure over which you would have no control.
Don't offer up what isn't deliverable
Nonsense, the council has a lot of discretionary spend.
-
Nonsense, the council has a lot of discretionary spend.
No Duke, it isn't nonsense, the Council has some discretionary spend otherwise it wouldn't have been able to make the cuts it has made in recent years, but Wheels is quite correct the lion's share of it is provided against a statutory requirement for "people" a word which you don't seem to mention too much.
If you stood, I would willingly vote for a change of face particularly in Marple, I think that some of them (not all) have been around for far too long and achieved little whilst they have. Do you not think that we should have a maximum term of office for Councillors particularly Executive One's ? Then of course there is the same old problem. Nobody wants to do it so you would either end up with no Councillors or the same old faces - which is what you get anyway. There needs to be a root and branch review of everything to do with local Councillors; Eligibility, Qualification, Terms and Conditions, Pay, everything. Speaking of pay why does the Chief Exec of SMBC get paid 175k whilst the leader of the Council only gets 40k ?
One of the Marple Councillors is standing down next year. It's a certain Libdem seat - does anybody know how many applicants there are for the Libdem candidacy? I'll be amazed if there is more than three and I'll bet they are all men over 60 with private pensions or independent means of some sort .
Anyway Duke back to your policies which seem to be based around everybody working a 65 hour week for reduced pay (which to me just doesn't seem very clever) plus cheaper shopping in Stockport. Why don't you call yourself the ..."65 hour week shopping party" it has a kind of iambic pentameter about it, don't you think ?
Wheels, I am not quite sure I understand your "banished to the outer darkness comment". There aren't any local elections next month are there ?
-
No Duke, it isn't nonsense, the Council has some discretionary spend otherwise it wouldn't have been able to make the cuts it has made in recent years, but Wheels is quite correct the lion's share of it is provided against a statutory requirement for "people" a word which you don't seem to mention too much.
If you stood, I would willingly vote for a change of face particularly in Marple, I think that some of them (not all) have been around for far too long and achieved little whilst they have. Do you not think that we should have a maximum term of office for Councillors particularly Executive One's ? Then of course there is the same old problem. Nobody wants to do it so you would either end up with no Councillors or the same old faces - which is what you get anyway. There needs to be a root and branch review of everything to do with local Councillors; Eligibility, Qualification, Terms and Conditions, Pay, everything. Speaking of pay why does the Chief Exec of SMBC get paid 175k whilst the leader of the Council only gets 40k ?
One of the Marple Councillors is standing down next year. It's a certain Libdem seat - does anybody know how many applicants there are for the Libdem candidacy? I'll be amazed if there is more than three and I'll bet they are all men over 60 with private pensions or independent means of some sort .
Anyway Duke back to your policies which seem to be based around everybody working a 65 hour week for reduced pay (which to me just doesn't seem very clever) plus cheaper shopping in Stockport. Why don't you call yourself the ..."65 hour week shopping party" it has a kind of iambic pentameter about it, don't you think ?
Wheels, I am not quite sure I understand your "banished to the outer darkness comment". There aren't any local elections next month are there ?
Well, I think £175k for a public sector job is absurd unless it's baased on a % of savings achieved for the taxpayer etc.
The reality of life is that if I were a councillor, I'd not be abole to do much but highlight every bit of waste there is and ensure we get good value ffrom the council. I may even go in as an Orange book LibDem.
-
Simone my reference to "the outer darkness" was meaning that at least one of the Marple Councillors who is on the Executive will lose their place and will end up on the back benches. That is just because the size of the executive has been reduced and the maths would make it almost certain that one of the three will lose their place. Further I think it is commonly accepted that there will be a new Deputy Leader of the Council as the current post holder will certainly be challenged.
As an aside Simone the Council leader does not get 40k for being council leader almost 10k of that is the about basic allowance that all members get. The leader gets 28k for being leader.
-
Thanks Wheels,
I wasn't aware of some of that particularly the reduction in the Executive. Is that wise in these particularly critical times ?
When you say "commonly accepted" - by whom ?
I was aware of the way the leaders allowances are arrived at. My point really was the disparity between the two "salaries". Surely the Council Leader has the ultimnate responsibility for the Council and whereas I understand that Councillors are classed as part-time volunteers surely the Leader's position is totally full time and perhaps even more.
-
Nonsense, the council has a lot of discretionary spend.
Much less that it used to have, and there are more cuts to come, such as:
Stockport Council are proposing savage cuts from the Parks and Open Spaces budget in 2014/2015.
£1M (30%) is planned to be cut from a budget of £3.9M.
The proposals include things like:
No longer employing people with any horticultural knowledge to look after flowerbeds, trees, shrubs and parkland.
Removing instead of repairing or replacing broken play equipment.
Removing instead of repairing or replacing broken fencing, seating, signage, and other street furniture.
Picking up litter in parks NO MORE THAN once per week.
Fewer staff based at specific parks (this will almost certainly impact Marple Memorial Park's staffing).
Removing support to Friends of Park Groups, leaving them to try and get on with a bigger work load on their own.
A cessation or reduction in the frequency of hedge trimming, cutting grass, removing graffiti, pruning, weeding and maintenance of parks.
What's your view on the above, Duke. Too much of a cut? Or not enough??
-
Thanks Wheels,
I wasn't aware of some of that particularly the reduction in the Executive. Is that wise in these particularly critical times ?
When you say "commonly accepted" - by whom ?
I was aware of the way the leaders allowances are arrived at. My point really was the disparity between the two "salaries". Surely the Council Leader has the ultimnate responsibility for the Council and whereas I understand that Councillors are classed as part-time volunteers surely the Leader's position is totally full time and perhaps even more.
