Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leader of Surrey County Council – The Unlikeliest Revoluti
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leader of Surrey County Council – The Unlikeliest Revolutionary
At a time when the Daily Mail and others are eulogising over Donald Trump and extolling him as a revolutionary (though his “America First” slogan belonged to Charles Lindbergh over 70 years ago), I would argue the week’s true revolutionary is a contemporary of President Trump.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
David Cameron reveals he shoots birds he's named after Brexit betrayer Boris Johnson (and Michael Gove)
“I find that when I shoot a few Borises and Michaels I feel a whole lot better," the ex-Prime Minister told the global elite in Davos
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-reveals-shoots-birds-9671616
Whatever next, by that logic, they expect every SAS mission to be revealed?
THIS is the reason why the Tories are now so far ahead in the polls. Cameron/Osborne have clearly been holding them back for 6 years.
Very courageous, sir.
Had one of the grammar school lot been in charge, we might well not have needed to involve Cleggy in the apparatus of govt at all.
My wife told me we couldn't afford it, but i know really we could.
Spoke to two inhabitants of Surrey yesterday (who happen to have a large network via NCT, school etc). They find the question laughable. 70/30 for No predicted.
edit: apart from anything else it is clogging up the NHS
Understatement of the year, not only in general, but specifically the people who vote are more likely to be the ones approaching needs for social care.....
Inviting Clegg into government was a clear benefit to the Tories in the long term with Dave's black widow strategy.
62 - The number of Lib Dem MPs when Dave became leader
8 - The number of Lib Dem MPs when Dave retired.
Awkward for all three.
I think this should best be filed in the 'Clearing up one's own mess' folder - LDs only needed to be beaten in 2015 because they failed to win a majority in 2010.
The 2010 campaign was, by many accounts, a shambles. What did it have in common with the Brexit campaign? GO as 'master strategist'.
FPT: Looks like eating decent roast potatoes is the solution to drowning in your own piss anyway.
2015 was Dave and George hiring Sir Lynton and Jim Messina.
Thank you to OGH for putting up my small contribution. I haven't done many articles over the years but Mike has always been kind enough to indulge my ramblings.
There's a Party political aspect to this - we see Conservatives arguing for more tax and Liberal Democrats/Labour/UKIP all arguing for less or no tax which is a curious juxtaposition.
There are parallels with the EU Referendum - Surrey residents are being asked a serious question about the kind of society they want to live in and the kind of people they want to be and how they want the elderly and other vulnerable adults to be treated.
If we are to throw care of the elderly to the State and then deprive the State of those funds to provide a respectable and dignified level of care for some of the most deserving, what does that say about us as individuals and people and our expectations for our own latter years ?
In a sense, Surrey residents can "take back control" - if you want a dignified level of care for all older people in Surrey, this is the price you will have to pay but it's your choice.
I find myself hoping Hodge gets his mandate.
We. Have. Not. Left. Yet.
The leader of Surrey County Council knows this, which is why he's gone for such an eye wateringly large rise of 15% rather than, say, a more defensible 5%.
The point of the exercise isn't to get a mandate from local residents for a bit of extra funding to plug a gap, but to influence the national debate on the funding of social care more generally and to embarrass ministers whose seats are in Surrey into action.
He calculates this publicity and political pressure is worth the cost of the referendum.
And encourage smoking and drinking.
Agreeing to Crosby taking over the campaign from the chancellor who had made huge political blunders with two of his 6 budgets. Lades and Gents, I give you GO....
Has to be seen in context of delay of Dilnot reforms, with the max cap (£75k?) you pay for care not being implemented until 2020. But it also cuts at the heart of much public funding - how much should "the taxpayer" pay for specialist services? I've had people complaining about paying for schools, special needs provision etc, and asking for council tax discounts because they had to pay a service charge to e.g. collect waste.
For me it reflects a more selfish society, where 'what am I getting for this' is the dominant thread in public debate - which is why I think the referendum will fall and fall badly. But it's more about putting pressure on the Government than anything else, and on that measure it will succeed.
