Cycling UK Forum

pete75 wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 7:00pm
A local authority housing department can only do it what it has the resources to do. If there are a lot of claims on those resources and funds are running out towards the end of the year then of course they have to be more circumspect in spending what they have left. How do you think they could do otherwise?

What you are describing, which is the curtailment of public services enshrined by law, to which the public has access, due to a failure of your council to properly budget, not only breaches the 7 (Nolan) principles of public life, but may actually be illegal.

pete75 wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 7:00pm A local authority housing department can only do it what it has the resources to do. If there are a lot of claims on those resources and funds are running out towards the end of the year then of course they have to be more circumspect in spending what they have left. How do you think they could do otherwise? It's not the housing officers who decide on the budget, it's the people who represent the council taxpayers, the council members.

None of the acts of Parliament enshrined by law, and enacted by local authorities (from the refuse act through to the safeguarding acts and beyond) actually have any legal limitations, which state 'oh, if the council run out of money they can stop providing this service'.

Local authorities are supposed to base their budgets on a level of expenditure, the level of such which is set using past experience and future predictions.

If a department runs out of a budget mid way through the year, the budget is allowed to be topped up from any 'in year' savings made by other departments and the council is allowed to borrow additional amounts.

roubaixtuesday wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 6:25pm How you're being played to hate immigrants #2

Why do you think it is other people who are being 'played' and brainwashed and not yourself? may be you have read one too many articles in the Gaurdian. I have never come across such views in the real world, it seems to be a narrow unrealistic lefty gaurdian / bbc viewpoint.

I don't hate the migrants or refugees or whatever they are claiming to be, I quite admire them, in their shoes I would be doing the exact same thing, can't blame them for wanting to part of one of the greatest countries on the planet.

For me it is just simply we can not accommodate them, it is totally unsustainable, 504,000 in the year ending June 2022. link, thats a Manchester or Leeds every year, and don't just think homes, think of the whole infrastructure that needs to go along with these numbers, Hospitals, Schools, Recreation centres, Prisons, Shops, Roads.... We're already one of the most nature depleted countries, more people will just make it worse.

And this huge influx is with the gov doing the best it can to make it awkward and difficult. What would the numbers be if we made it simple and easy? a Birmingham of even a new London every year? surely you can see that would be a madness.

We are going to have to learn to say NO, sorry mate, no room at the inn, sort of thing. and don't forget climate change is on the way, and that will make current migration look like a sunday picnic

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 12:22amit seems to be a narrow unrealistic lefty gaurdian / bbc viewpoint.

Well done for following Braverman - "other" the people you disagree with.

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 12:22am
We are going to have to learn to say NO, sorry mate, no room at the inn, sort of thing.

You have a government that has been doing just that for many years.

Indeed, they inveigled their way to power off the back of it.

It's failed again, and again and again.

It will fail once more this time, and nobody, not even the people proposing these demonstrations of hatred against immigrants actually believe they will "work". They are being done for the purpose of showing that hatred.

This is how it's obvious you've been played.

yakdiver wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 4:25pm

roubaixtuesday wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 4:19pm

yakdiver wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 4:07pm
It's not about hatred, the numbers are unsustainable for our economy, the numbers last year and this year if you multiply by 7, (each migrant is allowed to 10 family member to come to the UK if they are excepted) 45,000 last year 4,428 this year = 345,996 that is a lot of social housing and it all has to be paid for.
A lot of them have only basic skills, a lot can't even speak English, they are not the doctors engineers, or even tradesman that we want, “YEAH but we can train them” at more expense to the economy, why don't we train our own first, why don't we house the homeless first ???.
We should only take the people that we need, just like the Aussies did in the 60s 70s ( I was one of them) and just like the West Australians are doing now.
My prediction for what it's worth, if these migrants are not stopped or even slowed down the welfare in this country will end along with the NHS, we just can not afford to take all the people around the world who are looking for a change of scenery.

It is exactly about hatred, and fearmongering.

As your post shows.

Facts: we take less immigrants than almost any other country in Europe. Europe shows no sign of collapsing, and most of developed Northern Europe has better public services than we do.

Yet you blame the migrants.

You've been played.

LAND MASS come to mind

Land mass is different, but the cost to the tax payers in those countries will be less as they are not banged up in hotels as they are in the UK.

Stalling the asylum process is the government only approach and bolstered by whipping up hatred of the arrivals to make it palatable to the racists who support it.

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 12:22am can't blame them for wanting to part of one of the greatest countries on the planet.

Nope, we're not even close.

Look at what American hegemony is currently doing to the world in a despairing attempt to hold onto the wealth and power they have 'acquired'. Now think about the long gone 'British Empire' which acquired it's wealth and power by even more evil means but is still conjured up to convince people that we were once 'Great' Britain

We are a country in debt and in decline who have just separated themselves from a Union that would have arrested the demise by making us part of a greater (and more compassionate) Europe.

roubaixtuesday wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 6:28am

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 12:22amit seems to be a narrow unrealistic lefty gaurdian / bbc viewpoint.