I don't think you would be able to function as the Leader of a Met Council on a part time basis so I agree Simone that's a full time role. That's partly now recognised as amendments to elected members pensionable service allows full time councillors to join or rather stay in the LG Pension Scheme. Before Duke complains that's unreasonable the current Leader of Stockport left her job to become leader.
-
Much less that it used to have, and there are more cuts to come, such as:
What's your view on the above, Duke. Too much of a cut? Or not enough??
What's your view ,
-
Go for it Duke!!!!
I'm not saying I will vote for you but publish your manifesto, engage with the electorate, and debate. Then I, like many others, can choose from the alternatives (of course some people will vote without consideration of the aforementioned but that is their right).
As Simone said, many people threaten to stand. Very few do. To those who are dismissing Duke's offer, keep it up. I don't know him but suspect the more people tell him he can't do something, the more likely he is to do so.
However, was it not Billy Connolly who once said something along the lines of "the ambition to stand for political influence should immediately preclude that person for ever doing so". Or words to that effect...
RH.
-
Go for it Duke!!!!
I'm not saying I will vote for you but publish your manifesto, engage with the electorate, and debate. Then I, like many others, can choose from the alternatives (of course some people will vote without consideration of the aforementioned but that is their right).
As Simone said, many people threaten to stand. Very few do. To those who are dismissing Duke's offer, keep it up. I don't know him but suspect the more people tell him he can't do something, the more likely he is to do so.
However, was it not Billy Connolly who once said something along the lines of "the ambition to stand for political influence should immediately preclude that person for ever doing so". Or words to that effect
RH.
Winning local elections has nothing whatsoever to do with publishing idea, engaging in debate or seeking to win arguments. Its about having a better machine than those your fighting. Unless you have at least as good a machine as the Lib Dem you will not win in Marple. Someone has to circulate material, you need a computer officer, a designer, someone to raise a few £1000 between now and polling day 2014. You will need are hard core team of about 10 perward and a further 50 helpers rising to 100 for polling day itself. You need to ensure that the pro ponderonce of your supprters to turn out is greater than you that achieve by you opponents. If you don't have a machine you don't win don't be misled into thinking its about winning arguments/debates. There would not be any and you you be drowned out by the strength of the LD machine.
-
What's your view on the above, Duke. Too much of a cut? Or not enough??
What's your view ,
Strange that. Duke's suddenly gone quiet. I wonder why.........
-
Dave, I may be wrong but I think Amazon was asking what your view might be?
-
Yes thats what I understood. What are your views Dave.
-
My view, which I have already posted on the relevant thread on this forum, and which appears to be shared by many others, is that the council should not make those proposed cuts to the parks service.
But I'm not sure why anyone should be particularly interested in my opinion on this subject. After all, I have not expressed any interest in becoming a councillor, and I have not expressed opinions such as my philosophy is: Reduce council tax bills by reducing council services to the core.
We can safely assume from this statement that Duke supports the proposed cuts to the parks service, and indeed that he believes they don't go far enough. But he's being rather coy about actually saying so. ;)
-
It is very easy, of course, to be "against" any particular reduction in funding. There's no way that position will ever be unpopular. However, with the country having to borrow £120 billion just to maintain our current level of public expenditure, it is plain to see that cuts will continue to be necessary well into the future. But how do you compare cutting the parks budgets vs the homehelp budget? Or reducing spending on young people vs reducing benefits for older people.
None of these choices, alternatives or options are easy to decide on. It's our politicians (local and national) who have to make these choices. For anyone to sit outside, without any degree of responsibility or acclountability, and say how easy it all is................
-
I couldn't agree more, Bowden Guy - these are hard choices. And I also agree that it is irresponsible of Duke Fame to suggest that council services should be 'cut to the core'. One thing's certain - the economic position of the country is not the fault of our children, and that's why we should resist any proposal to stop repairing or replacing children's playground equipment.
-
Stockport has one of the best records in the country for consulting on budgetary issues that's why this has been brough forward so early I expect. Indeed I know of know of no other authority who has already put in the public domain proposal for 2014/15.
Equally Dave if the majority of respondents say the cuts to children's play areas and parks and open spaces are better than other cuts I assume all here would accept that???
Our elected members have an almost impossible job drawing up the councils budgets currently
-
Equally Dave if the majority of respondents say the cuts to children's play areas and parks and open spaces are better than other cuts I assume all here would accept that???
Maybe they would - we shall never know, because the way the consultations have been framed we have not been given the chance to rank the proposed cuts in any order of preference (or non-preference would be a better word for it!). In other words, it's not a question of choosing the least painful cuts - the council is proposing to implement all of them.
Our elected members have an almost impossible job drawing up the councils budgets currently
Agreed, and I don't think we should blame the council or our councillors for the position they find themselves in - it's the fault of this incompetent government, whose failed economic policies could well lead to the announcement tomorrow that the country is now in its first-ever triple-dip recession. Well done Gideon! ::)
-
However, was it not Billy Connolly who once said something along the lines of "the ambition to stand for political influence should immediately preclude that person for ever doing so". Or words to that effect...
I believe it was "Don't vote, it just encourages them."
-
No Dave that's over simplistic and the problems go back much further than this 3 year old Government. G Brown and his dreadful government and his period as chancellor also contributed to the problems local government faces. The continual attempted to undermine local government of both the Blair and Brown Governments createred many of the problems they now face
-
Much less that it used to have, and there are more cuts to come, such as:
What's your view on the above, Duke. Too much of a cut? Or not enough??
Most seems pretty fair although I think "Removing support to Friends of Park Groups, leaving them to try and get on with a bigger work load on their own." - I'd empower them to be able to do more.
