On 25/10/2021 09:42 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> improving "Other lines" is not "starting HS2 from Leeds"
>
>> I agree with you, the money would be better spent on improving other
>> lines in the regions
>
>> but the question "how does starting HS2 from Leeds help anyone" still
>> remains
>
> Possibly the idea is that people can also use it 'locally'. i.e. for trips
> over in the region around Leeds. Helps people get to/from work, brings in
> money for shops, theatres, etc, etc, from more people having easier access.
> Takes some of the strain off buses, etc. i.e. much the same arguments used
> for spending more in and around the SE of E and London.

I thought the principle of HS2 was that it doesn't "do" local trips
(which are the antithesis of "High Speed").

Coming south or south-west out of Leeds, and (obviously) depending on
the route, I would expect the next stop to be somewhere like Stoke on
Trent or Nottingham.

On 26/10/2021 12:31 am, Sn!pe wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Under PR, the leading candidate, the one with the most votes, is hobbled
>>>> in the second and subsequent rounds by his supporters not being allowed
>>>> to vote in those second and subsequent rounds unless they are prepared
>>>> to vote for one of the losers. And why on Earth would they want to do
>>>> that? [We know what the point of it is; it's to stop the winner from
>>>> winning, according to the creative counting at least).
>>>
>>> Is it not possible to simply refrain from selecting a second; third;
>>> etc.; candidate?
>>
>> It is. But that does harm to the chances of the candidate(s) who would
>> have been chosen by the voter. And why should that be?
>>
>> The point is that in what is effectively a second election, the winner
>> of the first one is prohibited from receiving any votes from the voters
>> who supported them in the first stage.
>>
>> There is no reason why that should be so.
>
> [...]
>
> OTOH, it does deny the non-favoured candidates the benefit of
> a transferred vote.

That is not an advantage.

> [Subject amended]

On 26/10/2021 08:06 am, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 26/10/2021 00:04, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 09:05 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2021 16:26, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> The word (because that is all it is - it certainly isn't a definition)
>>>> applies to all housing at all prices.
>
>>> You are wrong. The word has a specific legal definition.
>>> See the National Planning Policy Framework, Annex 2 if you really want
>>> to know exactly what that is.
>
>> Planning Policy Frameworks - whatever they are - do not change the
>> meaning of ordinary English words.
>
> So you didn't bother to look it up. I didn't think you would.

I don't need to "look it up". We both know that the authors of "Planning
Policy Frameworks" (whatever they may be) are not authorised or
empowered to change the meaning of everyday English words.

And we both know what "affordable" means without having to have a bogus
definition handed to us by the author of such a publication.

> Affordable on its own is a normal English word. It means "believed to be
> within one's financial means".  Note that it is a personal view.  If
> something is not within an interested person's financial means, to that
> person it is not affordable, even if there is somebody out there
> somewhere who could afford it.  Someone has just bought a Picasso
> painting for £29Million. They could afford it, a lot of people couldn't.

No argument there. The same applies to mansions in West London.

> But "Affordable Housing" is a phrase, and there is a specific legal
> definition of what the phrase means, whether you agree with that idea or
> not.

If a term or art is coined for use within a document, that's fine. It
doesn't change the outside world. It doesn't change the meaning of the
words in normal usage.

All homes are affordable. Someone can afford every single one of them.

But just like a Picasso, not everyone can afford to buy at all. That has
never been different.

That certainly applies to me. I could envisage myself living in more
salubrious and palatial surroundings than we actually have. But we have
what we were able to afford.

On 25/10/2021 18:49, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 16:28, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 01:25 pm, Java Jive wrote:

>>> As Jim so rightly said and obligingly you prove immediately, you
>>> don't understand how PR works.  The above would be a spoilt paper,
>>> because it's not a multiple vote system, but a *SINGLE*
>>> *TRANSFERABLE* Vote, that's what STV stands for.  Therefore you
>>> cannot vote for the same party twice or more.
>>
>> Why ISN'T a voter allowed to nominate the same candidate in each round?
>>
>> Why must a voter be forced into voting for a party or candidate they
>> do not prefer?
>
> Again, you are showing your ignorance about how the system works.  Just
> as they don't have to vote in the first place, they don't have to make a
> second or subsequent choice either, though IMO they would be unwise to
> do that, because they have nothing to lose and possibly something to
> gain by doing so by expressing their choices fully.

