| 19 councils to sell assets 06:13 - Mar 1 with 8632 views | gtsb1966 |
to pay for services next year. Obviously this government don't care because they won't be in power next year but what have they done to this country. The next ten years are going to be a rough ride. I read only this week that Babergh is only 2 years from bankruptcy unless it makes drastic cuts. The roads are a disgrace now, imagine what they'll be like in a few years time. Forget the electric car, you'll need a horse and cart.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68439624 |  | | |  |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:33 - Mar 1 with 3211 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 08:52 - Mar 1 by NthQldITFC |
Billionaires, yes, but many (most?) of us still worship personal financial wealth above everything and aspire to nothing more than increasing our bank balance and the things we can do and places we can go with all of our disposable income, even though it should be blindingly obvious that:
a. the environment cannot take the by-products of our gluttonous consumption.
b. a peaceful, functional society cannot take the effects of the inequity.
If we don't see a radical change in attitude at the top AND the middle of the wealth pyramid, both are seriously fked. True wealth is personal peace and the ability to relax in a cool, stable and peaceful world. We all know this at some level. |
Disagree - I think you have a very cynical view of people. Most people are just looking to earn more to be comfortable rather than living paycheck to paycheck. Yes there are some berks who want to get the latest handbag they saw on instagram, but I don’t think that’s representative of the majority (not in my circles anyway).
And your hopes of a stable, peaceful world is pie in the sky - some people just want to watch the world burn (maybe it’s me that’s cynical). |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:36 - Mar 1 with 3196 views | DanTheMan |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:30 - Mar 1 by Cotty |
There's a point where it becomes unsafe to road users that everyone should start to care. |
We hit a particularly nasty one on the M1 a few weeks back. Not fun when you're doing 70mph. |  |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:38 - Mar 1 with 3190 views | Basuco |
This is a result of "hidden" tax increases by the Government, cut funding to local authorities so they increase local tax's and hope the electorate do not notice, it is all part of a common theme of shifting the overall tax burden to the lower paid so that we all pay more for less services. |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:44 - Mar 1 with 3176 views | Buhrer |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:18 - Mar 1 by NthQldITFC |
Each individual billionaire could say the same thing. |
Well exactly. But convincing us proles won't change a thing. If you could change just a few of these entrepreneurial giants minds away from raping our world to death, there might be hope. Maybe with a Labour government eh? Off to glitter bomb a snooker player right now. |  | | |
| I saw a video the other day…. on 09:54 - Mar 1 with 3160 views | Bloots |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:36 - Mar 1 by DanTheMan |
We hit a particularly nasty one on the M1 a few weeks back. Not fun when you're doing 70mph. |
….showing that the faster you go, the less impact potholes have on the driving experience and therefore the less damage they do.
Basic physics innit.
I’m gonna do a minimum of 60mph around town and 100+mph on A roads and motorways.
Suck it Highway Code. |  |
| "The sooner he comes back the better, this place has been a disaster without him" - TWTD User (July 2025) |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 10:18 - Mar 1 with 3118 views | NthQldITFC |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 09:33 - Mar 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Disagree - I think you have a very cynical view of people. Most people are just looking to earn more to be comfortable rather than living paycheck to paycheck. Yes there are some berks who want to get the latest handbag they saw on instagram, but I don’t think that’s representative of the majority (not in my circles anyway).
And your hopes of a stable, peaceful world is pie in the sky - some people just want to watch the world burn (maybe it’s me that’s cynical). |
Cynical is probably accurate to some extent I accept, but my belief is that we face, very imminently, both societal and environmental 'serious degradations'. 'Collapses' may be too strong a word, we don't know, but certainly on the environmental side all the evidence points toward a breaking down right now of previously stable systems which have enabled human society to thrive (and expand).
Maybe my view of our more superficial UK society problems is overly coloured by my terror (not personal terror but terror as a component of the Earth) about the state of the environment and our minimal efforts to do anything about it. The thing is that I see the human response to both of these things as very similar, short-sighted, small-minded and selfish, and I do see that at most levels of society, not just the uber-rich.
