TORIES PROPOSE HIGHER RATE

RATE RISE HIGHER UNDER TORIES

Though we usually leave the pedantry to Martyn Bolt, to be totally accurate the Conservatives proposed a higher rate rise this year than the Labour Group.

The result of the conservative gamble on the growth in Business Rates would have meant that the 1% they DELAYED would have been higher than if they had not delayed it, as 1% would have been added to this year’s 5% rise.

6% Rise as recommended by Government.

 

This is on the Kirklees website and describes part of the 6% being for Social Care (3%), but it should have been 4% because the government told councils to put up their council tax by an extra 1% because they recognise the crisis they have caused in underfunding Social Care and the impact that is having on the NHS.

The other 2% is what the government allow for inflation, not enough though as it makes no recognition in rise in demand for example they don’t seem to realise that people are living longer.

The Kirklees budget debate was confused by amendments (and press releases) trying to claim that three groups were putting in a lower rise. They were not. They put in the 2% (inflation) 1% (This year’s Social Care) and 3% Social care precept. What they did do, was to gamble that we would get a windfall in November that would allow them to delay 1% of the 3% until next year.

Whatever the other groups say 2 + 1 + 2 + 1 = 6

6% Government Rate Rise proposed by all Groups on Kirklees

6% RATE RISE

The government, intent on cutting tax and regulation to it's Tax Avoiding Friends has told councils throughout the land, that despite the pressure on the NHS caused in part by shortfalls in Adult Social Care it is unwilling to fund Adult Social Care.

It has told councils to increase council tax by 6%, despite knowing that that is not enough to avoid cuts to Social Care therefor putting massive pressure on the NHS. The attack on the NHS is not accidental, Conservatives intent is to destroy the NHS to line the pockets of their Tax Avoiding and foreign friends of the Capitalist elite by cutting funds, constant reorganisation and expensive privatisation.

It must be remembered the Tories fought Tooth and Nail against the creation of the NHS, supported by the BMA and the right wing press they called the NHS the "Medical Gestapo" and "Medical Fuhrer" and the Daily Mail, as usual speaking for the working man, declared "NO FUTURE FOR US IN BRITAIN"

The NHS was created despite the 178 Conservatives who voted against it.

All parties on Kirklees propose the Government recommended 6% Rate rise.

Three parties propose using money that we may receive in November, that could be used to protect Adult Social Care and thus take some pressure off the NHS, to delay 1% of the rise for the year. But the do propose the rise.

Business Rate Retention

I realise I may be a lone voice in being entirely cynical over retention of business rates but:

 

Any system that is dependent on redistribution of business rates is not a retention of business rates.

 

Talk about the advantages of retaining the benefit of growth in the business rate pool, this ignores the difference in growth between North and South. Rateable values in the south not only start from a point where they have much higher values for comparable properties but the rate of growth has been, and I see no reason for it to change, greater than in the North. So retaining the benefit of growth means that the South will get richer and richer and the surpluses will not be available for redistribution. We already see the situation where Westminster has one of the lowest community charge rates in the country, we can predict with retention of business rates they will be able to pay a premium rather than charge a community levy.

 

At the very best we will be dependent on a secretary of state (remember Eric) being fair in redistribution from mostly southern authorities to mostly northern authorities.

 

Anything else will the end of local government in large parts of the country.

Check, Challenge, Appeal—reforming business rates appeals

Just in case you had missed the main change to rating appeals I have highlighted it in red.


Check, Challenge, Appeal—reforming business rates appeals
DCLG published a summary of the con-sultation responses on 6 July, along with the Government’s response. The docu-ments can be seen at

https://www.gov.uk/government/consult ations/reforming-business-rates-appeals-check-challenge-appeal.

In the press release announcing the pub-lications, the Department said that, "businesses will benefit from a quicker and more efficient service when check-ing and challenging their business rates bills". The new process includes a VOA online service allowing customers to pro-vide information and track progress of their check or challenge.

Aims of the process are to:
 weed out speculative appeals

 make sure that genuine disputes are settled more quickly

 bring added security to councils plan-ning their budgets.



A fee will be payable to lodge an ap-peal and penalties may be imposed for providing false information.

Small businesses will benefit from a fast-tracking system, clear guidance and lower fees.

Appeals Against Business Rates to cost you

APPEALS COST

At the present time if you appeal against you rating valuation, no costs are involved, but the government are trying to change that.