Not registering a second choice probably *is* "mathematically"
equivalent to giving a second choice. And what about systems that allow
a third choice? Who has one of them (especially in a field of three)?

The advantage of FPTP is that everyone understands it, not just
psephologists.

--
Max Demian

On 26/10/2021 13:49, Max Demian wrote:
>
> On 25/10/2021 18:49, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/2021 16:28, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>> Why must a voter be forced into voting for a party or candidate they
>>> do not prefer?
>>
>> Again, you are showing your ignorance about how the system works.
>> Just as they don't have to vote in the first place, they don't have to
>> make a second or subsequent choice either, though IMO they would be
>> unwise to do that, because they have nothing to lose and possibly
>> something to gain by doing so by expressing their choices fully.
>
> Not registering a second choice probably *is* "mathematically"
> equivalent to giving a second choice.

It depends on the system being used, but if, say, STV with three
candidates, you might be expected to have two preferences, with the
first counting double the second, so mathematically it wouldn't be the
same as not expressing a second preference.

> And what about systems that allow
> a third choice? Who has one of them (especially in a field of three)?

I would only expect a third choice in a field of four or more.

> The advantage of FPTP is that everyone understands it, not just
> psephologists.

And its great disadvantage is that, precisely because it is too
simplistic, its results less accurately reflect the population's actual
wishes.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/10/2021 13:28, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 07:45, Indy Jess John wrote:

>> I see it as a
>> mathematical fudge to stop people complaining about it, and various
>> indexes have been invented to reinforce the public satisfaction.
>
> Nonsense, the figures above come from an independent and long
> pre-existing organisation that has nothing to do with the Scottish
> Parliament.

I have been around long enough to recognise that any desired advice can
be obtained if the adviser is chosen carefully. I have obtained
"independent" corroboration of a preferred position in the past by
choosing the "right" tender.

There is a lot of truth in the old saying that "He who pays the piper
calls the tune".

Jim

On 26/10/2021 13:38, JNugent wrote:

> I don't need to "look it up". We both know that the authors of "Planning
> Policy Frameworks" (whatever they may be) are not authorised or
> empowered to change the meaning of everyday English words.

The authors are a Parliamentary Committee, and their Framework (which
can be obtained via the gov.uk website) provided the guidance for the
planning legislation that was passed by Parliament, and once entered
into law as it has been, the meaning of the *phrase* (not word) applies
to the whole country, whether you like it or not.

By all means carry on with your nit-picking if it keeps you happy. What
you believe is totally irrelevant and will not change anything.

Jim

On 26/10/2021 03:09 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 13:38, JNugent wrote:
>
>> I don't need to "look it up". We both know that the authors of "Planning
>> Policy Frameworks" (whatever they may be) are not authorised or
>> empowered to change the meaning of everyday English words.
>
> The authors are a Parliamentary Committee, and their Framework (which
> can be obtained via the gov.uk website) provided the guidance for the
> planning legislation that was passed by Parliament, and once entered
> into law as it has been, the meaning of the *phrase* (not word) applies
> to the whole country, whether you like it or not.
>
> By all means carry on with your nit-picking if it keeps you happy. What
> you believe is totally irrelevant and will not change anything.

That sort of thing doesn't change anything in the real world.

In that place, there is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing, as an
unaffordable home.

The fact that this or that person cannot afford it is of no importance
or relevance. There are, after all, plenty of people who cannot afford
to buy a home at all. That doesn't mean that all homes are unaffordable.

On 26/10/2021 14:52, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 13:28, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 07:45, Indy Jess John wrote:
>
>>> I see it as a
>>> mathematical fudge to stop people complaining about it, and various
>>> indexes have been invented to reinforce the public satisfaction.
>>
>> Nonsense, the figures above come from an independent and long
>> pre-existing organisation that has nothing to do with the Scottish
>> Parliament.
>
> I have been around long enough to recognise that any desired advice can
> be obtained if the adviser is chosen carefully. I have obtained
> "independent" corroboration of a preferred position in the past by
> choosing the "right" tender.