I'd try and take a little off the police budget and soend it on local sports facilities, I'm a believer that if you get kids into sport, tehy will not get into so much trouble. In doing so, I'd use private enterprise as much as possible. I lived in one of the areas that took the least amount of money out of the central pot but they provided far better sports facilities than around here, everywhere had changing facilities and refreshments etc but very little actuallu cost the local authority any money.
-
It is very easy, of course, to be "against" any particular reduction in funding. There's no way that position will ever be unpopular. However, with the country having to borrow £120 billion just to maintain our current level of public expenditure, it is plain to see that cuts will continue to be necessary well into the future. But how do you compare cutting the parks budgets vs the homehelp budget? Or reducing spending on young people vs reducing benefits for older people.
None of these choices, alternatives or options are easy to decide on. It's our politicians (local and national) who have to make these choices. For anyone to sit outside, without any degree of responsibility or acclountability, and say how easy it all is................
I'm sure it's a balancing act between the priorities of life. I look at what is spent over in Manchester and when their two chaps (over-staffing) claim the cuts are imposed on them yet can spend £1/2m on a concert for council brass & local celebs, I just think there is something up.
I don't know the ins & outs of how the council goes about it's business but the various processes appear very inefficient. I suspect, early on, all I can do is highlight waste. If I were in charge (unlikely I know), I'd make it my business to rid the whole organisation of waste so that before an employee is taken on or money spent, they question whether it is something that the council should be doing.
-
Stockport has one of the best records in the country for consulting on budgetary issues that's why this has been brough forward so early I expect. Indeed I know of know of no other authority who has already put in the public domain proposal for 2014/15.
Equally Dave if the majority of respondents say the cuts to children's play areas and parks and open spaces are better than other cuts I assume all here would accept that???
Our elected members have an almost impossible job drawing up the councils budgets currently
Very strait forward answer .
-
Duke, you can't take some of the Police budget its a totally seperate precept set by a different authority is merely collected by the Council. Just a small example of how difficult you will find this.About 70% of the LA budget is for statuary obligations over which you have no choice/control. just as employment terms and conditions are nationally set so your idea of a 65 hr working week is a non starter. Nor are staff expected to bring their own coal these days.
-
I'm sure it's a balancing act between the priorities of life. I look at what is spent over in Manchester and when their two chaps (over-staffing) claim the cuts are imposed on them yet can spend £1/2m on a concert for council brass & local celebs, I just think there is something up.
I don't know the ins & outs of how the council goes about it's business but the various processes appear very inefficient. I suspect, early on, all I can do is highlight waste. If I were in charge (unlikely I know), I'd make it my business to rid the whole organisation of waste so that before an employee is taken on or money spent, they question whether it is something that the council should be doing.
Don't you think that is already done. There is more rigour in evaluating expenditure in local government than in any other part of the public sector in which I have ever worked and there is certainly more than in the private sector which i currently work in.
-
Maybe they would - we shall never know, because the way the consultations have been framed we have not been given the chance to rank the proposed cuts in any order of preference (or non-preference would be a better word for it!). In other words, it's not a question of choosing the least painful cuts - the council is proposing to implement all of them.
Agreed, and I don't think we should blame the council or our councillors for the position they find themselves in - it's the fault of this incompetent government, whose failed economic policies could well lead to the announcement tomorrow that the country is now in its first-ever triple-dip recession. Well done Gideon! ::)
Dave, are you fro real. This is the consequences of the previous administration. The Scottish PM and his hideous lying sidekick have a lot to answer for and i dread to think if that latter is ever allowed near the purse strings ever again.
-
Duke, you can't take some of the Police budget its a totally seperate precept set by a different authority is merely collected by the Council. Just a small example of how difficult you will find this.About 70% of the LA budget is for statuary obligations over which you have no choice/control. just as employment terms and conditions are nationally set so your idea of a 65 hr working week is a non starter. Nor are staff expected to bring their own coal these days.
That is the problem that, the LA needs more autonomy to set it's own employment contracts, why set them nationally? A few more hours work would not hurt for employees, the problem with council employment is once they are in, it;s difficult for them to find an easier number outside the town hall (or any number of council buildings).
I'd privatise SK solutions, NPS etc. Sell off those empty properties the council vacated in order to move into the £12m Sergio Tacchini house, encourage landlords of empty office space to convert into residential flats.
I'd stop advertising the council on billboards and the back of buses, we know we have a council, no need to advertise it.
-
The fundamental problem with the Council as a "Council" is twofold.
1/ The people who run it - The Councillors, I hasten to add not all of them, but there are too many of the wrong one's for the right one's to prevail.
2/ The party politics that runs right through the whole process and becomes the dominant force and the reason for supporting/opposing everything.
If you've ever been to a full, public, Council meeting you will witness virtually the whole meeting often (4 hours plus) being taken up by irrelevant questions and pointless motions that usually have no relevance at all to the lives of the people that Councillors represent.
Councillors ask questions of other Councillors the purpose of which is not to gain an answer, often they don't even care what the answer is. The sole purpose of the question is to embarrass the recipient, catch him off guard so that he/she looks foolish and this is just because he/she is in another political party. The questioner is always a member of the opposite political party to the recipient. You never see a Conservative ask a challenging question of another Conservative.
This is not original but Councillors are stereotypical even their ages are close together. Let's take Marple as an example. I don't know the precise ages of the Marple 6 but they are all well on the way or past retirement age. Where are the 20, 30 year olds even forty year olds. They are all Libdem so to be selected in the first place you have to go along and make the right noises to the selection panel and you have to keep making them in order to continue being selected. There is absolutely no individuality whatsoever. When was the last time in Stockport that a Libdem voted against the party and voted with say the Labour party.