It's truly radical shifts in the way we live we need (I mean all of humanity not just the UK). It's not just handbags, it's cheap flights to watch football matches, it's new shiny cars every three years, it's disposable plastic knick-knacks, and dsiposable fashion, it's "change the furniture because I fancy a change" and on the infrastructure side it's "let's just have a rebrand and change the facade to freshen up the way we are perceived". Comfort might be a bit of a misnomer when applied to many of these things, an excuse.
Of course the ultimate stable, peaceful world is pie in the sky, but it's not a binary thing - we can improve matters, particularly if we're not driven by how we look, or by how we think we look, but by how we feel. |  |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 10:49 - Mar 1 with 3093 views | TMWWNGAS |
I suppose the flip side to this though, is why are councils stockpiling assets?
The council had the money initially and opted to invest in the assets (one would assume) to sell on at a later date for a profit.
The alternative argument I guess is in the previous years they were over funded as they could purchase said assets. (Purely from a devil's advocate point of view) tbh I really don't have much of an opinion either way! | | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 11:09 - Mar 1 with 3068 views | Pinewoodblue |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 10:49 - Mar 1 by TMWWNGAS |
I suppose the flip side to this though, is why are councils stockpiling assets?
The council had the money initially and opted to invest in the assets (one would assume) to sell on at a later date for a profit.
The alternative argument I guess is in the previous years they were over funded as they could purchase said assets. (Purely from a devil's advocate point of view) tbh I really don't have much of an opinion either way! |
Councils have been encouraged to borrow from Treasury At favourable rates.
Some unwise purchases have been made. Didn’t Ipswich BC do this to purchase ToysR us to protect the Town Centre. Not exactly an earner for them as been empty for years. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| 19 councils to sell assets on 11:33 - Mar 1 with 3044 views | usm |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 08:39 - Mar 1 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Failure to tax the hundreds of billionaires that have popped up through globalisation is one of the reasons the middle class has been so squeezed over the last 20 years. We are told we can’t afford to fund our services (there’s an element of truth there) whilst people own companies that are bigger than some economies. We have so many foreign billionaires resident in the UK precisely because we don’t tax them enough.
Then we invite these billionaire tax dodgers to COP when they’ve made their money running fleets of diesels. We’ve even got billionaire tax dodgers as our Head of State, and fawn over them in the media. |
Whilst I agree with you generally, those billionaires probably spend huge amounts in the UK - maybe employing people and therefore generating income tax and national insurance - plus of course buying stuff which attracts VAT, fuel duty etc.
There's a balance there somewhere, finding it is the tricky bit. |  |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 13:53 - Mar 1 with 2995 views | BloomBlue |
Although from another perspective...
How many councils in England & Wales, 300ish? (If you count the different types). 19 out of 300ish. Why are some councils run fine and others going bankrupt.
Look at Birmingham Council, fecked because they discriminated against women and got hit with a huge bill as a result.
Funding of councils come from taxation but why should people in the rest of the UK ultimately have to pay more tax to bail out the scum Birmingham Council who discriminated against women?
It was the people of Birmingham who were stupid enough to vote for a scum council. Same if my local council fecked up, I would expect the public in this council to fund it, even if it meant reduction in services or increase in council tax |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 14:01 - Mar 1 with 2982 views | Churchman |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 11:33 - Mar 1 by usm |
Whilst I agree with you generally, those billionaires probably spend huge amounts in the UK - maybe employing people and therefore generating income tax and national insurance - plus of course buying stuff which attracts VAT, fuel duty etc.
There's a balance there somewhere, finding it is the tricky bit. |
Interesting article from LSE. It would seem, shock horror, the wealthy do not always pay their dues. |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 18:04 - Mar 2 with 2887 views | bluebudgie |
It would help if councils didn't pay the CEO s and managers so much |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 19:05 - Mar 2 with 2847 views | Swansea_Blue |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 07:43 - Mar 1 by Plums |
They're a metaphor for the state of the nation.
I can't believe anyone who uses our roads concludes 'this is a well run country'.
Perhaps I think too deeply (not as deep as some of the holes round here obviously) about it but one thing the Tories are succeeding with is helping lots of previously uninterested people realise politics really does affect their lives. |
I used to think they were bad around Wales (and they are) but a couple of trips into England lately has been an eye opener. Not so much pot holes these days, more pot canyons.
