Wake Up Call Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Vote them out. All of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 26 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Caught between a rock and a hard place, which is why the middle and lower incomes bear the brunt of being in the crosshairs. We're running out of money but we daren't tax the individuals and concerns that have the largest amounts because it's not what we "do". Options appear to be few unless there's mannah from heaven available that we don't know about. We don't seem short of money when it comes to gov spending though! Climate change action at all costs? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 The only conclusion one could draw from all the various goings on is either, our elected representatives are totally stupid and have absolutely no idea what they are doing, any of them, or being as understanding as it's possible to be, they are not actually in control of anything ! I do favour the latter surprisingly ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 minute ago, asitis said: The only conclusion one could draw from all the various goings on is either, our elected representatives are totally stupid and have absolutely no idea what they are doing, any of them, or being as understanding as it's possible to be, they are not actually in control of anything ! I do favour the latter surprisingly ! I would think the chief executives have responsibility for the spending in their various departments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 7 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said: I would think the chief executives have responsibility for the spending in their various departments. I would assume so but who is hauling them over the coals ? not the elected that's for certain. If that is where responsibility lies, where does accountability lie ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyWolf Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Yet are any of us surprised, I don’t think so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 17 minutes ago, asitis said: The only conclusion one could draw from all the various goings on is either, our elected representatives are totally stupid and have absolutely no idea what they are doing, any of them, or being as understanding as it's possible to be, they are not actually in control of anything ! I do favour the latter surprisingly ! I can answer a bit of that from experience. Elected members generally have no expertise in the Depts to which they are assigned and often don't stay there long enough to accumulate any (for instance, look at the turnover in DOI). They are entirely reliant upon what they are told by their Departmental seniors and protocol dictates that they can neither enquire too deeply nor criticise, even when things are abundantly obvious. All this would be fine if those seniors and some below them are competent and above all honest. And in addition, subject to some sort of accountability by "the system". Sadly, this is not the case, none of them are regularly accountable because the system is structured to protect them. AC himself has advised that "Ministers cannot rely" etc etc, which speaks volumes for the honesty and competence bit. So our elected are led by the nose and can be misled when it suits the purpose and frequently have no cognisance of it. Nor are they permitted to question it too deeply even if they do suspect. Their role is to figurehead, publicly defend, pretend that they know what's going on and take the rap from the electorate when things go tits up and public. Those responsible for the tits up remain immune or at the very worst, are handsomely paid off, only to return in other roles or generally remain hovering around the scene. Which is why we are where we are. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said: I'm sure this has come up before but.... why were local authority bonds discontinued? Because of KYC & AML regulations, not cost effective to issue say £2000 bonds to mrs Miggins etc as they would have to complete KYC, check where funds can from etc etc so each LA would need a team to deal with it. IOMG can borrow money cheaper from market as already proved and lend it on if needed or guarantee commercial borrowing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistercee Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 9 minutes ago, Banker said: Because of KYC & AML regulations, not cost effective to issue say £2000 bonds to mrs Miggins etc as they would have to complete KYC, check where funds can from etc etc so each LA would need a team to deal with it. IOMG can borrow money cheaper from market as already proved and lend it on if needed or guarantee commercial borrowing But Government could have made an exemption from the AML/KYC regulations for local authority bond issuance. They chose not to do so because it gave Treasury more power over local authorities and increased the number of civil servants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTail Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I have been thinking about how some savings can be made. We could abolish all eco/green projects. The current power station can be kept running for many years yet. The Promenade sea wall can be stopped. No new busses for 10 years No new posts like the new director of tourism. Make do with whatever current staff there are Abandon plans to extend the horse trams Abandon plans for the Peggy preservation Finally we may get a better VAT arrangement. The VAT is based on an estimated spend by our population. If we have individuals spending over £50m on a super yacht. I saw a new Bentley Continental the other day so I suspect we greatly under estimate the VAT spend for such a small population. Just a few suggestions 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 19 minutes ago, Mistercee said: But Government could have made an exemption from the AML/KYC regulations for local authority bond issuance. They chose not to do so because it gave Treasury more power over local authorities and increased the number of civil servants. Probably wouldn’t fit with global standards, imagine telling moneyval or other similar institutions we don’t bother with KYC/AML for several £m raised from various locals !! Local drug dealers would be delighted to clean their money with no question asked 😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, NoTail said: I have been thinking about how some savings can be made. We could abolish all eco/green projects. The current power station can be kept running for many years yet. The Promenade sea wall can be stopped. No new busses for 10 years No new posts like the new director of tourism. Make do with whatever current staff there are Abandon plans to extend the horse trams Abandon plans for the Peggy preservation Finally we may get a better VAT arrangement. The VAT is based on an estimated spend by our population. If we have individuals spending over £50m on a super yacht. I saw a new Bentley Continental the other day so I suspect we greatly under estimate the VAT spend for such a small population. Just a few suggestions Yes some good suggestions in there. Not sure you can determine, estimate or extrapolate the VAT spend from the sighting of a Bentley Continental though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 9 hours ago, Moghrey Mie said: Isn't it from people being dragged into paying income tax because the thresholds are so low? £14,500 for a single person. Shhhh you aren't meant to notice THAT. Nor are we reducing the NI in line with the UK either. That's not going to change until late 2025 when the next electection starts to loom large. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoopy2110 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 These people live in fantasy land. In any normal business, if a department overspent by £35 million then people would be hauled up infront of superiors, asked to explain what happened, then fired. In the public sector, just get the money from elsewhere and it's fine. The worst bit ? It's our taxes paying these morons. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 minute ago, swoopy2110 said: These people live in fantasy land. In any normal business, if a department overspent by £35 million then people would be hauled up infront of superiors, asked to explain what happened, then fired. In the public sector, just get the money from elsewhere and it's fine. The worst bit ? It's our taxes paying these morons. Despite all of the hand wringing about 'cost of living crisis' they quietly slipped in the miracle of increased tax revenue balancing out the overspend. So convenient. Such a coincidence. Must be pyschic for departments to 'need' just the right amount to cover their overspends. What I am curious to know is will this mean that this budget increase this year rolls over to next years department budgets? Personally, I'd be saying okay you need to cut your budgets by £15m (the 4 departments in proportion) for the next three years to repay the overspend. Never will happen though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.