Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pblakeney

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of your odd opinions SC

Other than the odd time it has gone above 40% that is pretty consistent and would suggest there is not much room to push it higher. Growing the economy is a far more viable way to boost Govt receipts.

Ok. Let's try this another way

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _GDP_ratio

Norway 54.8%
Sweden 49.8%
UK 34.4%
US 26%
Qatar 2.2%

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

This is one of your odd opinions SC

Other than the odd time it has gone above 40% that is pretty consistent and would suggest there is not much room to push it higher. Growing the economy is a far more viable way to boost Govt receipts.

Ok. Let's try this another way

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _GDP_ratio

Norway 54.8%
Sweden 49.8%
UK 34.4%
US 26%
Qatar 2.2%

That is more interesting. There is obviously a tight grouping in the centre and I would have to have a look into the ones in the extremes

Between 2014 and 2015, Ireland experienced unusually high GDP growth, at 32.4% in nominal terms (26.3% in real terms). This exceptionally high GDP growth was mainly driven by transfers of intangible assets (including licences and patents) into the Irish jurisdiction by a number of multinational enterprises. Although the nominal amount of tax revenues increased by 8.8% from 2014 to 2015 (measured in national currency), the higher GDP growth during this period caused the tax to GDP ratio in Ireland to fall sharply, decreasing from 28.5% in 2014 to 23.1% in 2015 to 23.0% in 2016. For more information, see page 28 of Revenue Statistics 2016.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

Bit of a cop out that, isn't it: just dumping the problem on already stretched councils.

On the plus side it might get people a bit more involved in local politics.

It's just a different part of the state. In case you hadn't noticed, your council tax probably went up for this very reason.

I know about the council tax rise; I couldn't remember if there was anything on top of that - what with all the 'dementia tax' hoo-ha. My point was that by passing the responsibility to councils rather than funding social care centrally like health care the government can claim that 'they' haven't put up taxes.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

Bit of a cop out that, isn't it: just dumping the problem on already stretched councils.

On the plus side it might get people a bit more involved in local politics.

It's just a different part of the state. In case you hadn't noticed, your council tax probably went up for this very reason.

I know about the council tax rise; I couldn't remember if there was anything on top of that - what with all the 'dementia tax' hoo-ha. My point was that by passing the responsibility to councils rather than funding social care centrally like health care the government can claim that 'they' haven't put up taxes.

Central government isn't passing the responsibility to anyone - councils have been responsible for social care for ages.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

Of course your council tax may well be cheaper if your local Labour council didn't p1ss some of your money away on other things that probably aren't necessary. Try living in an area where there's a Tory council, it's usually cheaper.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

Of course your council tax may well be cheaper if your local Labour council didn't p1ss some of your money away on other things that probably aren't necessary. Try living in an area where there's a Tory council, it's usually cheaper.

Here's a map of Council tax rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/per ... -area.html

And here's a map of every local authority colour coded by party.

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/govern ... 90.article

You sure about your claim?

And let's not mention Northamptonshire.

Oops

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

Of course your council tax may well be cheaper if your local Labour council didn't p1ss some of your money away on other things that probably aren't necessary. Try living in an area where there's a Tory council, it's usually cheaper.

Here's a map of Council tax rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/per ... -area.html

And here's a map of every local authority colour coded by party.

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/govern ... 90.article

You sure about your claim?

And let's not mention Northamptonshire.

Oops

Pretty comfortable overall, ta
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4384838/PM-Labour-councils-charge-100-council-tax.html

And specifically, I pay a few hundred quid less than you do for an equivalent property:
https://www.sutton.gov.uk/info/200515/council_tax/1495/council_tax/2
https://www.kfh.co.uk/south-east-london-and-north-kent/bromley-london-borough/council-tax

Apparently the Lib Dems are even worse than Labour for wasting our hard earned

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

Of course your council tax may well be cheaper if your local Labour council didn't p1ss some of your money away on other things that probably aren't necessary. Try living in an area where there's a Tory council, it's usually cheaper.

Here's a map of Council tax rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/per ... -area.html

And here's a map of every local authority colour coded by party.

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/govern ... 90.article

You sure about your claim?

And let's not mention Northamptonshire.

Oops

Pretty comfortable overall, ta
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4384838/PM-Labour-councils-charge-100-council-tax.html

And specifically, I pay a few hundred quid less than you do for an equivalent property:
https://www.sutton.gov.uk/info/200515/council_tax/1495/council_tax/2
https://www.kfh.co.uk/south-east-london-and-north-kent/bromley-london-borough/council-tax

Apparently the Lib Dems are even worse than Labour for wasting our hard earned

Who says they're wasting it? I'm pretty happy with what my council does with the money and so it would seem are most of the other residents. I moved here from Wandsworth which is known for having very low Council Tax. In summary: you get what you pay for.