I'm afraid that tells us more about you than the fairness or otherwise
of the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/who-we-are/our-history/

"The Electoral Reform Society has been fighting for fair votes and a
better democracy since 1884."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 26/10/2021 15:16, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/10/2021 03:09 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 13:38, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> I don't need to "look it up". We both know that the authors of "Planning
>>> Policy Frameworks" (whatever they may be) are not authorised or
>>> empowered to change the meaning of everyday English words.
>>
>> The authors are a Parliamentary Committee, and their Framework (which
>> can be obtained via the gov.uk website) provided the guidance for the
>> planning legislation that was passed by Parliament, and once entered
>> into law as it has been, the meaning of the *phrase* (not word) applies
>> to the whole country, whether you like it or not.
>>
>> By all means carry on with your nit-picking if it keeps you happy. What
>> you believe is totally irrelevant and will not change anything.
>
> That sort of thing doesn't change anything in the real world.
>
> In that place, there is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing, as an
> unaffordable home.
>
> The fact that this or that person cannot afford it is of no importance
> or relevance. There are, after all, plenty of people who cannot afford
> to buy a home at all. That doesn't mean that all homes are unaffordable.

I have never made any mention of unaffordable homes.

Jim

On 26/10/2021 05:48 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 26/10/2021 15:16, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 03:09 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 26/10/2021 13:38, JNugent wrote:
>
>>>> I don't need to "look it up". We both know that the authors of
>>>> "Planning Policy Frameworks" (whatever they may be) are not
>>>> authorised or empowered to change the meaning of everyday
>>>> English words.
>
>>> The authors are a Parliamentary Committee, and their Framework (which
>>> can be obtained via the gov.uk website) provided the guidance for the
>>> planning legislation that was passed by Parliament, and once entered
>>> into law as it has been, the meaning of the *phrase* (not word) applies
>>> to the whole country, whether you like it or not.

The word "home" isn't controversial. It is only the word "affordable"
which confuses some people.
>>> By all means carry on with your nit-picking if it keeps you happy. What
>>> you believe is totally irrelevant and will not change anything.
>
>> That sort of thing doesn't change anything in the real world.
>>
>> In that place, there is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing, as an
>> unaffordable home.
>>
>> The fact that this or that person cannot afford it is of no importance
>> or relevance. There are, after all, plenty of people who cannot afford
>> to buy a home at all. That doesn't mean that all homes are unaffordable.
>
> I have never made any mention of unaffordable homes.

The concept is a necessary and inescapable implication of the
nonsensical idea of the "affordable home".

The concept cannot logically exist without the parallel existence of
some notion of an unaffordable home.

In article <itnfb9FrafrU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> >>>> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie,
> >>>> taxpayer) support for local authorities with more "need" and less
> >>>> ability to fund it with local taxation?
> >
> >>> there was until it was virtually abolished by "Austerity"
> >
> >> Are you confident that local councils are not in receipt of monies
> >> from the general taxpayer via the Treasury?
> >
> > I'm 'confident' of the following:
> >
> > That UK Government after UK Government have prevented Councils from
> > raising their local rates or borrow to cover the rise in expenses they
> > are legally bound as Counciles to pay.

> Parliament has certainly limited the annual increases in Council Tax. It
> would have been nicer if the increases had been limited to the same
> inflation metric as is used for the incomes of people like myself (and
> perhaps yourself). As things stand, Council Tax takes an ever-increasing
> proportion of net income of the people who pay it (not everyone does,
> of course). That cannot be right.

Nor can it be 'right' that Councils have had a real-terms steady fall in
income for many years, while being mandated to provide services that cost
more than this, and whose prices have risen at a higher rate. But it suits
Westminster to squeeze Councils and then blame the victim for the problems
this causes.

> > While at the same time UK Gov has *redistributed* funds via a formula
> > that denies money to some areas for the sake of it being given to
> > others who are judged more 'needy'.

> That's long been the case, and is not novel.

But thus has been a serious root of the current problems for a long time.
You would not dismiss reports of extortion with "that's long been the case"
and take that as an excuse, and a reason to leave it to continue.

> > For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
> > like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in
> > a way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not
> > allow* Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!

> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the
> Treasury.

Well, it is to do with Westminster *Government* who set the Treasury
policy. So your response is a form of ducking the issue.

> > So in the relationship between local and UK a number of processes -
> > controlled by UK Gov - have been cutting/restricting the income of
> > Councils whilst blaming Councils for lack of provision, particularly
> > in poorer areas.

> No-one "blames" councils for the "lack" (alleged) of social housing, but
> even if they did (they don't and shouldn't), that would be nothing to
> do with the Treasury and the redistribution of taxes which means that
> some taxpayers (certainly me, probably you) are effectively forced to
> pay taxes to councils where we don't have a vote.

Wrong, as per above. You are simply playing games with names. The Treasury
is just a part of a Government system. Admittedly, one often used by
politicians as 'cover'.

> > Hence your question fails to penetrate the smokescreen generated by UK
> > Gov in recent decades, produced to stop people seeing what has been
> > going on.

> We know what has been going on. Parliament has acted to limit the
> economic damage inflicted by certain sorts of council upon taxpayers in
> general and their own taxpayers in particular.

Which have often sprung from the problems and requirements Westminster
impose on Councils.

> > The suits UK Gov that people fail to think of these things and just
> > see the smokescreens. Hence the real meaning of "via" in your question
> > isn't as simple as people may think.

> Thank you for the above, which seems to show what I suspected. The
> Treasury still collects money from the taxpayer at large (irrespective
> of location) and "distributes" it to local authorities on the basis of
> perceived "need" and without regard for the geography of net taxpayers.

Depends on how limited your understanding of "geography" is. :-)

It you actually study geography you can find it deals with more than maps
of where houses are.

> Surprisingly, it also seems that you would prefer to ignore that,

My Straw Man detector just operated. :-)

> There's no use in my voting for a local party which believes in, and
> delivers, low local taxation, only for profligate councils elsewhere
> being able to pick my pocket via the Treasury. That is the antithesis of
> democracy.

To much the same extent as when Westminster blocks what your elected
Councillors might wish to do. However the point of the redistribution is to
deal with the way the wealthy move into different areas to the poor, then
use this as away to dodge helping them whilst using their poverty (via
mechanisms like low wages) to exploit them.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sl64pk$v85$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If you live in council housing you can go on strike more easily, as it's
> politically difficult for councils to indulge in mass evictions during a
> major industrial dispute. If those workers are instead paying a mortgage
> or private rent they find it much more difficult to strike.

Gosh! What a terrible thing it must be that people might actually be able
to go on strike for improved conditions or wages! Why, if that worked, they
might even end up buying their Council flat or moving to a bigger home they
could now afford! But we can't have the workers next door, can we?! :-)

Must keep the poor in their place, eh?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <itnfitFrbpiU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 24/10/2021 10:07 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> On 20/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal
> >>>> elections where the candidate with most votes wins.
> >
> >>> Here "normal" means it has no effect at all for me in FPTP elections.
> >
> >> What do you mean? The result has the same effect on everybody, and
> >> that is not even limited to electors in the relevant constituency.
> >
> > You seem to have forgotten that you wrote "Your" - i.e. my - vote.

> What happens because of everybody else's vote also happens because of
> yours.
> >
> > Time after time here I voted Labour only for the Tory or LD to win,
> > because few people here voted Labour.

> Is there something wrong with that?

Erm. It examples that your earlier assertion is false.
] > >
> > If you get to understand how the system here works you can see for
> > yourself that the answer to your question is "yes". Or at least "yes"
> > for far more people than under FPTP. The Scottish system isn't
> > perfect, but it is, on its results, clearly better than FPTP at
> > following the statistcal distribution of how people voted in terms of
> > MSP numbers.

> I think you're right: the Scottish system isn't perfect. Far from it, in
> fact.

But less far from perfect than FPTP.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <itnld3Fse02U1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 25/10/2021 12:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> > On 25/10/2021 11:31, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >>
> >>> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from
> >>> replacing, like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a
> >>> low price -in a way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK
> >>> Government *would not allow* Councils to spend all that money on new
> >>> Socal housing!
> >>
> >> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the
> >> Treasury.
> >>
> > I would be interested to know what they were.

