![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Great minds think alike?
Certainly some minds do, although I am not sure whether I would characterize them as great. In order not to raise national taxes, Messrs. Blair and Brown have stealthily caused local taxes (based on property value) to grow by as much as 300%. And now news comes from Italy that Mr.Berlusconi and his unlovely government, who claim to be cutting national taxes, have had the bright idea of reforming the area categories that underlie the ICI (Town Tax on Real Estate, Imposta Comunale sugli Immobili), which is going to result in increases of up to 400% in local tax. What is really hilarious is that both groups probably imagined this to be a wizard wheeze that nobody would see through.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2004-10-11 02:26 pm (UTC)(link)2. Local councils were actually placed under a cap by the Local Government Minister, Nick Raynford at the beginning of this year, by which they are not to raise council tax.
3. The reason for increases in local taxation in Britain is to fund PFI schemes (i.e. schemes by which communities are provided with better streetlights, social housing, roads and schools). The process was instigated by the Tories in 1992. Blair merely inherited it.
4. People want local infrastructure.
5. People do not want increased income tax levels.
6. Making local councils responsible for their own investment theoretically gives them the opportunity to develop infrastructure according to the specific means of their community. It has resulted in new schools being created faster than under the central government regime.
7. If you don't like increased local taxes, then how do you propose that infrastructure is funded?
no subject
The majority of LJ readers are not British and may possibly not be aware just how disingenuous this person is. Therefore I will answer his/her putrid pack of lies at some more lentgth than it deserves (or than I would have to if the public were made up wholly of politically aware Britons).
1) The vast majority of local expenditure in the UK is financed from central government (a few years ago, I believe, it was 83% of local council budgets). If central government increases the demands on local governments without increasing its contribution, as it has cheerfully been doing, local government has to increase tax to fulfil its statutory duties.
2) Given the above fact, Raynsford's Unbridge-like outburst counts as shameless even by the standards of this Tory (yes) bunch of thieves that disgraces the name of government. He was seriously under the impression that the public will believe that local councils have just suddenly gone mad off their own bat and that he can posture as the noble defender of the taxpayers' purse. The fact that we have not heard from this Blairite hitman since then suggests that the public was not taken in. Incidentally, Raynsford's last bout of national prominence was as chief hitman in the Blairite attempt to destroy Ken Livingstone in the run-up to the first London mayoral elections - an attempt that backfired spectacularly, making Livingstone the recipient of the largest number of votes ever received by a British politician.
3)In other words, the Tory Blur, elected, if you recall, to put an end to seventeen years of Thugcherism, not only has kept one of the worst instruments of Tory plunder of the public purse (read the devastating account of what PFI really is in PRIVATE EYE magazine no.1102) but has expanded its reach further, making public services more expensive and more inefficient in order to line the purse of private contractors.
4)People also wanted the Tories out in 1997. What they got was another Tory government with a rose on its escutcheon. Now they realize they have no choice, and numbers voting are going down vertically. And while people want public services, they do not want them to be turned over to thieving private contractors functioning to line the pockets of corrupt directors.
5)But the hero of the Labour Left, Gordon "I never met a private contractors I did not like" Brown, gave them exactly that. It is Gordon Brown who has done most to impose PFI and similar abominations, and privatized everything down to the very barracks of the British Army (some of which are now owned by Japanese companies).
6)The hypocrisy of this is beyond belief. The government you support multiplies the loads on local government, forces them to go the expensive PFI route, and calls this "making local councils responsible for their own investment". Schools and hospitals are being pulled down faster than they are being replaced, and you know that, so don't come and lie to me.
7)Let's start by closing down all unnecessary PFI, which will save billions. Then slow down the rush to computerize everything, that has cost even more. Then let us properly tax all those multinational corporations such as Mr.Blair's buddies at News International, who manage to pay £3 per thousand pounds income thanks to carefully built offshore company structures.
Oh, and while we are at it, we might think of impeaching Blair and Brown, not, as is being currently suggested, for starting the war, but for wanton and corrupt waste of public money.
Further conversation with you is not desired. This Livejournal is not a tribune for Blairites to spread their lies. You are lucky I did not delete your post out of hand.