It’s depressingly sad that we’re at the stage of having to sell the family silver to put food on the table. These last quite a few years should kill the myth that the Tories are better with the economy. |  |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 23:06 - Mar 2 with 2810 views | bournemouthblue |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 08:15 - Mar 1 by NthQldITFC |
Is it that whilst funding is creeping up, they have been forced (fiscally or ideologically) to outsource everything to the unchecked and ravenously greedy, public purse-pillaging private sector and have very little scope for internal efficiency improvements any more?
I know very little about this, but it seems to me that the damage was done some time ago and the T*ries are just kicking a nearly dead man, stealing his vest and underpants whilst scattering a few coppers around and saying "It's all your fault". |
That partly is itself can be ideological
Suffolk County Council who are almost always Tory love an outsource but Ipswich Borough tend to keep most things in house and generally run things fairly efficiently |  |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 23:08 - Mar 2 with 2804 views | bournemouthblue |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 11:09 - Mar 1 by Pinewoodblue |
Councils have been encouraged to borrow from Treasury At favourable rates.
Some unwise purchases have been made. Didn’t Ipswich BC do this to purchase ToysR us to protect the Town Centre. Not exactly an earner for them as been empty for years. |
Not sure about Toys 'R Us but they own the retail park at Martlesham (much to East Suffolk Council's frustration) which seems to be thriving and the one at Whitehouse which again seems to be doing fairly well | |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 23:11 - Mar 2 with 2794 views | bournemouthblue |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 10:49 - Mar 1 by TMWWNGAS |
I suppose the flip side to this though, is why are councils stockpiling assets?
The council had the money initially and opted to invest in the assets (one would assume) to sell on at a later date for a profit.
The alternative argument I guess is in the previous years they were over funded as they could purchase said assets. (Purely from a devil's advocate point of view) tbh I really don't have much of an opinion either way! |
It was alleged Suffolk County Council had stockpiled something like £400 million, god knows why
That's £400 million they could have been invested locally and who knows what has happened to that, has it just been written off?
It's a very strange one, I know they scrapped Ben Gummer's Fantasy Bridge project once they realised it would cost 3 or 4 times the estimated £150 million
Tom Hunt proudly proclaimed he's earned the Town £25 million in funding, negating the fact we were £125 million down on the missing bridge project | |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 07:30 - Mar 3 with 2736 views | Clutch |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 18:04 - Mar 2 by bluebudgie |
It would help if councils didn't pay the CEO s and managers so much |
Managers do not get paid alot at councils. |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 08:32 - Mar 3 with 2714 views | Aviator |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 08:31 - Mar 1 by itfcjoe |
Why don't we tax dividends and CGT opposed to constantly going after income tax? Workers on PAYE have to suffer the burden every time whilst the non-working rich don't |
Dividends are essentially taxed the same as income because a company has paid corporation tax at 25% on that money already.
CGT is another argument.
I don’t agree that taxing high earners even more is the answer. These superstars are already contributing far more than their fair share.
I’d like to see more transparency in the tax system. Merging NI and income tax for example. Everyone should pay broadly the same proportion of tax. That is fair. If they need to be paid more, then so be it. Everyone should pay something, no matter how little they have or earn so we can all buy into the system. | | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 12:14 - Mar 3 with 2645 views | Ryorry |
|  |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 17:42 - Mar 3 with 2587 views | DJR |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 12:14 - Mar 3 by Ryorry |
|
Private Eye has been very good in relation to the dodgy dealings going on at Teeside Freeport.
This from the FT a couple of months ago is pretty damning.
Ever since two local developers were handed control of the UK’s biggest brownfield project, Teesworks, questions have swirled about the value and wisdom of the deal, the secrecy that has shrouded it and how much they stood to gain.
On Monday an independent inquiry finally issued its conclusions. It noted there was a persistent “culture of excessive confidentiality” and “lack of transparency” at the project and recorded a catalogue of governance failures at two public bodies chaired by the Tees Valley’s Conservative mayor, Lord Ben Houchen.
The inquiry’s report found there were insufficient checks in place to safeguard value for the taxpayer and concluded that through complex confidential agreements with a local public body, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney had been allowed to “cherry pick” the most profitable elements of the vast former steelworks site in Redcar.
