News

Rushmoor approves controversial tax scheme

By Amy Taylor
January 29, 2013

COUNCIL tax benefit in Rushmoor will be replaced by a new scheme where everyone, even the worst-off, will pay a contribution.

The local support scheme was approved by councillors at a special meeting on January 23, despite protest from Labour councillors who said it was unfair on low-income families.

From April 1, everyone of working age living in Rushmoor borough will pay a minimum of 8% towards their council tax bill after the Government delegated authority to local councils to set their own benefit programmes.

While pensioners who receive council tax benefits will see no change to their support, everyone else who is eligible to work could see their benefit income fall.

Those who received benefits for 100% of their council tax bill will see that support fall to 92% – requiring them to pay at least 8% in a bid to encourage people back into work.

Introducing the scheme, council leader Peter Moyle, said: “This was a difficult issue since time was limited – we had to react as quickly as we could to develop a new scheme and address the loss of funding, which was quite huge.

“It was particularly difficult as it affects the more vulnerable in our community, and we have sought to minimise that.”

Neighbouring borough Surrey Heath, covering Camberley, Frimley and Bagshot, have reduced their maximum support level to 70% – requiring people to pay at least 30% of their tax bill, to which Rushmoor councillors responded with disbelief.

Labour councillor Mike Roberts slammed the decision as ‘deplorable’, adding: “The impact on the poorest cannot be comprehensively examined at present.”

Many agreed that Rushmoor’s proposal of 8% was reasonable but Labour councillors proposed that the scheme be reconsidered.

Cllr Alex Crawford said people receiving council tax benefit should continue to get the same level of support, rather than the council claiming what adds up to £431,000 during the 2013/14 financial year from the 3,600 poorest claimants in the borough.

“Early on we were led to believe this meant all recipients of council tax benefit of working age were going to have to pay something more than they do this year.

“I’ve always baulked at that, as it seems most unfair to be imposing extra charges on our poorest, lowest paid residents with the least money, while freezing council tax bills for everyone else.”

He said a hardship fund of £50,000 for the first year, set aside to ease the impact on the worst-off, would not be enough.

“There is the issue of chasing up the 720 poorest, lowest paid in the borough who are not expected to pay up,” he said. “They will end up in court if they cannot pay and they are refused payment from the Discretionary Exceptional Hardship Fund.”

Despite Labour’s concerns, the scheme was passed and councillor Charles Choudhary, who led the working committee which put the proposals together, said it would be reviewed in nine months to ensure the hardship fund was adequate and tax bills were being paid.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (213)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 50 of 213

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

The fact is that the stamp duty bar is set to low and should be zero rated at £250,000 and below and I agree with you that the tax should only apply to the amount over the bar not the whole figure. Why is stamp duty charged on domestic property anyway?

peter hensman
14/03/2013 at 00:23

@peter hensman

Another change to the tax system that could be made to help with the housing market is a reform of the way stamp duty is charge. Stamp duty is now banded and starts at 0% for properties under £125000 rising to a maximum of 7% for properties over £2 million (15% if bought by a corporate body).

As I’ve said the first band is from £0.00 to £125000 and the rate is 0%. The next band is £125001 to 250000 and charged at 1%. The problem is that if you by a property at £125,000 you pay no stamp duty, but if you pay a £1 more for it you are charged 1% of the whole amount. A better way would be to increase the percentage rates beyond the initial 0% rate BUT only charge that rate on the amount of the value that falls in that band (i.e. if the £125001 to £250000 band had a rate of 5% and you brought a property for £150,000 you would pay 5% on £25,000. Under the current system you would pay £1,500 stamp duty, under my “reformed” example you would pay £1,250 stamp duty).

Basically you pay the percentage on the amount that falls in each band, but you have much higher rates for each band. The over £2 million band would probably be around 40% and could be a true mansion tax.

Dawi, Aldershot
13/03/2013 at 17:07

@peter hensman

Well there just isn’t enough space in one of these posts to make a decent argument on what is a very large subject.