You're Wrong - Part 1
(Anonymous) 2004-10-13 04:32 am (UTC)(link)1) You're original post was that the community charge was increased by Blair. It wasn't because increases to the community charge are not (as I said) within his direct control. There are no commitments on local authorities forcing them to invest in infrastructure and to the extent that they wish to maintain schools and local services, the central government allocation is sufficient for that task. The problem is that local councillors make commitments to increase and improve local schools and financing that involves direct revenue from the local community. The reason for this is because historically, local authorities have been very poor in terms of anticipating and planning for local needs on a long-term basis. Partly that is a result of revenue inefficiences that pre-date even Thatcher and Blair but are instead a function of the introduction of the Welfare State in the 1940s, but mainly it's because the political system in Great Britain operates only to the short-term and is prohibitive of long-term investment.
2) If you're going to defend Ken Livingstone then I suppose that means you condone his own use of 'hidden' taxes against the London population? The Congestion Charge is nothing more than a fine for people who live in Central London and don't want to use public transport. Added to that, Livingstone is robbing Londoners again by making a series of inflation beating fare increases to public transport for the next five years (when he'd previously promised only three). I'm not surprised that you support Livingstone. He's a lying bastard as well. As for Raynesford's collar on local government spending, to a degree it's worked. Councils are reining in. The problem is that it's boring news so the papers don't report it. So much better to run stories about pensioners going hungry because of the council tax and the gullible, like you, fall for it.
3) If Private Eye is the source of your political knowledge then I'm not surprised at your crass statements. I note you're relying on a 1997 edition to 'support' your case. PFI has moved on a long way from then and is more sophisticated and cost effective. Public procurement was more prone to abuse whilst it remained under the control of local authorities because public contractors all too often were not reined in or tied to their budgeted costs. The result was greater inefficiency. To the extent that the private sector is performing the same functions, on the whole the structure of PFI is sophisticated enough that it's more
likely to reflect the actual costs of performing these services. You are obviously one of those people who live in cloud cuckoo land where you get something for nothing. The real world doesn't work like that and if you had a real job, you'd probably realise it.
You're wrong
(Anonymous) 2004-10-13 04:33 am (UTC)(link)5) But the central point keeps coming back to the fact that if you don't like PFI then you are prepared to pay an extra 5 pence in the pound to fund public services. The simple truth is that you're not and no one in the electorate is. As for MoD projects - to the extent that foreign companies are used in facilities management and accommodatin projects - they do not 'own' the barracks - they are given a 25 to 30 year lease to run and operate. That's actually necessary to provide them with legal access to provide the services. The same process that you malign is the same process that's ensured that some army accommodation and infrastructure has been improved for the first time since Queen Victoria.
6) I don't support the government, I work for the Liberal Democracts but I support PFI as the lesser of two evils. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference (although your prejudice does seep through every word that you type). It must be easier for you to believe I am some kind of labour stooge than someone who is actually trying to tell you about political reality in modern life. But by all means, put your rose-tinted glasses back on and dream about a socialist utopia. It worked so well in the Soviet Union. Schools and hospitals are not pulled down unless there is a plan to replace the same or there is a proven alternative. You are also confusing NHS PFIs with local government PFIs. The NHS is run under a different system which is actually a hell of a lot tougher than local government. To the extent that it's mismanged, that's a function of Whitehall.
7) Do tell me what you consider to be "unnecessary" PFI. Would that include closing down every secondary school that's been built since 1992? Every hospital, every cancer ward, every road, every prison? If you shut down PFI then under the standard terms of the central agreements, you have to pay billions and billions of pounds in compensation to the operators concerned. That's the fault of the Tories because that was their bright idea. The Luddites didn't like technology either. And look where they ended up. Finally, I can't believe that someone who hails from one of the most lax tax jurisdictions in the world is talking about corporate taxation. News International uses an international tax structure that means it is illegal for it to be taxed in this country beyond those companies that are incorporated and trading here. You might have a hard on for Murdoch, but to the extent that he takes advantage of tax jurisdictions, that's the fault of global accounting.
Delete this if you want. The public policy department at the LSE has already had a good laugh at your views anyway. Along with some of our colleagues at Oxford. Bless you for trying though.
Oh - and my views on PFI are backed up by an MSc and Phd in the subject along with numerous articles on the same. Remind me of your credentials again? Apart from a dog-eared copy of Private Eye?