In the process they had made tens of millions of pounds, while the taxpayer ploughed in more than £560mn and was saddled with liabilities.
The findings will raise questions not only for the devolved landscape in England, across which more and more mayoralties are being created, but for Whitehall’s regulation of public spending.
Teesworks is one of the most high-profile elements in the government’s “levelling up” agenda to address the UK’s persistent regional inequality. Ministers have earmarked the vast former SSI site for a huge modern industrial cluster, ploughing in £246mn in grants to prepare the land.
In 2021 it was incorporated into the Teesside freeport, the UK’s largest, receiving further tax break status in the aim of attracting investors.
But the involvement of Musgrave and Corney since early 2020 has long been the cause of speculation.
The report found that while the developers had been allowed to attend confidential public sector board meetings, which the inquiry panel deemed “wholly inappropriate”, councillors and senior officials in the local organisation part funding the project were barred from scrutinising its finances or the development corporation directly overseeing it for the public sector.
In addition, they were not told of major decisions and were “unaware” of the degree of financial risk to which their authorities were becoming exposed.
The board of the Houchen-chaired South Tees Development Corporation (STDC), the local regeneration body that channels public money into the project and struck most of the deals with the developers, was sometimes “rushed” into agreements with too little information, the report found.
This resulted in “inappropriate” decisions, including transactions that “may breach” state aid rules, it added.
The review followed a labyrinth of more than 20 deals struck between Houchen’s corporation and the developers, arrangements described by one lawyer working on the project as “the most complex” of their type they had seen. Some were agreed by officials, meaning the public board was not consulted at all.
In return they were theoretically committed to undertake work to decontaminate land and take on future liabilities. But the panel found “the legal documentation doesn’t impose any such obligation on Teesworks Ltd to undertake remediation and there is no evidence that [it] has so far done so”.
As the FT reported last month, the most recent accounts for Teesworks Ltd show profits tripled to £54mn in the financial year following the deal. The review found the developers had received £45mn in dividends and payments over the lifetime of the project, while £63mn in cash is sitting in the company.
A deal giving the developers half the value of recyclable materials on site — such as scrap metal — is estimated to be worth £75mn to them. The review found “no evidence of any formal decision-making process” in relation to the agreement, including at board level.
Meanwhile, the corporation itself was taking on significant liabilities. The STDC has borrowed £257mn and may borrow £238mn more.
Those liabilities could ultimately end up resting with the area’s five cash-strapped local councils, whose leaders, along with the mayor, comprise the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the body meant to oversee the STDC.
On other occasions board members reported they had been “rushed” to agree highly significant deals without understanding the information put before them. Some of those that were presented to them were inaccurate, the report found.
It described how “none of the standard checks relating to proof and source of funds, credit rating and money laundering were carried out” when the corporation first agreed a development joint venture with the developers at Teesworks in March 2020.
The most controversial deal — which the panel concluded was of sufficient “magnitude” to warrant scrutiny from councillors, but which was not disclosed to them — resulted in the developers being handed 90 per cent control of the development vehicle in 2021.
This not only gave the developers “effectively absolute control of the company” but allowed them to “cherry pick” whichever parts of the site looked potentially profitable and buy them at £1 an acre. [Post edited 3 Mar 2024 17:43]
|  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 19:29 - Mar 3 with 2521 views | Durovigutum |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 13:53 - Mar 1 by BloomBlue |
Although from another perspective...
How many councils in England & Wales, 300ish? (If you count the different types). 19 out of 300ish. Why are some councils run fine and others going bankrupt.
Look at Birmingham Council, fecked because they discriminated against women and got hit with a huge bill as a result.
Funding of councils come from taxation but why should people in the rest of the UK ultimately have to pay more tax to bail out the scum Birmingham Council who discriminated against women?
It was the people of Birmingham who were stupid enough to vote for a scum council. Same if my local council fecked up, I would expect the public in this council to fund it, even if it meant reduction in services or increase in council tax |
Birmingham made their own mess. The dispute was ongoing for years (over ten) and at no point did they say to themselves "lets set aside some money in case we lose this case" - like you hear the banks setting aside money for write downs for bad debt. They then compounded this with a shocking IT project.