I like the bit about the "competence of a strong Conservative council".

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

Of course your council tax may well be cheaper if your local Labour council didn't p1ss some of your money away on other things that probably aren't necessary. Try living in an area where there's a Tory council, it's usually cheaper.

Here's a map of Council tax rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/per ... -area.html

And here's a map of every local authority colour coded by party.

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/govern ... 90.article

You sure about your claim?

And let's not mention Northamptonshire.

Oops

Pretty comfortable overall, ta
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4384838/PM-Labour-councils-charge-100-council-tax.html

And specifically, I pay a few hundred quid less than you do for an equivalent property:
https://www.sutton.gov.uk/info/200515/council_tax/1495/council_tax/2
https://www.kfh.co.uk/south-east-london-and-north-kent/bromley-london-borough/council-tax

Apparently the Lib Dems are even worse than Labour for wasting our hard earned

Who says they're wasting it? I'm pretty happy with what my council does with the money and so it would seem are most of the other residents. I moved here from Wandsworth which is known for having very low Council Tax. In summary: you get what you pay for.

I like the bit about the "competence of a strong Conservative council".

I'm sure I get all the services I need and I pay several hundred quid less. Go figure. You seem to assume that state bodies spend wisely...

shirley_basso

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

Bit of a cop out that, isn't it: just dumping the problem on already stretched councils.

On the plus side it might get people a bit more involved in local politics.

It's just a different part of the state. In case you hadn't noticed, your council tax probably went up for this very reason.

I know about the council tax rise; I couldn't remember if there was anything on top of that - what with all the 'dementia tax' hoo-ha. My point was that by passing the responsibility to councils rather than funding social care centrally like health care the government can claim that 'they' haven't put up taxes.

Central government isn't passing the responsibility to anyone - councils have been responsible for social care for ages.

How long?

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Didn't TM suggest that there would have to be tax rises to fund social care? If she makes it to 2020, we can find out if the electorate will wear it or not.

It is being funded via council tax so more of an issue for the council elections.

Bit of a cop out that, isn't it: just dumping the problem on already stretched councils.

On the plus side it might get people a bit more involved in local politics.

It's just a different part of the state. In case you hadn't noticed, your council tax probably went up for this very reason.

I know about the council tax rise; I couldn't remember if there was anything on top of that - what with all the 'dementia tax' hoo-ha. My point was that by passing the responsibility to councils rather than funding social care centrally like health care the government can claim that 'they' haven't put up taxes.

Central government isn't passing the responsibility to anyone - councils have been responsible for social care for ages.

How long?

Predates the NHS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_care_in_England
See section on current provision.

Long enough for you?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Clever that. Our rates went up and people blame the council.
The Labour council. Scheming beatch.

Of course your council tax may well be cheaper if your local Labour council didn't p1ss some of your money away on other things that probably aren't necessary. Try living in an area where there's a Tory council, it's usually cheaper.

Here's a map of Council tax rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/per ... -area.html

And here's a map of every local authority colour coded by party.

https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/govern ... 90.article

You sure about your claim?

And let's not mention Northamptonshire.

Oops

Pretty comfortable overall, ta
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4384838/PM-Labour-councils-charge-100-council-tax.html

And specifically, I pay a few hundred quid less than you do for an equivalent property:
https://www.sutton.gov.uk/info/200515/council_tax/1495/council_tax/2
https://www.kfh.co.uk/south-east-london-and-north-kent/bromley-london-borough/council-tax

Apparently the Lib Dems are even worse than Labour for wasting our hard earned

Who says they're wasting it? I'm pretty happy with what my council does with the money and so it would seem are most of the other residents. I moved here from Wandsworth which is known for having very low Council Tax. In summary: you get what you pay for.

I like the bit about the "competence of a strong Conservative council".

I'm sure I get all the services I need and I pay several hundred quid less. Go figure. You seem to assume that state bodies spend wisely...

Not necessarily. Neither do I assume that because something costs less it is better. Councils have very different demographics and geography that they have to deal with so just comparing the raw numbers doesn't tell you much. An average of all the Conservative controlled councils compared with an average of all the Labour councils or all the LD councils or all the NOC councils is pretty meaningless.

On social care, I know this has always been a local responsibility. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

surrey_commuter

A further complication is that Council tax only makes up a minority of funding the rest is funding from central Govt. I agree with the argument that they should be able to keep more locally raised revenue such as business rates. If they had any sense this would help the high street.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Not necessarily. Neither do I assume that because something costs less it is better. Councils have very different demographics and geography that they have to deal with so just comparing the raw numbers doesn't tell you much. An average of all the Conservative controlled councils compared with an average of all the Labour councils or all the LD councils or all the NOC councils is pretty meaningless.