Conversely, in the current times Councillors are now having to make decisions, table motions, ask questions that do effect peoples lives. But at a time when they should be working together they will still be party politicking across the length and breadth of the country.
-
Dave, are you fro real. This is the consequences of the previous administration.
After three years you can only admire Duke's dogged support for his government's economic failure. No-one doubts that when they took over, the country was in a weak economic state, but this government was elected with a clear mandate to sort it out. Osborne stood up in Parliament at his emergency budget in June 2010 and promised that he would do so, and he has failed. And everyone except Duke can see that. Even Christine Lagarde, the Cruella de Ville of the International Monetary Fund, can see that!
As for the cuts to the parks service, they are disgraceful. The idea that we should sink so low as to punish our kids by taking their swings away appalls me, and I think the council should find other ways of balancing the budget.
However, I agree with wheels that the undermining of local government started long before this government came to power.
-
Dave, I completely agree that we should not be punishing our children. However, if we do not reduce our ever-growing national debt (increasing by around £120 billion every year) then it will be those very children and their children and their children who will be tasked with paying it off. Is it right to live completely beyond our means at the moment so that our great grandchildren can have a much lower standard of living than we enjoy. Where's the "fairness" there?
-
Everyone agrees that we should be reducing the debt. The problem is that this government is failing to do it, because it is apparently incapable of restarting any economic growth, and without growth we will not pay off the debt.
Meanwhile, Bowden Guy, do you think it's right that councils are being forced to take away children's swings at a time when the richest people in the country are having their top rate of tax cut from 50% to 45%?
-
The key issue is whether bringing down the tax rate increases the total revenue from those people, surely? Only time will tell. (I'm not interested in responding to false dichotomies).
However, if increasing taxes will obviate the need to cut services, then, presumably, you must be favour of 100% taxation? Why stop at 45% or 50%. Then we wouldn't need to cut any services.........
-
The key issue is whether bringing down the tax rate increases the total revenue from those people, surely?
How could it do that?
-
How could it do that?
One of te good thinks Maggie T did was to get more money in tax out of the highest paid. She lowered income tax but the rich not only paid more, but paid a higher share of the total. Her governments steadily lowered the top rate from 83% (or 98% on investment income) down to 40% and cut the basic rate. The low rates raised more revenue than the high ones had done as business boomed and the tax base expanded. The top 10% who had been paying 35% of total income tax saw this rise to 48%.
The alternative, as suggested is to move toward 100% tax.
We need growth in the economy but it has to be real growth. The infrastructure stimulus is getting there but there are coucils sitting on funded schemes which are being held up in planning or even for economic reasons (according to constrution magazine). The whole of the EU is pretty sick in terms of growth and the only way is to trade out of it.
The alternative is to spend our way out of a recession by inventing public sector services but this never works. In fact, the only time it worked was ehen Gordon Brown managed to spend his way out of a boom - the only chancellor in histort to achieve this.
-
After three years you can only admire Duke's dogged support for his government's economic failure. No-one doubts that when they took over, the country was in a weak economic state, but this government was elected with a clear mandate to sort it out. Osborne stood up in Parliament at his emergency budget in June 2010 and promised that he would do so, and he has failed. And everyone except Duke can see that. Even Christine Lagarde, the Cruella de Ville of the International Monetary Fund, can see that!
Christine Lagarde is being a little hypocritical, we borrow at rates 3x lower than Spain, greece etc becuase we have the conomy under some control. By everyone except Duke you mean And everyone except Duke except the markets, except the FT, except the economist, except most economists, in fact, your "everyone" includes you, the Mirror, The guardian and 'change the record' Krugman - Oh and flaps in the wind - lying Ed Balls.
-
One of te good thinks Maggie T did was to get more money in tax out of the highest paid. She lowered income tax but the rich not only paid more, but paid a higher share of the total. Her governments steadily lowered the top rate from 83% (or 98% on investment income) down to 40% and cut the basic rate. The low rates raised more revenue than the high ones had done as business boomed and the tax base expanded. The top 10% who had been paying 35% of total income tax saw this rise to 48%.
Yes, thanks for reminding us, Duke. The Lawson Boom, which caused the 1990 recession and led ultimately to Black Wednesday in 1992. See http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/lawson-boom-of-late-1980s.html
However, that is an answer to a different question. Bowden Guy wrote The key issue is whether bringing down the tax rate increases the total revenue from those people
...thereby suggesting that top-rate taxpayers enjoying a reduction in the rate to 45% could nevertheless find themselves paying more tax. I asked how that would work - but I haven't had an answer yet.
-
The problem is Dave, and I speak as one who lived through it, the dreadful Thatcher Government was a result of the even worse Callaghan Government of the late 70s. Labour must bear much of the responsibility for Thatcher reign of terror.
-
It's quite easy to understand, Dave. When (wealthy) people feel that tax rates are punitive, they use every possible way to avoid paying tax (for example by paying into their pension or by remuneration). When tax rates are lowered there is a lot of evidence to show, from both the UK and US, that the actual tax take from higher-rate payers rises.
If this is incorrect we should, of course, go back to the 83% rate to which Duke has already referred.
-
It's ages since I've been on the forum...and it's like I've never been away. Same old same old from the vocal few...I'd hate to get stuck in a pub with you lot.
PS...will DF stand...no chance, because he's all talk.
-
It's ages since I've been on the forum...and it's like I've never been away. Same old same old from the vocal few...I'd hate to get stuck in a pub with you lot.
PS...will DF stand...no chance, because he's all talk.
You certainly know how to turn my buttons. ;)
Are you going to vote for me?
-
Sorry, in my last post I meant to say that remuneration can be delayed into later years. Sometimes I hate my IPad!