I have political oversight of a district council budget. In 2010 our RSG (revenue support grant) was £2.358m, this coming year it will be £188,000.
The extra costs pushed onto councils are very often hidden - Internal Drainage Boards are something that impact the East of England and the RSG was a large part of this funding that now "just" comes out of council tax.
Due to the cost of electricity increasing and the terrible standing charge poll tax (which we as residents have also been hit by) many Eastern councils were hit with a huge IDB levy increase. The standing charge for St Germans Pumping Station in King's Lynn has increased by 1,300% and for East Lindsey District Council the total levy equates to 65% of the council tax they receive. For 23/24, the council we allowed to raise council tax by £321,000 but the IDB increase was £946,000. With inflation at 10%.
What I will say is, just like national government, there are a number of councils who take politically expedient decisions that they really shouldn't because winning the next election is more important for them and, frankly, most of the public don't understand so they get away with it. Also, the quality of some local councillors can be suspect perhaps because the "rewards" are negligible. I'm a relatively competent professional who thinks social justice and giving back to the community are important and who earns enough money in my day job that it doesn't matter how poor allowances are, but my day job pays me 20 times what I receive for time on council work. But I enjoy it and in just 20 months on our council I have turned a five year MTFS £8m black hole into a £4m surplus while also introducing a scheme that has removed the poorest out of paying council tax.
O - and council tax. Another dreadful, regressive tax that favours the asset rich. |  | | |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 19:49 - Mar 3 with 2509 views | Ryorry |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 17:42 - Mar 3 by DJR |
Private Eye has been very good in relation to the dodgy dealings going on at Teeside Freeport.
This from the FT a couple of months ago is pretty damning.
Ever since two local developers were handed control of the UK’s biggest brownfield project, Teesworks, questions have swirled about the value and wisdom of the deal, the secrecy that has shrouded it and how much they stood to gain.
On Monday an independent inquiry finally issued its conclusions. It noted there was a persistent “culture of excessive confidentiality” and “lack of transparency” at the project and recorded a catalogue of governance failures at two public bodies chaired by the Tees Valley’s Conservative mayor, Lord Ben Houchen.
The inquiry’s report found there were insufficient checks in place to safeguard value for the taxpayer and concluded that through complex confidential agreements with a local public body, Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney had been allowed to “cherry pick” the most profitable elements of the vast former steelworks site in Redcar.
In the process they had made tens of millions of pounds, while the taxpayer ploughed in more than £560mn and was saddled with liabilities.
The findings will raise questions not only for the devolved landscape in England, across which more and more mayoralties are being created, but for Whitehall’s regulation of public spending.
Teesworks is one of the most high-profile elements in the government’s “levelling up” agenda to address the UK’s persistent regional inequality. Ministers have earmarked the vast former SSI site for a huge modern industrial cluster, ploughing in £246mn in grants to prepare the land.
In 2021 it was incorporated into the Teesside freeport, the UK’s largest, receiving further tax break status in the aim of attracting investors.
But the involvement of Musgrave and Corney since early 2020 has long been the cause of speculation.
The report found that while the developers had been allowed to attend confidential public sector board meetings, which the inquiry panel deemed “wholly inappropriate”, councillors and senior officials in the local organisation part funding the project were barred from scrutinising its finances or the development corporation directly overseeing it for the public sector.
In addition, they were not told of major decisions and were “unaware” of the degree of financial risk to which their authorities were becoming exposed.
The board of the Houchen-chaired South Tees Development Corporation (STDC), the local regeneration body that channels public money into the project and struck most of the deals with the developers, was sometimes “rushed” into agreements with too little information, the report found.
This resulted in “inappropriate” decisions, including transactions that “may breach” state aid rules, it added.
The review followed a labyrinth of more than 20 deals struck between Houchen’s corporation and the developers, arrangements described by one lawyer working on the project as “the most complex” of their type they had seen. Some were agreed by officials, meaning the public board was not consulted at all.
In return they were theoretically committed to undertake work to decontaminate land and take on future liabilities. But the panel found “the legal documentation doesn’t impose any such obligation on Teesworks Ltd to undertake remediation and there is no evidence that [it] has so far done so”.
