• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Councilors should be paid roles.

It's an outdated system - local councils are in charge of huge budgets and works that are far too important for volunteers.

I doubt most people would be willing to pay the extra taxes to fund it in the short term. In the medium term those tax levies would be reduced by efficiency savings.
The other problem is that those who tend to want that kind of role are left-leaning in general. One has to believe in the value of govt and it being the best place to source provision in order to take up that kind of role, in general. So it will always be stuffed with tact, spendy types.

Should really be farmed out to independent accountants.
 
The other problem is that those who tend to want that kind of role are left-leaning in general. One has to believe in the value of govt and it being the best place to source provision in order to take up that kind of role, in general. So it will always be stuffed with tact, spendy types.

Should really be farmed out to independent accountants.
That's not true - local council election results disprove that.

Local councils do have staff. However, like MPs, the final decisions comes down to the elected officials, who lack the high level experience and don't have the political pressure/repercussions when they get it massively wrong.
So it either needs changing in structure or a scrutiny committee (like local level civil servants) needs to sign off. (Against defined criteria to avoid bias)
 
That's not true - local council election results disprove that.

Local councils do have staff. However, like MPs, the final decisions comes down to the elected officials, who lack the high level experience and don't have the political pressure/repercussions when they get it massively wrong.
So it either needs changing in structure or a scrutiny committee (like local level civil servants) needs to sign off. (Against defined criteria to avoid bias)
Maybe not the elected roles but they have staff that are all the type that would want to work for a local council.

I don't think a scrutiny committee would be strong enough against bias - I'd rather expenditure had to be justified to a professional, external auditor.
 
Maybe not the elected roles but they have staff that are all the type that would want to work for a local council.

I don't think a scrutiny committee would be strong enough against bias - I'd rather expenditure had to be justified to a professional, external auditor.
I don't know how it works at local level, but centrally the yearly audit is by one of the big boys, so you have to have the appropriate processes in place as part of the operating model (all pretty standard stuff).
I think local govt has accounts audited by local firms - but I've heard stories of them being nothing more than box tickers
 
I don't know how it works at local level, but centrally the yearly audit is by one of the big boys, so you have to have the appropriate processes in place as part of the operating model (all pretty standard stuff).
I think local govt has accounts audited by local firms - but I've heard stories of them being nothing more than box tickers
They're audited like any company but that's only for accuracy.

Nobody checks to ensure that every bit of expenditure is absolutely vital and cannot be provided in another way.
 
They're audited like any company but that's only for accuracy.

Nobody checks to ensure that every bit of expenditure is absolutely vital and cannot be provided in another way.
There is process comment included too, and the information is used to drive improvement (well, it is where I am - I won't make a blanket statement).

I actually think we are talking about the same thing with a scrutiny committee Vs an accountant for sign of.
The difference being I think it should more than one person and should be set away from commercial interests. But appreciate the flip of that is ensuring it stays distanced from political interests.
 
Oh that's handy. I guess those involved in the UN internal investigation can give everyone their jobs back.

Or maybe you've just been fooled into repeating terrorist propaganda
9 people fired from 14,000 hardly make UNWRA a terrorist organisation. That's a ridiculous assertion. If is not as if they are using kids heads for target practice or committing war crimes on a daily basis. That would be real terrorism, right?
 
Oh that's handy. I guess those involved in the UN internal investigation can give everyone their jobs back.

Or maybe you've just been fooled into repeating terrorist propaganda

So anything you disagree with is terrorist proaganda but you are happy to take the repeatedly discredited PR output of a potentially/probably war crime committing army at face value?

right.
 
Just on the "blowout" that we've been talking about potentially happening, I mentioned in an earlier post that there were rumblings around Deutschebank. They've announced that their distributable profits for Q4 2024 were just $108 million. That's down from well over $1 billion at the end of 2023 and almost two thirds lower than what market analysts were predicting. The bank are going to have to lay off staff and exit from some business lines and markets. They've blamed the most recent slump on losses in the Polish mortgage markets.

I think this needs to serve as a wake up call for those on here that point to large corporations announcing huge profits as being ripe for a hammering. If Deutschebank hadn't been pushing above a billion in profits last year they'd likely be on the verge on insolvency now.....in just 12 months
 
Bit too on Reeves, she's clearly listening as her latest round of policy announcements were very good (and very well received). Much more growth focused and (if delivered) are just where we need to be going economically as a country.
 
9 people fired from 14,000 hardly make UNWRA a terrorist organisation. That's a ridiculous assertion. If is not as if they are using kids heads for target practice or committing war crimes on a daily basis. That would be real terrorism, right?
They investigate themselves and offered up a sacrificial 9. The people that insisted it's all flimflam and are closely tied to Hamas couldn't cover up those 9.
 
Aaah ok so they investigated and suspended 9 staff out of 1000s. Due to this you think the Palestinians should be collectively punished and aid should be stopped to starving kids.
See the post above.

No, I don't think that Palestinians should be collectively punished. I think civilians should move out of designated target areas when warned to, and I think those protecting and hiding the Hamas terrorists should be treated as combatants.
 
So anything you disagree with is terrorist proaganda but you are happy to take the repeatedly discredited PR output of a potentially/probably war crime committing army at face value?

right.
Absolutely.

The moment Hamas hold proper elections, dress their army in a manner to distinguish themselves from civilians, stop hiding in hospital/schools etc, I'll begin to take them seriously.

If they're not going to even pretend to be a proper govt with a proper army then I'm not even going to pretend to listen to them.
 
Back