> One of them was the prevention of certain types of council from
> continuing to carpet their cities / boroughs with council housing as a
> political manoeuvre.

I burst out laughing at that, and your following ramblings!

Does the name Dame Porter mean anything to you?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 26/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <itnfb9FrafrU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Isn't there a system of differential central government (ie,
>>>>>> taxpayer) support for local authorities with more "need" and less
>>>>>> ability to fund it with local taxation?
>>>
>>>>> there was until it was virtually abolished by "Austerity"
>>>
>>>> Are you confident that local councils are not in receipt of monies
>>>> from the general taxpayer via the Treasury?
>>>
>>> I'm 'confident' of the following:
>>>
>>> That UK Government after UK Government have prevented Councils from
>>> raising their local rates or borrow to cover the rise in expenses they
>>> are legally bound as Counciles to pay.
>
>> Parliament has certainly limited the annual increases in Council Tax. It
>> would have been nicer if the increases had been limited to the same
>> inflation metric as is used for the incomes of people like myself (and
>> perhaps yourself). As things stand, Council Tax takes an ever-increasing
>> proportion of net income of the people who pay it (not everyone does,
>> of course). That cannot be right.
>
> Nor can it be 'right' that Councils have had a real-terms steady fall in
> income for many years, while being mandated to provide services that cost
> more than this, and whose prices have risen at a higher rate. But it suits
> Westminster to squeeze Councils and then blame the victim for the problems
> this causes.

Tell me why I (or, in fact, you) should pay more in national tax so that
the Treasury can hand it out to a high-spending council in some other
part of the country on the basis that that other council wants to spend
more (of other peoples') money.

The obvious settlement is for taxpayers' money to be handed out to local
authorities on a strict and equal census-based per-capita basis (no need
for a "formula" other than a single multiplication calculation).

>>> While at the same time UK Gov has *redistributed* funds via a formula
>>> that denies money to some areas for the sake of it being given to
>>> others who are judged more 'needy'.
>
>> That's long been the case, and is not novel.
>
> But thus has been a serious root of the current problems for a long time.
> You would not dismiss reports of extortion with "that's long been the case"
> and take that as an excuse, and a reason to leave it to continue.

I am glad you agree with me that handing your money (or my money) away
to people in other parts of the country is wrong. I wouldn't go so far
as to call it extortion, but we're clearly on the same lines.

>>> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from replacing,
>>> like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a low price -in
>>> a way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK Government *would not
>>> allow* Councils to spend all that money on new Socal housing!
>
>> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the
>> Treasury.
>
> Well, it is to do with Westminster *Government* who set the Treasury
> policy. So your response is a form of ducking the issue.

Saying "Treasury" rather than "government" is simply a neat way of
reminding us that the reasons are not necessarily financial or fiscal.
There *are* other government departments with other concerns and
responsibilities.

>>> So in the relationship between local and UK a number of processes -
>>> controlled by UK Gov - have been cutting/restricting the income of
>>> Councils whilst blaming Councils for lack of provision, particularly
>>> in poorer areas.
>
>> No-one "blames" councils for the "lack" (alleged) of social housing, but
>> even if they did (they don't and shouldn't), that would be nothing to
>> do with the Treasury and the redistribution of taxes which means that
>> some taxpayers (certainly me, probably you) are effectively forced to
>> pay taxes to councils where we don't have a vote.
>
> Wrong, as per above. You are simply playing games with names. The Treasury
> is just a part of a Government system. Admittedly, one often used by
> politicians as 'cover'.

I repeat: saying "Treasury" rather than "government" is simply a neat
way of reminding us that the reasons are not necessarily financial or
fiscal. There *are* other government departments with other concerns and
responsibilities.
>
>>> Hence your question fails to penetrate the smokescreen generated by UK
>>> Gov in recent decades, produced to stop people seeing what has been
>>> going on.
>
>> We know what has been going on. Parliament has acted to limit the
>> economic damage inflicted by certain sorts of council upon taxpayers in
>> general and their own taxpayers in particular.
>
> Which have often sprung from the problems and requirements Westminster
> impose on Councils.