There are a whole series of major reforms that need to be taken to get the economy moving, and I agree that costs for small businesses (retail and commercial) are an issue. One way of dealing with this to offset the cost of putting up the NMW and scrapping WTC would be to look at making Business rates “progressive”. At the moment they are all charged I believe at a fix rate per £ of the rateable value of the property (the 2013/14 multiplier rates are Standard 47.1 p and Small Business 46.2p for England outside of the City of London). There are some “reliefs” available to some businesses but these I understand can be quite complicated.

One way of reforming business rates would be on a sliding scale based on the size of the property per square meter. Say for example for units under 1000 square meters the rate would be 10p per square meter for units between 1000 and 2000 square meters the rate would be 20p etc.

The offset in business rates would help small businesses and would offset the increased staff costs from a higher NMW and no WTC. It could also help to encourage more small start-up companies.

Dawi, Aldershot
13/03/2013 at 16:43

@ Dawi I think small companies should be treated as a special case to enable them to pay a higher rate, I would rather help a small company to develope and pay a living wage than to pay out benefits to subsidise low wages, benefits are dead money that will not show a yield, but if you use the same money to help a small company grow and to provide more local jobs you then also help the local economy. Large companies will complain bitterly about the added cost on their wage bill, but it is up to them to reapraise the values they place on their staff. Is Bob in the warehouse worth far less then Robert in accounts. Without Bob the goods will not be delivered to the customer and then Robert will have no customers to invoice. An over simple example but it shows that the existance of one relyes on the other. Both will work equaly hard for their wages but that will not be reflected in the amount that they are paid. Large companies will have to adjust the top of their pay scale to pay a living wage at the bottom. Yes I do agree that we need to build more state owned quality social housing, I have stated quality as that will make private landlords raise their game. New estates should be a mix of social, rent/buy and private, rents should be capped according to there value. The government tells us how much is paid out in benefits but they do not tell us how much the benefits industry is costing us to run. It is an industry that employes 1,000's and costs millions to run. The government is right when they say get people off benefits and into work but to do that they have to supply jobs that pay a living wage and to do that they need to cut the import of cheap labour so that the people of this country have jobs to go to

peter hensman
13/03/2013 at 12:28

@peter hensman “Since writing the post I have spoken with some small companies and with one exception most have agreed that a minimum hourly rate of £8-50 per hour is reasonable BUT they cannot afford to pay it and under the present laws would have to lay off staff”

This is the same argument that a lot of employers were using when arguing against the National Minimum Wage before it was introduced. The problem with Working Tax Credits is that while they have helped a lot of low paid workers, more and more employers are only paying around the NMW, which has caused the WTC bill to balloon. When you couple that with the situation where some companies (generally larger companies) are avoiding paying tax AND benefiting from getting their employee costs subsidized by tax money there is something seriously wrong.

Now in order to get the economy moving involves getting people and organisations spending, which isn’t happening at the moment because of the imbalance between the high-income and low-income households. If low-income households are spending all of their income on just existing (i.e. the basics like a roof over their heads, keeping warm and a putting a bit of food on the table) they are not going to have money to spend on “extras”, if people are not buying, then businesses are stagnating.

Now consider that keeping a roof over your head is probably the biggest outlay each month for most households, there are two ways that making rents affordable can be done, the first is rent control for private landlords, the second is publicly owned housing where you can control those rents at an affordable level which should also “encourage” private landlords to come in at a more affordable level. Either way it should leave a bit more in the pot each month in the low-income households to spend. And spending creates demand, and demand is what keeps the economy moving.

Dawi, Aldershot
13/03/2013 at 10:04

Some will ask why I have attacked the chuch? as a Christian it could be said that the church is my sacred cow and long over due. Maybe it is time for Union members and Labour members to start attacking their sacred cows both like the church have become self satisfied and followers of outdated dogma. Poverty is caused by over taxation, why tax a man into poverty and then pay him benefits? Taxation is the killer of ambition, why encourage people to use education as a stepping stone to success then penalise them with over taxation? Taxation is a stranglehold on industry. suely it is better to encourage industry to grow and provide more jobs

peter hensman
13/03/2013 at 09:15

Jesus is the ultimate street preacher who as well as spreading Gods word gives a voice to those who have none. Our bishops are supposed to to follow His example, but they do not. by ignoring the problems within Islam they are denying a voice to many Muslums who fear to offer an oppinion because of the oppression of Islamist Fundermentalists. Why are our bishops not following following Jesus's lead? Why are they not standing in town centre's talking about the hardship faced by those who need a voice? Why do they speak from behind closed doors?