They are proposing that if the Valuation Office gets it Wrong you are going to be charged up to £300 just to put in an appeal. This is based on their "success" with regard to employment appeals. By introducing a charge it cut the number of appeals massively. Pretty obvious to some that if you loose your job, you will not be able to pay fees just to get justice.

All this should not be a surprise, as it follows on from the principles of the Magna Carta that justice should be free - for the rich and powerful.

FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION CLOSURE

FERRYBRIDGE POWER STATION CLOSURE

Would it be synical to suspect the timing of the announcement of the closure of Ferrbridge Power Station, was it delayed to help the Tory Candidate, or were the owners hoping for a Labour victory?

What I did hear this morning was an interview with their Conservative MP, he promised - yes this is true - that he would be sending a strong letter to the Energy Minister. I am sure the Energy Minister is quivering in his boots in anticipation.

What was talked about was the 600 people who would loose their jobs, only an afterthought mension of the ancillary jobs and contractors, no mention of the massive loss of income to the Local Authority as a consequence of the closure and the system set up by Eric Pickles.

The MP did the usual, blambing "previous" gouvernment decisions (15 years ago he said) and what I suspect will rapidly become the "Usual suspect" for all that goes wrong, "Europe".

Whatever the Polatics, today real families have had their future and standard of living put at risk and out thoughts must be with them. Lets hope that all that is possible is done to find them jobs, though their local MP's suggestion that they work on tidal barriers is probably a bit on the optamistic side at arround Selby.

13% Rate Rise for Roberts Recycling

Robert Lights Recycling Rant

Robert Light thinks Kirklees should have the same recycling rate as Calderdale. Calderdale achieve their recycling rate by spending a lot more money than we do, the equivalent of £13m a year more. That is the equivalent of a 13% rate rise.

Kirklees Cons Send Our Money South

KIRKLEES CONS MASOCHISM

Ever since the Tory/Lib Dem unholy alliance decided to ignore need in allocating grants to Local Authorities Eric has been robbing the North to give to the South.

Remember, this money is collected in tax by the Government from the North and only part is passed back to the Local Areas it is collected in. Remember also the largest part of this "Grant" is used to pay for the services the Government say we have to provide.

This years "settlement" is particularily insulting, in that whilst most areas of the North, which tend to be poorer areas, are being subjected to damaging cuts, some areas of the South, where Eric lives, are recieving more money.

Now most people in the North and nearly all economic institutions think this highly unfair, in fact all but one Group on Kirklees Council do. Kirklees Council debated the settlement and were presented the evidence of its unfairness from multiple sources. For some inexplicable reason, the Conservative Group decided that it was only fair that the Rich South should get more money than the Poor North. Robert Light ststed that it was only fair, whilst David Hall chanted his increasingly boring playground mantra "it wasn't us sir, it was the big boys who were here before us".

Robert Light - Tory Leader - tells us the reason that money is being shifted down south is that Labour gave Kirklees too much money.

PICKPOCKET PICKLES PERNICIOUS PLOTS #1

PICKPOCKET PICKLES PERNICIOUS PLOTS #1

Anyone looking at all the information produced by national and local newspapers and by the BBC and the Audit Office can have missed the shift of Government Grant from the North to the South, and in a Robin Hood reversal, from the Poor to the Rich. Eric in his Southern looking for new ways to move money south, this series highlights the ways he is doing this.Mansion has to deny his Northern origins to prove to his southern cronies that he is now “One of them”. To do this he spends his days

The most obvious and transparent plot was to simplify the system, by ignoring need. No more was the length of roads that had to be maintained, the number of old people who had to be cared for, the number of children who had to be looked after, etc. etc., would have to be counted, and more conveniently the principle of giving more money to those in greater need could be ignored. Eric froze the grant at the point he thought suited him, then cut everyone’s grant and reallocated it through the devious schemes I will describe later. Note there is never any “New” money, in fact Eric as the Minister for Local Government takes great pleasure being at the front of the queue when cuts are being allocated by the Cabinet, “me sir, me sir” is his mantra. He is in the position where he can cut as much as he likes and leave it to someone else to work out the details, and more importantly take the blame.

Think about it, a very simple way to look at how ignoring need works is to look at gritting. Up north, not only is it, by definition, North, it also tends in many places to be higher above sea level, so you can see that by giving everyone the same grant, those down south have spare cash to spend on whatever is their whim.  

Unfortunately for those in the North, who tend to be in the areas of greater need this meant under the Pickles re-allocation their grant was diverted south to where Eric now lives.