On social care, I know this has always been a local responsibility. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

I guess you would say that if you're paying more I don't really see how my council can do a better job of taking my bins away or keeping the street lights on etc and I'm not interested in paying more for stuff that I don't need.

Not sure why central government would do a better job however. And SC says, part of the funding is centrally sourced anyway.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not necessarily. Neither do I assume that because something costs less it is better. Councils have very different demographics and geography that they have to deal with so just comparing the raw numbers doesn't tell you much. An average of all the Conservative controlled councils compared with an average of all the Labour councils or all the LD councils or all the NOC councils is pretty meaningless.

On social care, I know this has always been a local responsibility. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

I guess you would say that if you're paying more I don't really see how my council can do a better job of taking my bins away or keeping the street lights on etc so not interested in paying more for stuff that I don't need.

Not sure why central government would do a better job however. And SC says, part of the funding is centrally sourced anyway.

Possibly different people want different things from their local authority. As I said, it's not just me that thinks this as the last local election results show. FWIW, the services are noticeably better than my experience in Wandsworth.

If Conservative run councils are so efficient, what's going on in Herefordshire for example, where Band D is nearly £1800?

On social care, I think the fact that it is a local responsibility is partly what has led to the poor coordination with health services and it being a low priority for central government until recently.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not necessarily. Neither do I assume that because something costs less it is better. Councils have very different demographics and geography that they have to deal with so just comparing the raw numbers doesn't tell you much. An average of all the Conservative controlled councils compared with an average of all the Labour councils or all the LD councils or all the NOC councils is pretty meaningless.

On social care, I know this has always been a local responsibility. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

I guess you would say that if you're paying more I don't really see how my council can do a better job of taking my bins away or keeping the street lights on etc so not interested in paying more for stuff that I don't need.

Not sure why central government would do a better job however. And SC says, part of the funding is centrally sourced anyway.

Possibly different people want different things from their local authority. As I said, it's not just me that thinks this as the last local election results show. FWIW, the services are noticeably better than my experience in Wandsworth.

If Conservative run councils are so efficient, what's going on in Herefordshire for example, where Band D is nearly £1800?

On social care, I think the fact that it is a local responsibility is partly what has led to the poor coordination with health services and it being a low priority for central government until recently.

One of the biggest transfers of wealth is through the grants to local Govt. Sine Blair/Brown there has been an enormous transfer from the Tory shires to t’up north. This is why some of the wealthiest areas with apparently some of the lowest needs have the highest levels of council tax and even going bust.

rjsterry

Not sure it's just that, although I'm sure it's part of it. North Somerset is similarly fairly well off and largely rural but it's Band D rate is about £100 a year less. The same for Worcestershire.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Not necessarily. Neither do I assume that because something costs less it is better. Councils have very different demographics and geography that they have to deal with so just comparing the raw numbers doesn't tell you much. An average of all the Conservative controlled councils compared with an average of all the Labour councils or all the LD councils or all the NOC councils is pretty meaningless.

On social care, I know this has always been a local responsibility. Perhaps that is part of the problem.

I guess you would say that if you're paying more I don't really see how my council can do a better job of taking my bins away or keeping the street lights on etc so not interested in paying more for stuff that I don't need.

Not sure why central government would do a better job however. And SC says, part of the funding is centrally sourced anyway.

Possibly different people want different things from their local authority. As I said, it's not just me that thinks this as the last local election results show. FWIW, the services are noticeably better than my experience in Wandsworth.

If Conservative run councils are so efficient, what's going on in Herefordshire for example, where Band D is nearly £1800?

On social care, I think the fact that it is a local responsibility is partly what has led to the poor coordination with health services and it being a low priority for central government until recently.

Clearly there will be variations - my point was that on average, council tax is cheaper in Tory run boroughs. Like mine, as demonstrated above

rjsterry

The degree of variation would suggest that which party is in control has little to do with the level of council tax, let alone the quality of services provided.

tangled_metal

Could a low CT rate council be missing out services that you just don't need but others do Stevo? I don't use social services or social care for the elderly so cut that out and my CT will drop. Right or wrong? That's partly why the comparison between councils with different parties controlling them is my helpful.

Put simply, what is needed by the residents of the Borough, is it provided by the council and what is the cost? With a low CT Borough is it providing the services needed by all residents or are some left in need? BTW some services might be needed more than libraries or street cleaning in well to do areas.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

Could a low CT rate council be missing out services that you just don't need but others do Stevo? I don't use social services or social care for the elderly so cut that out and my CT will drop. Right or wrong? That's partly why the comparison between councils with different parties controlling them is my helpful.