peter hensman
12/03/2013 at 14:25

I think you need to keep up Pete. As I said this was about taxing the poor and ultmately the thread has been skewed to the point where Islam gets blamed for something, given enough time this always seems to happen with some people.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
12/03/2013 at 11:56

@ SpongeBob NoPants, Please try and keep up, My attack was against the Bishops who refuse to condem the Islamist attacks upon their fellow believers, if they cannot come to the defence of their fellow Christians how can we expect them to come down from their ivory towers to defend the working class. Yes we have heard mutterings from them about government cuts but they have not come up with a plan B. The Bishops are nothing but selfserving fence sitters who have remained silent for far to long. The reputation of the church has been gained by local congregations under the leadership of their vicars not by the bishops who fail to lead their people from the front. Yes I can be accused of making sweeping statements but there are only a very few bishops such as York and Michael of Rochester (now retired) Who speak out for ordinary people. Yes this post is about the hardship caused by unfare taxation but it is also about those who have allowed it to happen

peter hensman
12/03/2013 at 11:31

@ SpongeBob NoPants, Why is it concidered alright for the Irish, Scots and Welsh to take pride in their country and wrong for an Englishman to take pride in his country. I suppose the fact that I support the rite of Church's, Temples and Mosques not to conduct same sex marrages makes me homophobic even though I believe that they have got it wrong and that homosexuality is a natural part of Gods creation

peter hensman
12/03/2013 at 10:42

Too late Pete, your sins laid bare. This is a thread about the poor being charged council tax in Rushmoor and you managed to end up blaming Islam.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
12/03/2013 at 10:41

@ SpongeBob NoPants And finally Peter's true colours, Islamophobia backing up the nationalism.

Wrong for further information try a Christian site the Barnabas Trust, Faith Freedom International a site founded by ex Muslums to assist others to leave Islam. It is not only Christians but also Sikh's, Hinu's and Buddists who suffer at the hand of Islam and the main victims of Islam are Muslums. The media reports show that there are massive problems globaly within Islam, almost daily the evidence is placed before you. To play the Islamophobia card is rediculas. Even Muslums are concerned about the problems within Islam

peter hensman
12/03/2013 at 00:41

And finally Peter's true colours, Islamophobia backing up the nationalism.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
11/03/2013 at 19:36

@ Dawi I wrote on another forum last year that the minimum wage should be raised to £8-50 per hr (a living wage) for a 40 hr week taking many people out of benefits

Since writing the post I have spoken with some small companies and with one exception most have agreed that a minimum hourly rate of £8-50 per hour is reasonable BUT they cannot afford to pay it and under the present laws would have to lay off staff, one idea that they floated was that the money saved from not paying benefits could be used to zero rate NH contributions by small companies, plus money from the foreign aid pot to enable Government to pay small companies development grants for more efficient equipment and interest free short term loans to promote their products. The one exception will not pay a higher rate because he wants a large slice of the cake and will always only pay the minimum wage.

@ Cllr. Alex Crawford

Since 9/11 10,000 of my fellow Christians in Afro/Asia have died at the hands of Islam, the Coptic church in Egypt comes under attack their priests beaten and their church's burnt. The Asyrian Christians in Iraq come under regular armed attack from Islam, Yet are Bishops stay quiet in the house of lords when they should be banging the drum of condemnation and demanding action from the Government.

peter hensman
11/03/2013 at 11:50

Liam Fox Former Tory Cabinet Minister will today say that he wants to freeze public spending for five years to fund tax cuts to get “people” to spend our way out of the economic slump.

Well here are some alternative things that could be done.

First you could raise the National Minimum Wage by the amount that Working Tax Credits pays out, and scrap Working Tax Credits. People would still have the same Take Home amount of money BUT you would cut the benefits bill as well as the cost of administering WTC. Also establish a link between an annual increase in the NMW and the inflation rate of everyday costs (Rent’s, Energy, Fuel and Food).