That's a meaningless soundbite.
>
>>> The suits UK Gov that people fail to think of these things and just
>>> see the smokescreens. Hence the real meaning of "via" in your question
>>> isn't as simple as people may think.
>
>> Thank you for the above, which seems to show what I suspected. The
>> Treasury still collects money from the taxpayer at large (irrespective
>> of location) and "distributes" it to local authorities on the basis of
>> perceived "need" and without regard for the geography of net taxpayers.
>
> Depends on how limited your understanding of "geography" is. :-)

It means what it reads as. It means that taxpayers in some parts of the
country find their taxes being exported beyond their immediate areas
(beyond even their counties and regions) and being handed over to
councils elsewhere (who even so, think it reasonable to complain about
the amount).

> It you actually study geography you can find it deals with more than maps
> of where houses are.

Really?

>> Surprisingly, it also seems that you would prefer to ignore that,
>
> My Straw Man detector just operated. :-)

Your editing tools also operated. You snipped this:

QUOTE:
Surprisingly, it also seems that you would prefer to ignore that,
instead blaming Parliament and those pesky taxpayers for being involved
in some sort of conspiracy to ensure that taxation is imposed
democratically.
ENDQUOTE

And that was followed by:

>> There's no use in my voting for a local party which believes in, and
>> delivers, low local taxation, only for profligate councils elsewhere
>> being able to pick my pocket via the Treasury. That is the antithesis of
>> democracy.
>
> To much the same extent as when Westminster blocks what your elected
> Councillors might wish to do.

Unlike that of a local council, the government's writ runs everywhere.
Parliament has a duty to protect people from excessive local taxation by
profligate councils. Councils may only do what they are permitted by
*law* to do. Irrespective of how some of them seem to see themselves,
local authorities are not mini-national governments, and still less
soviet socialist republics.

> However the point of the redistribution is to
> deal with the way the wealthy move into different areas to the poor, then
> use this as away to dodge helping them whilst using their poverty (via
> mechanisms like low wages) to exploit them.

I am not wealthy, but I pay my council tax and I don't expect to have to
pay the council tax (or part thereof) for people in other parts of the
country on top of that.

Please explain how my living where I live has anything to do with
anybody living in other areas and please also explain how my part in
meeting the legitimate expenses of the local council here has anything
to do with them.

I am all for democracy in taxation. But it seems that some are not.

On 26/10/2021 10:17 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <sl64pk$v85$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you live in council housing you can go on strike more easily, as it's
>> politically difficult for councils to indulge in mass evictions during a
>> major industrial dispute. If those workers are instead paying a mortgage
>> or private rent they find it much more difficult to strike.
>
> Gosh! What a terrible thing it must be that people might actually be able
> to go on strike for improved conditions or wages! Why, if that worked, they
> might even end up buying their Council flat or moving to a bigger home they
> could now afford! But we can't have the workers next door, can we?! :-)
>
> Must keep the poor in their place, eh?

Whooosh!

T was making a completely different point from that.

On 26/10/2021 10:19 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 25/10/2021 12:20 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2021 11:31, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 23/10/2021 10:37 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>>>> For many years they were also, for example, prevented from
>>>>> replacing, like-for-like, Social housing, as it was sold off - at a
>>>>> low price -in a way that was set by UK Government. Also, UK
>>>>> Government *would not allow* Councils to spend all that money on new
>>>>> Socal housing!
>
>>>> There are various reasons for that and they're not to do with the
>>>> Treasury.
>
>>> I would be interested to know what they were.
>
>> One of them was the prevention of certain types of council from
>> continuing to carpet their cities / boroughs with council housing as a
>> political manoeuvre.
>
> I burst out laughing at that, and your following ramblings!
> Does the name Dame Porter mean anything to you?

Does the name "Liverpool City Council" mean anything to you?

That local authority did exactly the same thing as Westminster Council,
in selling off blocks of council flats to private buyers for
owner-occupation.

Google "Minster Court, Liverpool" (neé "Myrtle Gardens").

But let me guess: for you, it's alright when Liverpool does it but not
alright when Westminster does it.