Re: You're wrong
1) My original post was that Blair had forced the local authorities to increase their tax. As you lie about what I said, I am not surprised that the rest of your answer is nonsense too. (And tell me, do they give PhDs to people who can't spell your, these days? Donkey.) You just assert that "there are no commitments on local authorities forcing them to raise taxes", a pure assertion which you back with no data of any kind. Your thesis is that British local authorities are so corrupt or incompetent that the sudden and devastating rise in local tax in the last few years is somehow the result of their own corruption and incompetence going back forty years. To say that this thesis is counter-intuitive is to be kind, and you back it with no more than pompous allusions.
2) Of course I do not condone Livingstone for lying during the election; but as for his use of taxes, I will wait till I see what happens to public transport. So far he has visibly improved the bus services, which are the one thing in which your foul Scottish chieftain had not hampered him. Anyway, for a Blairite to complain about someone lying to the public is really the height of shamelessness... WMDs, anyone?
3)The report I spoke of was published on March 19, 2004. Check your facts before you charge others with not checking theirs, donkey. And so far, I have quoted a source (of which you were ignorant) and you have quoted none, except titles which you may, for all I know, have bought. And you certainly show no such eminence that I should respect your intellect.
4)Don't be ridiculous. If you knew anything about private enterprise, like those of us who have actually worked in it (I have been a publisher and I have worked for a business consultant), you would not tell me romantic shit about their taking risks. No businessman ever goes into any business that he considers risky. And if your darling contractors ever find out that anything is going wrong, they immediately demand more taxpayers' money from the Treasury. If you want instances, we can go on till tomorrow.
5) Ah, yes, the famous 5% shit numbers from the Treasury. If you want me to take that crap seriously, at least show some acquaintance with the fact that those so-called numbers have been challenged and refuted. You are a crass careerist cad who will believe whatever is most convenient for him/her to rise, but at least don't try to bother those of us who actually have no axe to grind.
6)Of course you don't support the Government. That would imply that you have any principles. You support your own swift rise through whoever is in charge, and you know that the top bureaucrats in the Treasury (an institution that easily compares with the Home Office for repellent morals and poisonous influence on national life) are currently solid for the private plunder of state funds.
7)You are building less hospitals and schools with private money than you were when the State ran the bloody things, and paying more. Anything else is lying shit. And when the bill comes in forty years, the State won't be able to build anything at all; right now we are only paying interest on the capital.
As for my title to comment on these things, you foul, superior, ignorant, posturing piece of scum with your lips already itching for the trough, I am a citizen. Do you understand that? I am a citizen. If you ever want to talk to me again, get that revolting sneer of superiority out of your foul face, or I'll take the privilege of a free man and wipe it for you. And learn to spell your and check your sources.
You're just so funny
(Anonymous) 2004-10-15 04:22 am (UTC)(link)Re: You're just so funny
Re: You're just so funny
(Anonymous) 2004-10-16 09:05 am (UTC)(link)Given that my name has been mentioned (part 1).
The cause of our last falling out was because of an incident between you and FAP where you felt that I was siding with the administration because I intervened in an attempt to try and smooth things through. You felt that it was personal. I disagree but an exchange of emails was made.
That is not something on which I feel there is a lot of point in dwelling on now. However, if you are going to make a comment about it, I think you could at least be accurate in setting out the history here.
Now, to get to my main point in commenting here, I do admit that I was given a link to this entry in your LJ. The person who gave me it (who I am not going to name because there is frankly no point) did so because they know that I am an attorney with a speciality in infrastructure finance (that's a private practice solicitor, not a bureaucrat). My clients include public and private entities (so I have no prejudices either way and have seen deals run from both sides of the table).
I in turn forwarded the link to a friend of mine, D. who is currently engaged in post-doctoral public policy research which involves looking at the link between the community charge and the growing use of PFI in the UK. I did so because you comments appeared to epitomise how a lot of people feel about it in the UK and I figured that it would interest him.
I did not know that D. would come here and comment on your LJ.
For the record, I have not posed as D. for the purposes of commenting on your LJ.
I do not need to pose as someone else if there is a point that I wish to make or a misconception that needs to be addressed.
Whatever you may feel about me personally (and there is obviously a lot of hostility still there on your part) I have always been up front in my dealings with you, just as I would be with anyone. Believe that or disbelieve it - it's your choice. The only thing I'd point to is that your LJ has IP addresses logged. Check the anon's comments against mine if you're looking for some proof.