Use the money saved on the benefits pay out by scrapping WTC to fund the building of STATE OWNED (not private or housing association) affordable social housing. This would stimulate the building industry creating jobs in the building and allied supply chain keeping people in work and paying taxes (rather than being unemployed and claiming benefits). The new social housing would allow the government to control the rents charged, thus lowering the housing benefit bill, keeping money in the public purse rather than in the pockets of private landlords. And when the new properties have paid for themselves you will have an asset that you can sell to fund the building of a new wave of state owned social housing.

Dawi, Aldershot
11/03/2013 at 10:15

@ peter hensman “. . . . above the rank of Vicar they are so out of touch.”

Will you apologise to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 43 Bishops after reading their open letter, which shows them very much in touch:

“Next week, members of the House of Lords will debate the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

The Bill will mean that for each of the next three years, most financial support for families will increase by no more than 1 per cent, regardless of how much prices rise.

This is a change that will have a deeply disproportionate impact on families with children, pushing 200,000 children into poverty. A third of all households will be affected by the Bill, but nearly nine out of 10 families with children will be hit.

These are children and families from all walks of life. The Children’s Society calculates that a single parent with two children, working on an average wage as a nurse would lose £424 a year by 2015.

A couple with three children and one earner, on an average wage as a corporal in the British Army, would lose £552 a year by 2015.

However, the change will hit the poorest the hardest. About 60 per cent of the savings from the uprating cap will come from the poorest third of households. Only 3 per cent will come from the wealthiest third.

If prices rise faster than expected, children and families will no longer have any protection against this. This transfers the risk of high inflation rates from the Treasury to children and families, which is unacceptable.

Children and families are already being hit hard by cuts to support, including those to tax credits, maternity benefits, and help with housing costs.

They cannot afford this further hardship penalty. We are calling on the House of Lords to take action to protect children from the impact of this Bill.”

Cllr. Alex Crawford, Aldershot
11/03/2013 at 09:06

@ Dawi

While I agree that it is undesirable for one person to excert to much control over the media it is also undesirable for a politicaly motivated organisation to have enough power to manipulate items being reported. Many general secretaries of the NUJ have leanings towards the Comunist party, some having stood for election sponsered by the comunist party others as editors of the Morning Star and Marxist news sheets. The NUJ through the NUJ left is known to sponsore the SWP money being diverted to fund the UAF a radical proactive far left group. Yes I would like to see control of our media strictly governed and that includes both owners and unions

peter hensman
10/03/2013 at 16:20

@peter hensman

A bigger problem is that such a large portion of this country’s mainstream media is either owned, controlled or heavily influenced by one person, which as we have seen in the past has given advantage to whichever political party or issue that person wants to put his weight behind, because control of the media is the ability to control the flow or presentation of information, why else do you think that Nigel “went to dinner with him”.

Dawi, Aldershot
10/03/2013 at 15:45

@ Dawi A big problem with the media in this country is that it is biased. A party leaning to the right can expect a hate campaigne from the left reporting very little truth. The big bad EDL is a good example of not allowing the story to be spoilt by the truth, many points raised by the EDL were not reported but have since become relevent and are now being tackled by the very people who condemed the EDL. There has to be a balanc and to achieve a balance of fare reporting you sometimes have to mix with company you would rather not sit with, The Liberals are another example any good that they have achieve is buried by stories of charator assasination. The press has a great deal to answer to

peter hensman
10/03/2013 at 11:46

@peter hensman

"The Scum? I did not realise you read comics"

Good Joke. It's not even fit to use as bog roll

Dawi, Aldershot
08/03/2013 at 19:06

My point Peter , is that even if UKIP can establish themselves as a major party the electoral system will prevent them from having any real teeth. Heavily Labour/Tory areas will still support their parties like football teams so even if UKIP push the other parties into third and fourth place they still don't win. I keep seeing on this website about doing what Eastleigh did. Well they returned a Liberal Democrat to the commons despite the previous lib dem perverting the course of justice, breaking their major campaign pledge and enabling the government of the main rival in that seat from the previous election in a coalition. I'd say that was Lib Dems 1 UKIP 0

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/03/2013 at 17:00

We could still use the ballot box Peter.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/03/2013 at 16:52

@ Dawi

The Scum? I did not realise you read comics

@ Spongebob

That would take a revolution Alas we have to stick with the ballot box

peter hensman
08/03/2013 at 15:57

peter hensman,

Well it look like Nigel Farage is making his play for power now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21710739

I can imagin the headlines in "The Scum" in the lead up to the next general election.