-
Yes, thanks for reminding us, Duke. The Lawson Boom, which caused the 1990 recession and led ultimately to Black Wednesday in 1992. See http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/01/lawson-boom-of-late-1980s.html
However, that is an answer to a different question. Bowden Guy wrote
...thereby suggesting that top-rate taxpayers enjoying a reduction in the rate to 45% could nevertheless find themselves paying more tax. I asked how that would work - but I haven't had an answer yet.
Aww Dave, do you remember TSpm saying how he'd beaten the cycle of boom & bust?
In answer to you question, I suspect you know but let's play. Research suggests that the optimal tax rate is 40-45% if you want to raise the most treasury income. If you want to make a political point at the expense of the economy, you would stick the tax rate at a level that punishes wealth rather than raises income. Remember when those great socialists John Lennon, Donavan etc stayed out of the country in the 70's? Who was better off with our 84% tax rates?
It's human nature, when people think they are being ripped off, they go elsewhere.
-
The key issue is whether bringing down the tax rate increases the total revenue from those people,
It's human nature, when people think they are being ripped off, they go elsewhere.
I'm really confused now! If, as Bowden Guy suggests, reducing the top rate of tax means that 'those people' end up paying more, then according to Duke's argument, if they are paying more they will think they are being ripped off and go elsewhere. So in order to retain these valued members of society in the UK, perhaps we should increase their taxes, not reduce them?
However, Duke and Bowden Guy can amuse themselves with their convoluted verbal gymnastics for as long as they like, proving that the slick investment bankers, hedge-fund traders and dealers in dodgy derivatives who caused the 2008 crash and the ensuing recession should get a tax cut in order to encourage them to stay in the UK. The reality is, the best thing we could do is double their tax in the hope that they will leave. But I suspect that wouldn't work, because their fellow millionaire friend Osborne wants the UK (well, London actually) to carry on being an unregulated offshore speculators' playground, where these guys can carry on playing their boys games with billions of pounds of other peoples' money, until they cause another collapse and we have to bail them out again.
Steptoe is right, though - we are just pub bores who like a good argument, and we will probably never agree on this or anything else! Tell you what, though, Duke - your lot will be annihilated at next week's local elections, and probably at the general election in 2015, and the main reason for that is quite simple. It's not that people disgaree with their policies - on the contrary, opinion polls show that the objective to reduce the deficit by, for example, getting the benefits bill under control, has broad public suppprt. No, the reason your lot will be thrown out is quite simple: incompetence. I think it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid'! Osborne stood up in Parliament three years ago and promised to revitalise manufacturing (remember 'the march of the makers ::)) and to balance the books by 2015-16. He has indisputably failed to do either of those things. So we've had the pain (and there's more to come,) but not the gain, and Osborne, who once wanted so much to be Tory leader, now never will. Who's the next leader of the opposition - Theresa May or Michael Gove? Or even Boris Johnson.............. :o
-
It will all be OK when the Eds take over in 2015.
-
It will all be OK when the Eds take over in 2015.
Dave will get his wish
-
It will all be OK when the Eds take over in 2015.
Just like it was OK when the Gordon took over.
God help us all if the Eds, both of whom are multi millionaire also took over. Long live the Coalition, I don't mind a which just so long as its a coalition.
-
I'm really confused now! If, as Bowden Guy suggests, reducing the top rate of tax means that 'those people' end up paying more, then according to Duke's argument, if they are paying more they will think they are being ripped off and go elsewhere. So in order to retain these valued members of society in the UK, perhaps we should increase their taxes, not reduce them?
However, Duke and Bowden Guy can amuse themselves with their convoluted verbal gymnastics for as long as they like, proving that the slick investment bankers, hedge-fund traders and dealers in dodgy derivatives who caused the 2008 crash and the ensuing recession should get a tax cut in order to encourage them to stay in the UK. The reality is, the best thing we could do is double their tax in the hope that they will leave. But I suspect that wouldn't work, because their fellow millionaire friend Osborne wants the UK (well, London actually) to carry on being an unregulated offshore speculators' playground, where these guys can carry on playing their boys games with billions of pounds of other peoples' money, until they cause another collapse and we have to bail them out again.
Steptoe is right, though - we are just pub bores who like a good argument, and we will probably never agree on this or anything else! Tell you what, though, Duke - your lot will be annihilated at next week's local elections, and probably at the general election in 2015, and the main reason for that is quite simple. It's not that people disgaree with their policies - on the contrary, opinion polls show that the objective to reduce the deficit by, for example, getting the benefits bill under control, has broad public suppprt. No, the reason your lot will be thrown out is quite simple: incompetence. I think it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase 'it's the economy, stupid'! Osborne stood up in Parliament three years ago and promised to revitalise manufacturing (remember 'the march of the makers ::)) and to balance the books by 2015-16. He has indisputably failed to do either of those things. So we've had the pain (and there's more to come,) but not the gain, and Osborne, who once wanted so much to be Tory leader, now never will. Who's the next leader of the opposition - Theresa May or Michael Gove? Or even Boris Johnson.............. :o
There is no my lot, I'm sort of close to an Orange book liberal / free market type but I don't agree enough with any party. I was led to belive the Labour party had even got it right in 2001 but little did I know that Gordon Brown was going to discard Ken Clarke's approach quite so dramatically and go mental (with Ed Ball's help), throw the economics books out the window and claim he invented alchemy.
You can bemoan bankers all you like it will not help the economy. The bust happened under TSpm's watch and it was in small part down to TSpm's changes that it went without detection but nevertheless, TSpm spent all those tax windfalls in his phoney boom and still managed to create a deficit even before the crash. That's why i say that Brown is the olnly chancellor to ever spend his way out of a boom, that takes some doing and the height of incompetence. Some people really want to listen to his henchman now Mr Ed "LIBOR - no we weren't involved" Balls, Balls was involved in every step of Brown's mismanagment and he pretends he's got the answer. Of course, I agree, 'it's the economy, stupid' but we can't go back to Ed Balls, he was a by-word for incompetence.