N.B. Technical note on Localism Act 2011 - the referendum will be first Thursday in May, and council must draw up 2 budgets, one with the increase, and a 'fall-back' for if the referendum is lost. As the council year starts before the referendum I assume that the higher budget is applied until the referendum (for about 5 weeks) and then switched to the fall-back if the referendum is lost, but not sure on that point. Can any experts clarify?
He knows that most people can ill afford an extra tax bill of £200 per year in the current climate, and it'd be electoral suicide once such bills started actually landing on people's mats.
I’m with Corbyn; this is a national issue and should be dealt with nationally. Many Surrey Council Tax payers can unquestionably afford it; many cannot.
Without that no Tory majority or even Tory largest party in a hung parliament
(Edited as I got the bands the wrong way around originally)
The question that is relevant is this: It is all very well to cut taxes. But what are we cutting to fund these tax cuts ?
Sweden, Finland, Denmark always comes across in polls as the happiest countries as well as free countries to do trade. But they also pay the highest taxes. More than 50% in Denmark!
He was PM FFS - and now talks like this about his own Party? Specifically our Foreign Secretary.
It's not their fault others don't.
May’s vision of post-Brexit trade puzzles experts
Corp tax cuts are politically unpalatable and fiscally unnecessary.
Reintroduce the difference between small business corp tax rate and big business corp tax rate. Would really help those unfortunate small businesses hit by rate hikes in the south of England.
Just shows the ridiculous centralisation we already have - if we want to take control why doesn't Government let go of all of this?
People do however need to develop a greater awareness of the way that their incomes and expenditures will change over the course of their lifetimes, rather than living quite so much for the moment.
Meanwhile, Macron is set to become President of France. Perfect result for him yesterday.
I think either her advisers do not understand this, but more likely, this is just a political kite for UK consumption to blame the EU when it cannot come about.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1
I imagine it had the White's shower in stitches.
@MrHarryCole: Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed Tristram Julian William Hunt to be Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern.
The French government has launched an inquiry after a study by the health authorities revealed that an additive used in toothpaste, sweets, and chewing gum can cause precancerous lesions in laboratory rats.
A report by France’s National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA) from Friday states that the study results show “for the first time that E171 crosses the intestinal barrier in animals and reaches other parts of the body.”
The additive E171, or titanium dioxide, is used for whitening of products and is found in sweets, chocolate products, cookies, chewing gum, and food supplements, as well as in pharmaceutical products and toothpaste.
https://www.rt.com/news/374709-france-toothpaste-cancer-risk/
Although it is very misleading.
It cant be called a lie until we leave and don't do it. Cameron is a proven liar.
I'm all in favour of saving costs by eliminating waste and improving efficiency but I think we should have a bit of joined up thinking about how to deal with care for an ageing population. It's not sufficient, or sensible to 'toss the problem over the wall to local authorities' if they can't adequately fund provision.
I join the other voices on here asking for a full fundamental review of how health care is funded and provided in this country, Brexit is a good reason to do this but please forget the silly £350mm/week nonsense. There will be additional money that we don't send to the EU in the future but we don't know how much, or when it will happen.
As to the referendum... It seems a tall order.
The voters of Surrey elected all (?) Conservative MPs who cut the central govt money in the first place?
It is getting very tedious.
CON 42 (-)
LAB 26 (-2)
UKIP 13 (+1)
LD 10 (+1)
GREEN 5 (+1)
Online poll of 2,052 adults, 20-22 Jan.
But, if the claim had been £100m/week - a realistic and credible promise - that would have had no less electoral impact because to most people it is still a very large number. The reason Leave kept it at £350m is because it was just ambiguous enough to keep a debate going, and all the Remain complaints about it played straight into their hands (do Remain still not realise this?) in forcing the debate onto their ground, and massively raising its salience in the media.
Cynical? Yes, but almost all political campaigns are cynical. Remain had their own exaggerations a plenty.
That's why "Leave" will ultimately get away with it.