Dawi, Aldershot
08/03/2013 at 15:17

If you want to put a fly in the ointment then the best solution is change the electoral system. Reduce the number of directly elected members to about 250 and have 250 appointed proportionally from the losing votes. That way people will start to vote for their beliefs rather than tactically and every single person's vote will count. The government will always be a coalition and the true voice of the people will pass or fail bills in the house.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
08/03/2013 at 15:01

Dawi When you have union leaders on high salaries, MP's on all parties who know nothing of real life who talk of average salaries of £35,000 pa and capping families on bennefit to £25,000 pa when working class famiilies feel lucky if they make £15,000 pa gross. We have a 3 party system, one group who has placed us in deep recession wants to continue trying to spend our way out of it putting us deeper in debt. The other group while continuing to enjoy their comfortable life style expect those lower down the scale to take the hit with promises of even more harship. Then you have the third group who runs around between the other two supporting who ever makes them look good. What is needed is a fourth group to act as a fly in the ointment, to be out spoken, Where are the Beast's of Bolsover who stood in the house and openly took their own party to task as well as everyone else. Where are the men of the house? There are none. We need a fourth party in the house and the only relevent party to become that fly in the ointment is UKIP. and that is why I support them. I was rather harsh on the church at a local level they not only work hard to spread the word of God they seem to work even harder working to help their local communities as Jesus has commanded them. But above the rank of Vicar they are so out of touch.

peter hensman
08/03/2013 at 11:07

peter hensman,

I'm glad to hear that.

If the Labour Party wants to stand a chance of getting elected they need to return to their socialist roots, not continue to be Tony Blair's Nu Labour Tory Party Clone.

There is also more need today than ever for effective unions (and I don’t mean the militant kind from the late 60’s/early 70’s). But Unions that work with employers to achieve a fair settlement and conditions for both the company and the workforce.

We also need a government that will provide a fair, just and stable environment for the country, unfortunate I don’t think that any of the existing major parties are capable of doing that (and that includes UKIP).

Dawi, Aldershot
07/03/2013 at 22:09

The working classes only lean to right because of the brainwashing of the masses over things like Europe and immigration. The Facts are skewed and these lies smokescreen the real agenda.

SpongeBob NoPants, Farnborough
07/03/2013 at 16:42

I have a great deal of respect for both the founders of the Unions and the Labour Party they made great strides in improving the lot of the working class we also owe a debt to the Church's who's Sunday schools taught the working class to read and write. But now the Unions, labour Party and the Church have become middle class and can no longer be relied upon to stand by the working class, but no matter we will no longer be ignored by National and Local Government as we have been in the past. These days the working class lean to the right politicaly but still retain their social conscience

peter hensman
07/03/2013 at 14:26

“Our country has the responsibility of providing quality healthcare, quality education, quality social housing and full employment for the benefit of all regardless of race creed or colour, that is the right of the working class”

It was not until the abolition of the Poor Laws which were replaced with the National Assistance Act 1948 that anything we would recognize today started to come in to being. Before the National Assistance Act there were The Poor Laws (The Old Poor Laws 1536 – 1834 and The New Poor Laws 1834 – 1948). There were a few changes in the early 1900’s e.g. the Liberal Welfare Reforms, Friendly Societies and Trade Unions.

One of the biggest accelerators for change was the formation of Trade Unions (and the formation of the Labour Party) which fought for changes to better the conditions for ordinary working people which is where most of what we recognise today comes from.

Tories and Tory policy has always been weighted in favour of the well off and rich. Even Churchill who was a great war time prime minister, was against forming the NHS, and is reported to have suggested that machine guns be used on the striking miners during the 1926 General Strike. (Bet Thatcher would have loved to do that one in the 70’s).