The fact that you mention bankers shows that you really want a super tax to penalise rather than raise money. As the country can't cope on hte income it generates now, why do you think it will be better off with less? Whilst you are taxing bankers, you are also taxing successful businesses, inventors, footballers too. what have they done to bring the country down? Nothing but be successdul and excel at what they do. That is the problem with the left, they hate achievement, they hate those who break out of their place. Labour need the working class to be needy so they can demand benefits etc so they get the votes, I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said something along the lines of a government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul forever. It's teh politics of evny Dave and it's no more palitable than the politics of greed.
-
God help us all if the Eds, both of whom are multi millionaire also took over.
I'm not sure why it should matter, but for the record, the Eds (Miliband and Balls) are not multi-millionaires, unless by that you mean that because they are unfortunate enough to live in London their houses are now worth more than a million.
You need to stop reading the Daily Mail, wheels. As Duke would say, 'it's teh politics of evny wheels and it's no more palitable than the politics of greed.' :D
-
No Dave its about the politics of deceit they practice the pretending that we are all in this together that they too are suffering like many in society. At least the Tories make it clear they are greedy self serving ba.....ds
-
I'm not sure why it should matter, but for the record, the Eds (Miliband and Balls) are not multi-millionaires, unless by that you mean that because they are unfortunate enough to live in London their houses are now worth more than a million.
You need to stop reading the Daily Mail, wheels. As Duke would say, 'it's teh politics of evny wheels and it's no more palitable than the politics of greed.' :D
When all you have is to pick up on a typo or two, it may be time to admit defeat.
-
I may be wrong but didn't the Miliband family use a tax avoidance scheme to minimise inheritance tax on their father's estate? Isn't that correct Wheels and Dave?
-
I may be wrong but didn't the Miliband family use a tax avoidance scheme to minimise inheritance tax on their father's estate? Isn't that correct Wheels and Dave?
He did indeed and I wonder how he has such wealth yet only ever having a MP's salary. corruption is not what it once was.
-
By 'he', I assume Duke's near-libellous comment refers to Ed Miliband, and not his brother who is no longer an MP.
I still don't understand why the personal wealth of politicians is such a source of fascination to Duke and others. If it is Ed we are talking about, I only know what we can all read on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet, but there's no evidence that he has 'such wealth' at all. As I said earlier, in all probability he lives somewhere in North London, in a house no grander than some of ours, but because of where it is it's now worth over a million. To Bowden Guy that apparently makes him a multi-millionaire, but in reality that is no big deal nowadays in London. He doesn't just have an MP's salary - as Leader of the Opposition he also has a further salary for doing that.
So he's well paid, but probably not 'wealthy' in the way that the term is usually applied. So let's get over it, and maybe hear a bit less of the politics of envy - or even the politics of evny! ;)
-
By 'he', I assume Duke's near-libellous comment refers to Ed Miliband, and not his brother who is no longer an MP.
I still don't understand why the personal wealth of politicians is such a source of fascination to Duke and others. If it is Ed we are talking about, I only know what we can all read on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet, but there's no evidence that he has 'such wealth' at all. As I said earlier, in all probability he lives somewhere in North London, in a house no grander than some of ours, but because of where it is it's now worth over a million. To Bowden Guy that apparently makes him a multi-millionaire, but in reality that is no big deal nowadays in London. He doesn't just have an MP's salary - as Leader of the Opposition he also has a further salary for doing that.
So he's well paid, but probably not 'wealthy' in the way that the term is usually applied. So let's get over it, and maybe hear a bit less of the politics of envy - or even the politics of evny! ;)
But not actually libelous.
Do you not wonder how Milliband with an 'OK' salary & a wife with a relatively unremarkable career can live such a luxurious lifelstyle? His father seemed to live an extremely rich lifestyle yet had a modest income.
Now, which party bleats on about paying their fair share in tax?
-
Despite, being initially a raging Marxist, living the life of a penniless academic for many years after WW2 and seemingly having no money, Miliband senior (Adolphe, famous in his own right) throughout the 70's,80's began to buy property in the then poorer parts of central london. Areas that would become trendy in the nineties and where properties would appreciate in value to stratastrophic levels. By the time of his death he had acquired an impressive property portfolio worthy of any successful capitalist and thought now to be worth many millions, some estimates have put it at £40/50M. I think that his widow ( David & Eds Mum) is still alive. However at some stage (if not already) a large chunk of this will be winging its way to our future Prime Minister.
It is some thing that the labour party plays down by not making any reference to it. But there is no doubt that Mister Ed is/will be a multi millionaire in his own right and that compared to he rest of us he is extremely wealthy.
-
Do you not wonder how Milliband with an 'OK' salary & a wife with a relatively unremarkable career can live such a luxurious lifelstyle?
Miliband will get about 140K - I think about 50% of that will be his MP's salary, and the other 50% is his pay as Leader of the Opposition. His wife is a barrister, and will almost certainly earn more.
Yes, tell us about their lifestyle, Duke. What do you know that we don't? In what way is it any more 'luxurious' than any other North London family with a combined income of about 350K?
'Champagne socialists' - a tired old cliche, which has been around as long as I can remember. ::) Why does it matter how rich or poor people are? Indeed, should we not regard as rather admirable affluent politicians who want the wealthy to pay their fare share of taxes and are therefore, obviously, prepared to do so themselves?