When I was five my grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's (though I suspect she'd had it for a lot longer than that). For a time my dad moved in with her to look after her but this wasn't a long term solution. Woking Borough Council gleefully told us to sell her house and give them the money to look after her. Rather than do that, my parents decided to sell her house and we bought a bigger property that we could all live in (this involved me moving school, which I didn't like). My mum had been a nurse and then a child minder after having my sister and then me. She stopped doing the latter to care for my grandmother.
To be fair she did get some help between 1994 and 1997 (when my grandmother succumbed to pneumonia). This included my grandmother being taken to a day centre two days a week. She was also invited to the Alzheimer Society's local centre but was expelled after one visit having behaved very badly. Sometimes I think the do gooders in this world live on a different planet.
Anyway, my parents are now 70 and 68 and it's getting to the stage where I think they live with me rather than the other way round. I know that one day one or both may need caring for and my sister and I probably won't be in a position to provide it so we'll have to pay. What the experience of my grandmother taught me is basically, if you own a home, you have to sell it to pay for care. That was 25 years ago, and I can't believe much has changed.
So that brings me to this referendum. I went out for dinner with my parents, sister and brother-in-law last week and we were all of the view that we could vote for this increase in tax and we'd still have to pay for my parents' care. Furthermore, I have to correct Stodge. It isn't just "a tax rise to fund extra care for the elderly and vulnerable adults." It also covers children's services. That sounds like adequate scope to spend it on a lot of other stuff. With the exception of the TV tax, we don't do hypothecation in this country. And I don't expect this to be any different.
For what it's worth, my friends on Facebook - who are very much to the left (of me, anyway) - are all opposed to this. The fact that Mr Hodge is earning more from being leader of SCC than I get paid for doing my job in Central London is not good. I know that in the grand scheme of things the amount councillors claim in expenses is not very much, but the optics of it are dreadful.
Currently, the Tories hold 58 of the 81 seats on Surrey County Council. They've had control of the council since 1997, but I could see 4 May being a terrrrrrrrrrible night for the Tories in Surrey.
But this says:
"Where an EU citizen has not yet worked in the country –
or where the period of six months has elapsed – a jobseeker cannot be expelled from the member state for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment, and that they have a genuine chance of getting a job. However, in these circumstances, a worker may not be entitled to receive social assistance, the court said."
http://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/immigration_news/ECJ_rules_member_states_can_deny_benefits_to_outofwork_EU_migrants__(17_September_2015).html
So seems to be that job seeker must prove they have genuine chance of getting a job?
I don't know how that is determined but presumably six months of failing to get a job is evidence suggesting they don't have a genuine chance?
With the rise of the robots, we're moving to an age where more jobs than ever can be done with low physical effort - I mean look at Trump , he is 70 and POTUS !
Perhaps we don't need all the immigration - a system of longer working in today's modern jobs is perhaps the best answer - more tax and less pension expenditure too.
But please, lets provide the care for those that are unable to work. Alzeimers is a horrible awful disease and those that suffer it are due as much dignity as we can muster for them in today's society.
One or two have raised the huge point about Council Tax and the lack of a revaluation since 1991. Successive Governments have backed off this and consequently our properties are all valued at much less than their actual market value now.
There is no fair method of local Government finance - there's an argument for recognising different house price values in different areas and an argument for creating extra bands at the top end (beyond H) to capture the even more expensive properties.
The problem for local authorities has been how to break clear of the dependence on central Government funding - some have gone into property investment by borrowing large sums at very low rates and living off the rental yields while others have sought other income sources.
That hasn't stopped central Government throwing functions such as public health at local authorities without any resources and then making capital out of "reducing the size of Government" while leaving the Councils high and dry.
Very disappointed with Cameron (if that's true). He was PM. He called the referendum at his time. He did the 'negotiation' with the EU.
And now he wants to blame some friends who (as was their right) choose to support the other side?
They didn't betray him. They made their own decisions as he allowed them to do. Cameron takes the majority of responsibility here. If the deal wasn't good enough (it wasn't) he should have supported Leave.
That's gonna hurt.