Dawi, Aldershot
06/03/2013 at 17:27

There are those on the far right who would like to see the bankers responsable for the global financial melt down brought before an international court and stripped of their asset as reconpence for the disaster they have caused. It must be remembered that Gordon Brown when selling off our countries gold not only informed the financial institutions but also gave them a timetable of how and when allowing them to collapse the price of gold so that our countries gold was sold at the lowest price, damaging our countries reserves leaving our country finacialy weakened to face the global recession

peter hensman
06/03/2013 at 17:04

"Yes we are talking about Nigel a great rarity in politics he has actualy gone out into the world and had a proper job"

More like another "Banker Hugging" Tory with far right wing tory policies.

Dawi, Aldershot
06/03/2013 at 15:56

And is he the leader of UKIP? Yes we are talking about Nigel a great rarity in politics he has actualy gone out into the world and had a proper job

peter hensman
06/03/2013 at 13:12

Why does the left always go on the rampage at the mention of immigration controls? Is it because it is the only card they have left to play due to Labours admission that they have got it wrong on immigration. There has been no mention of race, creed or colour, so why raise the issue? The UK is a diverse and multicultural country and is better for it. We as a country have a responsibility not only to the native population (those who have been born here) but also to the immigrant families that have legally settled here. Our country has the responsibility of providing quality healthcare, quality education, quality social housing and full employment for the benefit of all regardless of race creed or colour, that is the right of the working class, without whom this country would go flat on its face. If you take the time and trouble to check the density of population figures for Europe you will find that we are second only to the Netherlands, proof that the growth of our population is becoming unsustainable, not next year or the year after but we are approaching a tipping point where the decline of our country will accelerate, we are already seeing the symptoms in the breakdown in law and order and the buckling of what I have called the four cornerstones. We as a country need to bring our countries population growth under control and the only way we can do that is to control immigration because this is the key to improving life in our country.

peter hensman
06/03/2013 at 13:07

Now I wonder who this could be:

1 His father was a stockbroker in the City

2 In 1982 he joined the London commodity brokerage firm Drexel Burnham Lambert

3 In 1986, he joined Credit Lyonnais Rouse

4 He joined Refco in 1994, and Natexis Metals in 2003

5 Active in the Conservative Party from his school days, he left the party in 1992

Any Guesses.

Dawi, Aldershot
06/03/2013 at 13:04

@ Dawi and Unhappy How would you change things??????????????

peter hensman
06/03/2013 at 01:06

@Dawi, Aldershot: “Experience in Scotland and Wales shows that free prescriptions is a system that is regularly abused. CHBs will therefore be allowed to introduce a small charge (e.g. £1) for everyone if they believe this will assist in controlling these abuses.” Post code lottery on prescription charges.

Rather IRONIC coming from professional politicians who scrounge and/or abuse from the public purse as exposed by the MPs Expenses scandal. The fact that the Torygraph controlled the flow of information it manipulated what it released into the public domain to its own political ends, in my view.

Witness the gargantuan abuse of power by the News Corp and the other media in the phone hacking scandal, spanning several decades. STILL they think they are worthy to be OUTSIDE THE LAW, aka the FREE press, unlike broadcast media. So that they can continue to spew Right Whinge propaganda as the Daily Mail, Daily Express - remember the headline "It's the Sun that won it."

It's time elected officials were retained subject to similar terms as self-employed contract employees. No more fat cat privileges.

I couldn't believe it when MPs House of Conman's Bar brawl exposed that MPs, earning as much as £100,000/year gross when ALL is added up, were getting subsidised drinks!! Oh, you poor things!

unhappy (now disgusted)
06/03/2013 at 00:54

@peter hensman: "The four main corner stones Health, Education, Housing and employment are buckling under the strain of the growing population which has been boosted by uncontrolled immigration."

That is just plain xenophobic and racist nonsense.

This country has been ruined by the inepts elected to Run and manage the country.

"Health, Education, Housing and employment are buckling under the strain of" of poor management by the inepts elected. For example the lack of funding.

Immigrants have the highest self-employment rate according to the 2009 Local Communities and Governments report.

Just go look at Station Road, Aldershot for example. Then go look at petrol stations and news agents etc both these businesses were declining and abandoned by white Brits but taken over and are now run by British ethnic minorities, just like the empty shops on station road and elsewhere in Rushmoor.