-
Dave, I have no idea whether Ed Miliband is a "multiple-millionaire and, frankly, I am not interested in the level of his wealth. The fact is, he has been involved in a tax avoidance scheme, the express purpose of which was to minimise the amount of tax he would have to pay to the Government. You have posted on this matter quite liberally in the past.
-
The Benn family have also used a similar scheme to avoid paying what many people believe is their "fair" level of tax. However, TB is a man of the Left, so that's alright then.......
-
You have posted on this matter quite liberally in the past.
I doubt it, as tax avoidance isn't a matter that particularly interests me.
-
Despite, being initially a raging Marxist, living the life of a penniless academic for many years after WW2 and seemingly having no money, Miliband senior (Adolphe, famous in his own right) throughout the 70's,80's began to buy property in the then poorer parts of central london. Areas that would become trendy in the nineties and where properties would appreciate in value to stratastrophic levels. By the time of his death he had acquired an impressive property portfolio worthy of any successful capitalist and thought now to be worth many millions, some estimates have put it at £40/50M. I think that his widow ( David & Eds Mum) is still alive. However at some stage (if not already) a large chunk of this will be winging its way to our future Prime Minister.
It is some thing that the labour party plays down by not making any reference to it. But there is no doubt that Mister Ed is/will be a multi millionaire in his own right and that compared to he rest of us he is extremely wealthy.
God loves a hypocrite and I think you may find a lot of that money has already gone to Ed & david through a trust set up to avoid inheritance tax, now there is nothing illegal about that but they are hypocrites.
You slipped in that "our future Prime Minister" line in very quietly. I really hope he and his lying sidekick never get near government again after the mess they made last time.
-
Miliband will get about 140K - I think about 50% of that will be his MP's salary, and the other 50% is his pay as Leader of the Opposition. His wife is a barrister, and will almost certainly earn more.
Yes, tell us about their lifestyle, Duke. What do you know that we don't? In what way is it any more 'luxurious' than any other North London family with a combined income of about 350K?
'Champagne socialists' - a tired old cliche, which has been around as long as I can remember. ::) Why does it matter how rich or poor people are? Indeed, should we not regard as rather admirable affluent politicians who want the wealthy to pay their fare share of taxes and are therefore, obviously, prepared to do so themselves?
Well, there is nothing wrong at all but it's funny that you estimate his income being £140K, it's funny that they set the 50% tax band to start just above that level - So the very MP's setting the tax limits set the limit just above their own earnings, typical of the left, they want everyone else to pay for their spending.
So £140k, after tax, £60K which is not a bad wage but that pays for 2 mortgages on a £1.5m house & a £750k house. 2 sets of council taxes teh money going down, 3 x £10k holidays a year, hang on, he's overspending like a Gordon Brown
-
The way things look at the moment Duke, your hope is very much a forlorn one. By the Autumn of 2015 we'll probably have both a Labour government and a Labour Council. We could in all possibility have a Labour Council after the next local election in 2014.
-
...or (in both cases, perhaps?) a Lab/LibDem coalition? A lot depends on UKIP, I suspect....
-
A Lab/LibDem coalition is a strong possibility in National Government but it will be a long time before you the same coalition in Stockport.
-
The way things look at the moment Duke, your hope is very much a forlorn one. By the Autumn of 2015 we'll probably have both a Labour government and a Labour Council. We could in all possibility have a Labour Council after the next local election in 2014.
What an odd analysis Simone all the estimates/expectations are that the Lib Dems will gain Offerton and Cale Green and comfortably hold Manor in 2014. Most observers are expecting the Lib Dems to have overall control again by 2015. Labour hold no seats in Cheadle and are unlikely to gain any they hold one in Hazel Grove but are not expected to win that ward again, have all but collapsed in Manor following their dissappointing result last year. Labour have got about as far as they can in Stockport. They have to break out of Stockport constituency into Cheadle or Hazel Grove to have any chance of a majority on the council and that is not going to happen. They are poor third or fourth in most wards in those constituencies.
-
A Lab/LibDem coalition is a strong possibility in National Government but it will be a long time before you the same coalition in Stockport.
A coalition govt is a big possibility but having alienated the left leaning the Lib-Dem voter, they would be made to alienate the right of the party by going with the disgraced Labour party next time around.
-
Well one of the four leading right wing LibDems is now a guest of Her Majesty in some prison somewhere, so alienating him doesn't matter much! As for the other three, I think Clegg and Cable will swallow their principles (what principles, you may ask?) in order to hang on to their ministerial limos. And David Laws will look forward eagerly to the completion of his rehabilitation and to being a cabinet minster again.
As for the voters., apparently two-thirds of LibDem voters identify themselves as being left rather than right leaning, so they would probably be OK with it.
But nationally it all depends on Mr Farage and his merry men splitting the Tory vote....... ;)
-
Well one of the four leading right wing LibDems is now a guest of Her Majesty in some prison somewhere, so alienating him doesn't matter much! As for the other three, I think Clegg and Cable will swallow their principles (what principles, you may ask?) in order to hang on to their ministerial limos. And David Laws will look forward eagerly to the completion of his rehabilitation and to being a cabinet minster again.
As for the voters., apparently two-thirds of LibDem voters identify themselves as being left rather than right leaning, so they would probably be OK with it.
But nationally it all depends on Mr Farage and his merry men splitting the Tory vote....... ;)
Laws was stitched up by ed Balls, he would not pass water on Ed Balls and his 'team' if he was on fire. Laws was credible and talented, Balls made sure he took him out, Labour are full of nasty little pieces of work, Balls is hte master of them, horrible, horrible people.
-
Duke,
I think that you should perhaps review your slightly hysterical fixation with Ed B.
-
David Laws may well be talented, gifted etc etc. However, he is also a liar and very lucky not to have been locked up.