Speaking personally, I think that you over-react when someone makes a comment that you strongly disagree with. I have no problem with someone being passionate about their beliefs, but I do draw the line at someone being abusive. Looking at his comments here, I believe that D. crossed the line in some of the things that he said. I also think that you were abusive in some of your comments back. In other words, I think that you are equally bad as each other when it comes to this situation.
On my own political beliefs, whilst a proportion of the work that I do involves PFI, I am actually not someone who is strongly in favour of it as the only solution. In fact, I am more in favour of the current LIFT finance scheme which gives more of a 'say' to the public sector in terms of controlling the long-term operation of a project, although the cost effectiveness of this is something that will not be known for another 5 years or so. The articles that I produced during the course of my MSc were actually very much arguments against private involvement in the public sector (with special regard to the failures of the privatisation schemes instigated by the Tories in railways and water).
Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
Whatever you may feel about me personally, I do resent the accusation that I am corrupt. I am not - either financially, ethically or morally. To make that accusation is groundless. I also object to seeing you play the victim here when I was informed of your taking my name in vain again a couple of months ago (a comment on the Diana Memorial Fountain, if memory serves). I made no comment then as you were plainly sounding off and, given my well documented opposition to the Labour Government, the comparison between myself and the Secretary of State for Culture was actually quite amusing to me. I am making a comment here because I noticed that you're happy to snipe at me on your own ground, but are unwilling to do so on mine and, as the saying goes, "If Mohammad won't come to the mountain, then the mountain must come to Mohammad".
Finally, I am obviously aware that there have been strong disagreements between you and several people on my LJ Flist. I have not, at any time, participated in them (other than to respond to a comment you made on Narcissa Malfoy's LJ a week or so ago). I also note that we share several friends on LJ - your friendship with them doesn't bother or affect me and I trust that my friendship with them doesn't bother or affect you. Even if you don't like me very much, I would at least hope that we could be civil to each other. We're both grown-ups, we're both intelligent and we're both articulate.
My offer to discuss PFI is genuine. If you'd like to do so, then we can discuss it here, on my LJ or via email. I think that it's something we could both learn something from.
tybalt-quin
PS - In posting this I do in fact find that I owe you one apology. I had been under the impression that you'd banned me from commenting on your LJ (and had said as much to a couple of other users). I obviously now find that this is not the case, and so apologise for the inaccuracy. Of course, it is entirely possible that this was an error on your part.
Re: Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
Of course I do not tell people who they should friend (though I have heard that some people do). And as you had not written to me before in your own name, I had not had the opportunity to bar you (not that I will do so this time). I consider that I have been treated extremely shabbily by the FA mods and as there is still a month or more of the suspension that you imposed on me (with people publicly and openly hoping that it would prelude to a final expulsion), you can hardly expect me to forget it. But I have already deleted another post where I mistakenly named you as the author of these items, and I apologize for forgetting to delete this entry.
As for your friend, I would have discussed the matter with him/her, instead of losing my temper, if s/he had shown any respect for my views. Unfortunately, his/her tone was, from the beginning, that of the superior being annoyedly imparting information to a lesser creature; and, whatever you may say of me, I hope I have never treated people as ants with that particular kind of sneer on my face. That is an English habit, not an Italian one. I have said what I think of his/her manner, the typical manner of the English boyar, and I see no reason to repeat myself. You should have informed him/her about my temper, but, of course, you are not responsible for his/her manners.
Re: Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)
I am not going to comment on the situation between you and FAP. There's bad blood (a poor choice of phrase but the only one I can think of at the moment) and I don't think this is the place.
D. is, I'm afriad, a rather hot tempered Brazilian (if you'll excuse the national stereotype). He's not a bad bloke - I've known him since uni (we were on the same course) and you know, he actually hates Labour with a passion that even you'd find surprising. I probably should have warned him about your temper, but I didn't think he'd comment. Perhaps that's something I should have anticipated.
I'm going to be honest here (at the risk of causing offence, which is certainly not what I mean to cause). There are times when you completely bloody infuriate me. The last exchange of emails between you and me also (and with apologies for the phrase), completely got on my tits because I was really trying to be polite and civil in an unpleasant situation and felt scorched for my pains.
Like I said, if you want to talk about PFI, I'm happy to engage. I also think you'd enjoy the Monbiot book (although it looks more at the first wave of deals and the situation is a little different now). If you don't want to, then that's fine. We can agree to disagree.
t-q
Re: Given that my name has been mentioned (part 2)