As the FT reported last month, the most recent accounts for Teesworks Ltd show profits tripled to £54mn in the financial year following the deal. The review found the developers had received £45mn in dividends and payments over the lifetime of the project, while £63mn in cash is sitting in the company.
A deal giving the developers half the value of recyclable materials on site — such as scrap metal — is estimated to be worth £75mn to them. The review found “no evidence of any formal decision-making process” in relation to the agreement, including at board level.
Meanwhile, the corporation itself was taking on significant liabilities. The STDC has borrowed £257mn and may borrow £238mn more.
Those liabilities could ultimately end up resting with the area’s five cash-strapped local councils, whose leaders, along with the mayor, comprise the Tees Valley Combined Authority, the body meant to oversee the STDC.
On other occasions board members reported they had been “rushed” to agree highly significant deals without understanding the information put before them. Some of those that were presented to them were inaccurate, the report found.
It described how “none of the standard checks relating to proof and source of funds, credit rating and money laundering were carried out” when the corporation first agreed a development joint venture with the developers at Teesworks in March 2020.
The most controversial deal — which the panel concluded was of sufficient “magnitude” to warrant scrutiny from councillors, but which was not disclosed to them — resulted in the developers being handed 90 per cent control of the development vehicle in 2021.
This not only gave the developers “effectively absolute control of the company” but allowed them to “cherry pick” whichever parts of the site looked potentially profitable and buy them at £1 an acre. [Post edited 3 Mar 2024 17:43]
|
Thanks for posting - shocking stuff. | |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 20:02 - Mar 3 with 2496 views | Ryorry |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 19:29 - Mar 3 by Durovigutum |
Birmingham made their own mess. The dispute was ongoing for years (over ten) and at no point did they say to themselves "lets set aside some money in case we lose this case" - like you hear the banks setting aside money for write downs for bad debt. They then compounded this with a shocking IT project.
I have political oversight of a district council budget. In 2010 our RSG (revenue support grant) was £2.358m, this coming year it will be £188,000.
The extra costs pushed onto councils are very often hidden - Internal Drainage Boards are something that impact the East of England and the RSG was a large part of this funding that now "just" comes out of council tax.
Due to the cost of electricity increasing and the terrible standing charge poll tax (which we as residents have also been hit by) many Eastern councils were hit with a huge IDB levy increase. The standing charge for St Germans Pumping Station in King's Lynn has increased by 1,300% and for East Lindsey District Council the total levy equates to 65% of the council tax they receive. For 23/24, the council we allowed to raise council tax by £321,000 but the IDB increase was £946,000. With inflation at 10%.
What I will say is, just like national government, there are a number of councils who take politically expedient decisions that they really shouldn't because winning the next election is more important for them and, frankly, most of the public don't understand so they get away with it. Also, the quality of some local councillors can be suspect perhaps because the "rewards" are negligible. I'm a relatively competent professional who thinks social justice and giving back to the community are important and who earns enough money in my day job that it doesn't matter how poor allowances are, but my day job pays me 20 times what I receive for time on council work. But I enjoy it and in just 20 months on our council I have turned a five year MTFS £8m black hole into a £4m surplus while also introducing a scheme that has removed the poorest out of paying council tax.
O - and council tax. Another dreadful, regressive tax that favours the asset rich. |
I’d have upped that if not for your last para.
Council tax does *not* favour “asset rich” pensioners who own their own homes but have diddly squat by way of actual income - quite the opposite, it’s iniquitous and unjust. [Post edited 3 Mar 2024 20:19]
| |
| |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 20:14 - Mar 3 with 2474 views | Pinewoodblue |
| 19 councils to sell assets on 23:11 - Mar 2 by bournemouthblue |
It was alleged Suffolk County Council had stockpiled something like £400 million, god knows why
That's £400 million they could have been invested locally and who knows what has happened to that, has it just been written off?
It's a very strange one, I know they scrapped Ben Gummer's Fantasy Bridge project once they realised it would cost 3 or 4 times the estimated £150 million
Tom Hunt proudly proclaimed he's earned the Town £25 million in funding, negating the fact we were £125 million down on the missing bridge project |
Local Authorities own an amazing amount of property, not always in places you would expect them to invest.
Not sure if ipswich BC still own this Property in Peterborough.
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/22028866.ipswich-council-firm-buys-peterborou | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