-
Wheels,
It isn't really an "odd analysis". Its an analysis based on exactly that - analysis. Analysis of evidence and trend.
Wheels, where are these "expectations", "estimates " sourced ? Who are these "observers" that you speak of ? Are you sure that they are just not the wishful thinkers of the LibDem party in Stockport ?
After Stockports local elections in 2010 the register read;
LibDems 37, Labour 13. After the 2012 elections it read; LibDems 29, Labour 21. Even you will agree Wheels that this is a downward trend for the LibDems.
If Labour were to gain another 5 seats at LibDems expense then the issue would become very interesting indeed. But where will those seats come from ?
I'll explain later.
-
Duke,
I think that you should perhaps review your slightly hysterical fixation with Ed B.
I used to live in a constituency flanked by Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. It's hard to be nice about him or her for that matter. Both clever but flawed and well, I don't think he's a very nice chap.
-
I used to live in a constituency flanked by Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. It's hard to be nice about him or her for that matter. Both clever but flawed and well, I don't think he's a very nice chap.
Fair comment Duke, but we're all flawed you know. Except perhaps Dave and Wheels.
-
Wheels,
It isn't really an "odd analysis". Its an analysis based on exactly that - analysis. Analysis of evidence and trend.
Wheels, where are these "expectations", "estimates " sourced ? Who are these "observers" that you speak of ? Are you sure that they are just not the wishful thinkers of the LibDem party in Stockport ?
After Stockports local elections in 2010 the register read;
LibDems 37, Labour 13. After the 2012 elections it read; LibDems 29, Labour 21. Even you will agree Wheels that this is a downward trend for the LibDems.
If Labour were to gain another 5 seats at LibDems expense then the issue would become very interesting indeed. But where will those seats come from ?
I'll explain later.
And where are those gains to come from. They (Labour) will gain no seats in Cheadle or HG and they already have everything in Stockport bar Manor where theyhave collapsed. S where will the gains come from????
-
In 2014 Labour will effortlessy mop up the last remaing Heatons seat from The Tories.
Also in 2014 Conservatives will wrest Hazel Grove seat from LD.
Also in 2014 Labour will wrest Manor also from LD.
Also in 2014 Labour will wrest Offerton fro LD
Also in 2014 Remaining Offerton LD incumbent will defect to Labour.
Also in 2015 Labour will wrest another Manor seat from LibDems.
How many seats is that NOW - should be enough.
I make that; Labour 26, LibDems 24.
-
and the six numbers for tomorrow evening.......?
-
Simone,
Labour already hold all the seats in both Heatons ward so there are no gains for them there.
Out of interest the HG result last year was
LD 1736
Tory 1668
Lab a distant 3rd at 724. Certainly not within striking distance of a win next year. Indeed at no time in the last 20yr have Labour ever got over 20%
In Manor Labour have collapsed and are driven by internal rows.
This is just nonesense Simone so again I ask you to explain where Labour wins will come from given they are also expected to lose Cale Green so have to make that up.
-
and the six numbers for tomorrow evening.......?
Ah Bowden if only!
-
Simone,
Labour already hold all the seats in both Heatons ward so there are no gains for them there.
Out of interest the HG result last year was
LD 1736
Tory 1668
Lab a distant 3rd at 724. Certainly not within striking distance of a win next year. Indeed at no time in the last 20yr have Labour ever got over 20%
In Manor Labour have collapsed and are driven by internal rows.
This is just nonesense Simone so again I ask you to explain where Labour wins will come from given they are also expected to lose Cale Green so have to make that up.
Wheels, if you look properly you will see that in the Heatons there are currently six seats. Five are held by the the Labour Party and one is held by Councillor Anthony 'O' Neil. Upon further study you will conclude that he is a Conservative. I actually thought that you would know that.
In fact I'm beginning to feel that I shouldn't get into this debate any further as your ignorance is made even more complete by the fact that he happens to be the Deputy Mayor.
I actually said that Conservatives will take Hazel Grove from Lib Dems not Labour - read it properly. Again if you had any knowledge of local politics you would know this.
I actually thought that you did have some knowledge of local politics but it is clear that probably don't.
Would you like me to explain the situation in Manor to you or have you had enough ?
-
Wheels, if you look properly you will see that in the Heatons there are currently six seats. Five are held by the the Labour Party and one is held by Councillor Anthony 'O' Neil. Upon further study you will conclude that he is a Conservative. I actually thought that you would know that.
In fact I'm beginning to feel that I shouldn't get into this debate any further as your ignorance is made even more complete by the fact that he happens to be the Deputy Mayor.
I actually said that Conservatives will take Hazel Grove from Lib Dems not Labour - read it properly. Again if you had any knowledge of local politics you would know this.
I actually thought that you did have some knowledge of local politics but it is clear that probably don't.
Would you like me to explain the situation in Manor to you or have you had enough ?
Yes you explain to me the situation in Manor and lets see how out of date you are
-
Wheels
I don't wish to be impolite but I don't think I want to waste time debating local politics with someone who doesn't even know that there is a Conservative Councillor in the Heatons . Therefore I'll leave my explanation about Manor for another time. It's obvious to all that you gain all your political assertions from the LibDem manifesto. County Council elections to-morrow usually a good guide to locals. Results, Thursday/Friday, I predict disater for the LibDems.
Changing the subject I heard that they'd appointed a new Head at Marple Hall today, strange choice, takes up post in September.
-
Simone, I am amazed that you have not posted that it is your understanding that the Principal of Cheadle & Marple College has been on sick leave since the Ofsted inspection. You're losing your touch.
-
Fair comment Duke, but we're all flawed you know. Except perhaps Dave and Wheels.
There are flaws and there are manipulitive, nastly, liars....I was being very nice to suggest Balls is just flawed.