Put simply, what is needed by the residents of the Borough, is it provided by the council and what is the cost? With a low CT Borough is it providing the services needed by all residents or are some left in need? BTW some services might be needed more than libraries or street cleaning in well to do areas.

You miss the point. Most councils perform the same core functions but some charge more than others. There are probably several reasons why, but Labour councils tend to charge more than Tory councils for the same thing.

Also how much is essential? You tell me.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

The degree of variation would suggest that which party is in control has little to do with the level of council tax, let alone the quality of services provided.

The averages speak for themselves.

tangled_metal

Stevo 666 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Could a low CT rate council be missing out services that you just don't need but others do Stevo? I don't use social services or social care for the elderly so cut that out and my CT will drop. Right or wrong? That's partly why the comparison between councils with different parties controlling them is my helpful.

Put simply, what is needed by the residents of the Borough, is it provided by the council and what is the cost? With a low CT Borough is it providing the services needed by all residents or are some left in need? BTW some services might be needed more than libraries or street cleaning in well to do areas.

You miss the point. Most councils perform the same core functions but some charge more than others. There are probably several reasons why, but Labour councils tend to charge more than Tory councils for the same thing.

Also how much is essential? You tell me.

To a point you're right. However the funding to the same service varies. For example I know of a case where a client of elderly social care was, due to a mix of living on a boundary between councils and with a gp practice that operates both sides of the boundary in several practise centres, able to take advantage of two councils' services. Basically with the gp's help could pick the council to cover the social care. There was a difference in funding for the services so one was stretched and offered poor service the other read slightly less stretched and offered slightly better than poor service. Funnily enough the poorer council had the better service however it was still woefully underfunded as you probably expect the situation to be. Tip, don't get old and infirm (arguably do as the who directed not as they did - die before you get old).

All councils prioritise available money but some might prioritise it on giving residents a lower CT at the expense of services needed. One poster mentioned Wandsworth as having lower levels of services iirc.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The degree of variation would suggest that which party is in control has little to do with the level of council tax, let alone the quality of services provided.

The averages speak for themselves.

Only one average and it would only mean something if all councils were identical. They patently aren't so it's a meaningless statistic

robert88

I have never voted Labour in my enfranchised life. I don't particularly like Corbyn.

However, given the utter shambles that the Conservative party have led the UK into, not just since the referendum but over a long period of time, I think it highly likely I will vote Labour. Normally its very unlikely they would stand a chance in my constituency, but the way things are going I wouldn't bet on the Tory candidate.

rjsterry

Well whaddayaknow? Both the Conservatives and Labour have claimed that the other party charges more Council tax.

https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-con ... uncil-tax/

fullfact.org wrote:

...we have been unable to replicate this calculation.

rolf_f

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The degree of variation would suggest that which party is in control has little to do with the level of council tax, let alone the quality of services provided.

The averages speak for themselves.

Averages on their own rarely speak for themselves almost by definition (at least not meaningfully). In this case, you'd at least need to normalise the data against the relative prosperity of the councils. It is reasonable to suspect that the more wealthy councils are also likely to charge lower council tax in which case you get the same result for wealth of council as for controlling party. Other variables may also be important.

tangled_metal

I think I might throw my vote away on the green party or LibDems.

It's a Tory /Labour fight with small majorities each election. Mind you the Tory candidate is really trying to be a good constituency mp so I feel bad for him that Cameron and every tory leader since has been incompetent / dealt a bad hand by their predecessor.

Of only I was a constituency North and I'd be in a LibDem stronghold seat with a former leader who won the seat and turned a blue area into his. Mind you I'd have to vote something else because LibDems don't do much but pick leaders.

Glad I'm not south of here. Really dislike Cat the Labour stooge. One of the youngest new intakes for Labour (of the last proper GE, I don't really include TM's cockup) and she's got the rising star wannabe thing going on l think. It feels like she's in bed with momentum and Corbyn. Big turnout from out of town unionistas and momentum activists for the last GE because she was a serious risk of seat loss. The previous election she was so close the count was checked a few times.

Did anyone watch BBC news show where they run through the papers late Saturday night I think? A socialist journo and former union insider (PR type for a union) said the shadow chancellor was the one to watch. He's been quietly working away on some very important policies to improve workers lot. Big policies. Best policies ever. (just realised she made him sound like Trump). Seriously it sounded like she was letting it out that he's going to be the next leader of the Labour Party. There's something of the shadow about that guy. If you told me he slept on earth in a coffin I might believe you!

rjsterry

It's been obvious for some time that John McDonnell is aching to take over from Jeremy. I think he'd actually be a better leader in that he wouldn't rush to sit on every fence going, but he won't take the party in a direction that will appeal outside of core support.

Edit: just read that in an interview JM has stated that he believes the next Labour leader will be a woman. Maybe he wants to stay as the power behind the throne.