On 26/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 24/10/2021 10:07 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> On 20/10/2021 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Your vote (or its absence) *does* have some effect in normal
>>>>>> elections where the candidate with most votes wins.
>
>>>>> Here "normal" means it has no effect at all for me in FPTP elections.
>
>>>> What do you mean? The result has the same effect on everybody, and
>>>> that is not even limited to electors in the relevant constituency.
>
>>> You seem to have forgotten that you wrote "Your" - i.e. my - vote.
>
>> What happens because of everybody else's vote also happens because of
>> yours.
>
>>> Time after time here I voted Labour only for the Tory or LD to win,
>>> because few people here voted Labour.
>
>> Is there something wrong with that?
>
> Erm. It examples that your earlier assertion is false.

My assertion was that your vote is not worth less (but also not worth
more) than anyone else's. The result is an aggregate result. You really
can't expect your local MP to be elected on a OMOV basis, with that one
vote being yours.

>>> If you get to understand how the system here works you can see for
>>> yourself that the answer to your question is "yes". Or at least "yes"
>>> for far more people than under FPTP. The Scottish system isn't
>>> perfect, but it is, on its results, clearly better than FPTP at
>>> following the statistcal distribution of how people voted in terms of
>>> MSP numbers.
>
>> I think you're right: the Scottish system isn't perfect. Far from it, in
>> fact.
>
> But less far from perfect than FPTP.

Nice soundbite.

Almost Blair-ish.

On 27/10/2021 10:44 am, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 10:03, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/10/2021 05:48 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/10/2021 15:16, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 26/10/2021 03:09 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>> On 26/10/2021 13:38, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I don't need to "look it up". We both know that the authors of
>>>>>> "Planning Policy Frameworks" (whatever they may be) are not
>>>>>> authorised or empowered to change the meaning of everyday
>>>>>> English words.
>>>
>>>>> The authors are a Parliamentary Committee, and their Framework (which
>>>>> can be obtained via the gov.uk website) provided the guidance for the
>>>>> planning legislation that was passed by Parliament, and once entered
>>>>> into law as it has been, the meaning of the *phrase* (not word)
>>>>> applies
>>>>> to the whole country, whether you like it or not.
>>
>> The word "home" isn't controversial. It is only the word "affordable"
>> which confuses some people.
>>>>> By all means carry on with your nit-picking if it keeps you happy.
>>>>> What
>>>>> you believe is totally irrelevant and will not change anything.
>>>
>>>> That sort of thing doesn't change anything in the real world.
>>>>
>>>> In that place, there is no such thing, and cannot be such a thing,
>>>> as an
>>>> unaffordable home.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that this or that person cannot afford it is of no importance
>>>> or relevance. There are, after all, plenty of people who cannot afford
>>>> to buy a home at all. That doesn't mean that all homes are
>>>> unaffordable.
>>>
>>> I have never made any mention of unaffordable homes.
>>
>> The concept is a necessary and inescapable implication of the
>> nonsensical idea of the "affordable home".
>
> "Affordable homes" are defined in law. Unaffordable homes are not.
> But the issue I was highlighting is that the people who can afford
> "affordable homes" are not the ones the concept was designed for.
>
> I feel sorry for you with your poor grasp of plain English.

Plain English is what I insist on. It is not regulated by politicians or
their helpers.

"Affordable" has an ordinary everyday meaning.

On 27/10/2021 11:35, JNugent wrote:

> Plain English is what I insist on.

But it is only "plain English" when *you* say something.
Plain English as others use it goes right over your head. There are
ample examples from the contributions of others, not just me.

That is why I feel sorry for you.

Jim

On 27/10/2021 11:33, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 26/10/2021 10:23 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you're right: the Scottish system isn't perfect. Far from it, in
>>> fact.
>>
>> But less far from perfect than FPTP.
>
> Nice soundbite.
>
> Almost Blair-ish.

Rather like calling PR 'vote-rigging'.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/10/2021 11:20, JNugent wrote:

> The obvious settlement is for taxpayers' money to be handed out to local
> authorities on a strict and equal census-based per-capita basis (no need
> for a "formula" other than a single multiplication calculation).

That is over-simplistic. If a local authority is urban based
(Westminster, for example, though there are plenty of others) then the
council tax payers are in a small but dense area. If the local
authority is mostly rural (Durham, for example), then the council tax
payers are relatively sparsely distributed. Sparsely distributed
populations still want their dustbins emptied, still want adequate
public transport to get to doctors, hospitals, larger shops etc. So the
councils have to pay for fuel for civic services spread over a wide
area, to subsidise buses that would otherwise be uneconomic for the
companies to run, and so on. All this from a smaller total population.