Look at the FACTS and not parrot xenophobic and racist rhetoric of inept politicians like Mr Gerald Howorthless, MP for Aldershot.

unhappy (now disgusted)
05/03/2013 at 19:04

Hum, Health “UKIP will: Dramatically cut the Department of Health and bring in professional procurement skills to reduce the huge amounts of money wasted in procurement and resource allocation.” So they are planning to sack one load of bureaucrats then hire another lot.

“Beveridge’s founding principles of the NHS actually recommended a co-insurance model and a UKIP government would undertake a cost-benefit analysis of reverting to this concept.” So everyone is going to have to pay more.

“Experience in Scotland and Wales shows that free prescriptions is a system that is regularly abused. CHBs will therefore be allowed to introduce a small charge (e.g. £1) for everyone if they believe this will assist in controlling these abuses.” Post code lottery on prescription charges.

Employment

“UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc.”

No policies on Housing or Education but there is the following for Immigration and Asylum: “Enforce the existing terms of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees until Britain replaces it with an Asylum Act.” “Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”

Dawi, Aldershot
05/03/2013 at 19:02

"Time to take Ukip seriously now? Don’t make me laugh - They're a rising political force, but even if I try my hardest I can't stop the giggles"

see: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/time-to-take-ukip-seriously-now-dont-make-me-laugh-8519524.html

One ONLY need look at the the UKIP leadership, their backers and their Prospective Candidates to realise why one should reject them.

For one thing they are a bunch of self-serving opportunists - Oh just like the cretins in Labour and Conservative Party. After all why would ethnic minorities join a xenophobic and potentially a racist party?

As for being the proverbially one-trick pony, well they have ONLY themselves to blame as they shout loudest and mostly about the EU and getting out of it and immigration. Their party symbol reflects that.

However, "Special Report: What voters should know about Ukip - Is there more to the party than an obsession with immigration and getting Britain out of the European Union?"

see: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/special-report-what-voters-should-know-about-ukip-8517997.html?origin=internalSearch

unhappy (now disgusted)
05/03/2013 at 18:41

@ Dawi And I take it that the media is also responsible for the content of the UKIP web site (which I’ve just had a look at), because there doesn’t seem to me to be any difference.

The four main corner stones Health, Education, Housing and employment are buckling under the strain of the growing population which has been boosted by uncontrolled immigration. To turn our country around we need to put a stop to further immigration and to do that we need to sort out the EU problem. It is about regaining controll of our country and creating a stable base to build on, untill that has been achieved we will continue as we are now under the present government of waisting money patching up a failing system, we need to prepare our country for growth, not of population but of industry, growth in our standard of living and growth in our quality of life. It is about building a country where people can enjoy life not just survive it, no matter their colour or beliefs.

peter hensman
05/03/2013 at 12:21

GetHants you need to look up the SkyNews report from Aldershot with reference to Philip Hammon: cut welfare not troops [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9903911/Philip-Hammond-cut-welfare-not-troops.html#comment-817764663 ]

It carries a interviews with staff and patrons (Aldershot Constituents) at the Red Lion Pub on High Street Aldershot.

Jim Barker, Manager, says while FURTHER MOD cuts are not acceptable NEITHER are the Tory CU*Ts to Welfare as there aren't any jobs for the unemployed and what are they going to live on?

Then it shows an interview with Mr Gerald Howworthless, MP for Aldershot, Outside the RBC Offices, who says we must not look inwards (at which point I LOL!!!). We need strong defence. So we must make CRUEL decisions and CUT Welfare (at which point I stopped laughing and thought what a stupid man. How did he ever get elected?)!!

So Aldershot lets make a "CRUEL" decision in May to get rid of these out of touch, citizens of la-la land, Tories.

Then come General Election make a CRUEL decision and get rid of Mr Gerald Howworthless, MP for Aldershot.

Lets follow the example of citizens of Eastleigh.

unhappy (now disgusted)
03/03/2013 at 16:15

@PJA: "everything i have said is true,"

In posts here you claimed you had to live on Benefits of around £111.xx/week from this you had to pay everything such as your Council Tax, Mortgage, etc as you did not get any other Benefits!!

I note from your posts on the flood affected areas article that you have young kids, so you get Child Benefit.