Well done for following Braverman - "other" the people you disagree with.

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 12:22am
We are going to have to learn to say NO, sorry mate, no room at the inn, sort of thing.

You have a government that has been doing just that for many years.

Indeed, they inveigled their way to power off the back of it.

It's failed again, and again and again.

It will fail once more this time, and nobody, not even the people proposing these demonstrations of hatred against immigrants actually believe they will "work". They are being done for the purpose of showing that hatred.

This is how it's obvious you've been played.

As I say I have no hatred towards them, and I don't see any hatred from others in the real world who also don't want them here. It is far more a realisation that we can't go expanding by a new Birmingham (or equivalent in urban sprawl) year in year out.

And as for being 'played' take a look in the mirror and certainly stop looking in the gaudian.

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 12:22am Why do you think it is other people who are being 'played' and brainwashed and not yourself?

Ask yourself why putting 500 people on a barge is a bigger story than the 160,000 asylum seekers awaiting their initial decision. Then ask who's pushing that story and why. There's your answer.

Pebble wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 8:54am It is far more a realisation that we can't go expanding by a new Birmingham (or equivalent in urban sprawl) year in year out.

What you're supporting will do nothing to stop these people.

It only demonises them.

There are no "solutions" to this problem. You can only choose whether to manage it with common humanity or not.

The option you prefer only drags our society down; how did that "hostile environment" go?

The desperate will still come, and less come here than anywhere else, despite your scaremongering.

cycle tramp wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 11:43pm

pete75 wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 7:00pm A local authority housing department can only do it what it has the resources to do. If there are a lot of claims on those resources and funds are running out towards the end of the year then of course they have to be more circumspect in spending what they have left. How do you think they could do otherwise? It's not the housing officers who decide on the budget, it's the people who represent the council taxpayers, the council members.

None of the acts of Parliament enshrined by law, and enacted by local authorities (from the refuse act through to the safeguarding acts and beyond) actually have any legal limitations, which state 'oh, if the council run out of money they can stop providing this service'.

Local authorities are supposed to base their budgets on a level of expenditure, the level of such which is set using past experience and future predictions.

If a department runs out of a budget mid way through the year, the budget is allowed to be topped up from any 'in year' savings made by other departments and the council is allowed to borrow additional amounts.

Local authorities bad their budgets on what they can raise through council tax, increases of which are capped, and what they receive in grants from central government. They must trim their expenditure to match this income . You seem to believe in some sort of naive fantasy world where public expenditure is unlimited. Any money a local authority borrows will have to be repaid from future income and borrowing for day to day expenditure is discouraged.

cycle tramp wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 9:33pm

pete75 wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 7:00pm
A local authority housing department can only do it what it has the resources to do. If there are a lot of claims on those resources and funds are running out towards the end of the year then of course they have to be more circumspect in spending what they have left. How do you think they could do otherwise?

What you are describing, which is the curtailment of public services enshrined by law, to which the public has access, due to a failure of your council to properly budget, not only breaches the 7 (Nolan) principles of public life, but may actually be illegal.

It's not my council chum. I left it several years ago with a very nice , close to six figures redundancy package along with immediate payment of an index linked final salary pension from over 30 years scheme membership. Local authority salaries are not brilliant but if you stick it out retirement income makes up for that.

pete75 wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 8:31pm

cycle tramp wrote: 6 Apr 2023, 9:33pm
What you are describing, which is the curtailment of public services enshrined by law, to which the public has access, due to a failure of your council to properly budget, not only breaches the 7 (Nolan) principles of public life, but may actually be illegal.

It's not my council chum. I left it several years ago with a very nice , close to six figures redundancy package along with immediate payment of an index linked final salary pension from over 30 years scheme membership. Local authority salaries are not brilliant but if you stick it out retirement income makes up for that.

So... if you've left the council 'several years ago' then perhaps what you've stated in this thread might have actually changed following new advice from central government and outcomes from possible legal action brought by clients against councils?

pete75 wrote: 7 Apr 2023, 8:24pm
Local authorities bad their budgets on what they can raise through council tax, increases of which are capped, and what they receive in grants from central government. They must trim their expenditure to match this income . You seem to believe in some sort of naive fantasy world where public expenditure is unlimited. Any money a local authority borrows will have to be repaid from future income and borrowing for day to day expenditure is discouraged.

Yes, that is what borrowing means. You do have to pay it back. It seems that you are suggesting that it's morally preferable to keep to a budget and leave socially vulnerable persons homeless, than it is to seek to stretch the budget to ensure the safety of all those who are lawfully allowed to seek it. It is perhaps with some measure of relief from the general public that you have, in your own words, no longer working for the council. The general public do not need jobsworths, they need heroes.

Is this how we think people who've contributed to the UK all their lives should be treated in their time of need :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... umentation
Read and weep.

reohn2 wrote: 8 Apr 2023, 9:26am Is this how we think people who've contributed to the UK all their lives should be treated in their time of need :- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... umentation
Read and weep.

I can just imagine the distorted view the gaurdian will have, so won't bother reading it, any other less biased sources?