That is why councils are funded by local council taxes and also a
Government Grant. The Government Grant is funded from national
taxation. The formula used for the Government Grant is largely
population based and thus more advantageous to densely populated areas
than to sparsely populated areas, which is why some rural councils feel
hard done by.

> I am not wealthy, but I pay my council tax and I don't expect to have to
> pay the council tax (or part thereof) for people in other parts of the
> country on top of that.

See the information above on the inclusion of the Government Grant in
the money any council has to spend. You pay for that through Insurance
premium tax, income tax, VAT and various other ways the Government has
for parting you from your money, whether you like it or not. If you and
fellow council residents had to stump up from your council tax bills
every penny that your council spends, your council tax bill would be
eye-wateringly large, and you would still be paying the same national
taxes because the Treasury will just use the surplus to reduce the
National Debt.

Jim

On 27/10/2021 11:20, JNugent wrote:
>
> The obvious settlement is for taxpayers' money to be handed out to local
> authorities on a strict and equal census-based per-capita basis (no need
> for a "formula" other than a single multiplication calculation).

That assumes that any given council's expenses relate solely to the
number of inhabitants of their council's area, which is nonsense. For a
counter example you only have examine roads. A council like Highland
has roughly the same number of inhabitants as many urban councils, but
the length/area of the road network they have to maintain is vastly
greater. In fact one third of all the 56,722 km of Scottish roads are
maintained by just 3 councils, one of which is Highland, which is
responsible for 6,752. No urban councils have such a burden.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 27/10/2021 01:03 pm, Indy Jess John wrote:

> On 27/10/2021 11:20, JNugent wrote:
>
>> The obvious settlement is for taxpayers' money to be handed out to local
>> authorities on a strict and equal census-based per-capita basis (no need
>> for a "formula" other than a single multiplication calculation).
>
> That is over-simplistic.  If a local authority is urban based
> (Westminster, for example, though there are plenty of others) then the
> council tax payers are in a small but dense area.  If the local
> authority is mostly rural (Durham, for example), then the council tax
> payers are relatively sparsely distributed.  Sparsely distributed
> populations still want their dustbins emptied, still want adequate
> public transport to get to doctors, hospitals, larger shops etc.  So the
> councils have to pay for fuel for civic services spread over a wide
> area, to subsidise buses that would otherwise be uneconomic for the
> companies to run, and so on.  All this from a smaller total population.
>
> That is why councils are funded by local council taxes and also a
> Government Grant.  The Government Grant is funded from national
> taxation.  The formula used for the Government Grant is largely
> population based and thus more advantageous to densely populated areas
> than to sparsely populated areas, which is why some rural councils feel
> hard done by.

You know... it were *only* based on how urban or rural a council's
territory was, I for on would not object to the per capita
taxpayer-funded grant being weighted (to some extent) for that
characteristic.

The councils around here have a spread of urban and rural areas, of
course, and an index of rurality would cover and affect almost every
part of the country (certainly the most peripheral parts of most of the
larger conurbations).

But it isn't (based only on that), is it? It is based on all sorts of
other things as well.

>> I am not wealthy, but I pay my council tax and I don't expect to have to
>> pay the council tax (or part thereof) for people in other parts of the
>> country on top of that.
>
> See the information above on the inclusion of the Government Grant in
> the money any council has to spend. You pay for that through Insurance
> premium tax, income tax, VAT and various other ways the Government has
> for parting you from your money, whether you like it or not.  If you and
> fellow council residents had to stump up from your council tax bills
> every penny that your council spends, your council tax bill would be
> eye-wateringly large, and you would still be paying the same national
> taxes because the Treasury will just use the surplus to reduce the
> National Debt.

Remember Waltham Forest, 1989, when it added 62% to the rates that year?

Then the council wondered why there were protests at the council's
buildings and demonstrations outside when council meetings were being
conducted.

Yes, sixty-two percent. And some councillors said they couldn't
understand what the fuss was about.