You keep IGNORING the fact that the Benefit of around £111.xx/week are for YOU and YOUR wife. Plus YOU would be getting for your Children as well as the USUAL Child Benefit.

Suddenly when I asked you for details of you income you CLAIM your wife, despite still suffering from cancer has had herself declared fit for work! HALLELUJAH!!!

So she is now classed as an unemployed, like YOU. Thus as an UNEMPLOYED married couple you will get a married couples rate which means you qualify for Council Tax Benefits and as per the current policy you will have to pay 8% like ALL OTHER UNEMPLOYED and working-age benefit Claimants.

Thus, it's NOT too difficult to find HOLES in your cheesy STORIES!! I would've asked if you ever thought of becoming a fiction writer but you are obviously not good at all. :-))

unhappy (now disgusted)
03/03/2013 at 15:57

some people are so offensive on here and the aldershot news allow it!

everything i have said is true, and some can believe what they like.

The original story on this article was about those who have had council tax paid for them for free by the rate payer, now have to help contribute towards the council tax by 8%, I understand that some will struggle to pay this but their have and are some that struggle to pay the full council tax.

Everyone in the borough that is either working or on benefits are struggling and paying the council tax is only one of the bills that has to be paid.

PJA
03/03/2013 at 07:22

@PJA - Tory troll or just a Dull boy says: "But Hey Ho my wife is looking for work allthough she is still having chemo and suffering from cancer. 2

Hey Ho @PJA that's a rather rather tall story - about as tall as 7 Dwarfs!! Or is it a little Snow White lie?

unhappy (now disgusted)
02/03/2013 at 02:00

@PJA - Tory troll or just a Dull boy says: "On band D property the household who have to pay 8% will cost them £2.19 a week!!"

Hmm, when the Unemployed get just £71/week, less than a day's wage and who just got 70p/week rise!!

@PJA - Tory troll or just a Dull boy says: "I and many other council tax payers who pay full council tax would love to only pay £2.19 a week, but unfortunately that isn't the case."

Hey, if YOU FEEL so envious of the unemployed why don't you give up work and join them?

PUT UP or SHUT UP!!!

unhappy (now disgusted)
02/03/2013 at 01:52

peter hensman

"Every time the media talk about, interview or report upon UKIP they only mention the EU and immigration"

And I take it that the media is also responsible for the content of the UKIP web site (which I’ve just had a look at), because there doesn’t seem to me to be any difference.

Dawi, Aldershot
01/03/2013 at 17:31

@PJA: "how wrong you are!"

Well why don't you come clean Tory troll instead of ducking and diving like Del Boy?

I have given you so many opportunities. Lets have YOUR FULL facts.

unhappy (now disgusted)
01/03/2013 at 16:53

@ Dowi Yes some times UKIP does look as though they are a two trick pony, but, is that their fault? Every time the media talk about, interview or report upon UKIP they only mention the EU and immigration, if someone from UKIP tries to talk about the party’s manifesto they are cut short and the interview returns to the EU and immigration

peter hensman
01/03/2013 at 15:17

You state my wife hasn't suffered through Labour Goverment !

Where have you been my wife became seriously ill in 2008 when Labour goverment were in - they refused her much needed benefits at that time!!

You also state that I am on £111 a week thats a joke how wrong you are!

I only get it paid to me it doesn't include my wife at all, and you can see what the amount for 1 person is on the benefit website!

I also pay full council tax.

My circumstances have changing since my wife was diagnosed with cancer and I don't have to give you details on that.

As for my wife stating that she couldn't get help because she is married and her husband is responsible for daily needs, this is wrong considering my wife has allways worked paid full taxes for over 35 years [as a single person] because this is the way the uk goverment state that weather you are a married wife or not you pay tax as a single person, but when it comes to claiming benefits married women are not classed as single any more so they don't have to pay you benefits.

How fair is that if her friend who is single and pays the same tax as her but then goes sick can claim benefits but my wife cannot, and I allways thought the uk was equal rights for all!!

This is not the case.

But Hey Ho my wife is looking for work allthough she is still having chemo and suffering from cancer.

So really you have nothing to beleive any more because she has now signed back to work even though she may not get a job because of her illness, but has nothing to lose other than her life!!

Oh by the way I am not a Tory!!