[Ally Mcintosh]

has anyone got their hands on a routing plan for the proposed course?....

i saw an early one ages ago but can't recall where...

[Rich Goodale]

Brad (or should I call you Bradley?)

Thanks for the post.  I don't think you have yet passed Mark Pearce's test of saying something interesting rather than simplistically critical, but keep on trying, if you so wish.

Rich

[Mickey Boland]

Looks like Trump is on his way to winning.  Still has one more hurdle to clear.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119749846400324869.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

[Dan Kelly]

I still wish Burt Lancaster were playing Trump.

As for the NHS and other Euro health systems, I'm curious about something:

Does one's experience with them have *nothing* to do with one's standing (economic, political, social) in the community? Or are they susceptible to the same imperfection (the rich get richer) that everyone finds in the U.S. "system"?

[Mark Pearce]

I still wish Burt Lancaster were playing Trump.

As for the NHS and other Euro health systems, I'm curious about something:

Does one's experience with them have *nothing* to do with one's standing (economic, political, social) in the community? Or are they susceptible to the same imperfection (the rich get richer) that everyone finds in the U.S. "system"?

In the UK there is something dubbed the "postcode lottery" by the tabloid press.  That is, provision can vary from region to region and that can depend on wealth, to an extent.  For instance, critical heart care is allegedly less good in the North East than in London and the North East is a poorer region.  I now live in North East England and would say I am less impressed by the NHS here than I was in Hertfordshire (just outside London), where I lived previously.  However, there are wealthy people in the North East and poor people in London.  Otherwise, within the NHS, it's genuinely an equal opportunities provider of healthcare.

[Sean_A]

I still wish Burt Lancaster were playing Trump.

As for the NHS and other Euro health systems, I'm curious about something:

Does one's experience with them have *nothing* to do with one's standing (economic, political, social) in the community? Or are they susceptible to the same imperfection (the rich get richer) that everyone finds in the U.S. "system"?

Dan

I do think there is a difference in health care quality not by who you are, but by where you live.  IMO the health care is better in a county like Hampshire compared to Worcestershire and there is a deal of difference between Worcestershire and Warwickshire.  

When we first arrived in England we used the WORCS system and it was truly terrible.  As we live on the border with Warwickshire (quite an affluent county) we decided to use that system instead and it was much better.  I know many people get on Blair's case for not really improving health care, but from first hand experience I can say that is rubbish.  Since the new hospital was built in Worcester the care has dramatically improved mainly because equipment is much more readily available.

As Rich & Mark suggest, the real problem with NHS is frontloaded care.  Both WARWKS & WORCS tend to be slow to diagnose/react.  It takes the patient (a lippy Yank as my wife isn't as insistent as me) to hammer folks into delivering better service.  I must say, that as a consequence, I go private for consultation (if I think it could be serious - not just a cough type stuff) and then use NHS if things need to go further.  On average, private consulation costs about £100, but it greatly increases the speed of getting the extra care needed such as an operation.  

Having said all that, things have worked well my wife.  She is given free medicine for various pregnancy/delivery related issues and all the other female stuff.  The NHS seems to be very much on top of issues like breast cancer.  

Now, I am shocked that Norway has a top tax of 38% including healthcare.  If the care is good, that is a steal and any culture should grab that sort of opportunity with both hands.  In the UK top tax including NI (NHS and state pension) is something like 50%.  The problem with the tax is that folks hit the top bracket of 40% very quickly (I think its something like 11.5% extra for NI).  I think its about £30,000 with basic deductions of 5,000ish.  That to me is far too low a wage to be taxed at 40%.  Personally, I think 40% (as if any gov't should be allowed to take that much in tax) tax should be something on a £100,000 wage or probably higher.  Lots of people with 3 kids or so have a bit of a struggle on a £50,000 a year job - that ain't right.  

Ciao  

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Very few people are paying income tax in the 40% bracket AND full NI.  NI payments tail off after a certain level.  Either that or our tax people at my firm are doing something clever and I sort of doubt that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I see that Tony Bowman (Etyre) has thrown his log into the fire by offering to give the farmer, whose land lies between the front nine and the hotel, twice what Trump would offer for it. He has made farmer Forbes an outright buy offer of 1.5 mil., saying that Forbes could stay on for as long as he likes, but Forbes hasn't taken him up on it.

Here is another article which delves a bit into how the Trump organization has conducted their business in the area.  
 
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2961400.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

[David_Tepper]

Meanwhile, to read about what is actually happening re: Trump in Aberdeen, check out the lead article in today's Press & Journal:

www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk

[Adam Clayman]

Has anyone else noticed that in each and every article written on "The project" the housing numbers all are different?

I've seen the numbers go from 1500 to 500 to 1000 and now 900.

 

[Lou_Duran]

One of the great things about this site is the posting of links to related articles and books.  Some of the reading is truly fascinating and thought provoking.  Many thanks to those who post them.

The following comment from ousted committee chair Ford (David Tepper's link) is particularly interesting:

"The past two weeks have certainly not been pleasant. This has tested relationships. Democracy has not been damaged yet, but it still could happen. Clearly the end result of a properly dealt with planning application is I am no longer chairman of the planning committee. That is a strange combination."

From what has been reported, there is clear, large local majority support for the project.  The fuller council by nearly a three to one margin voted to move forward with the application.  Mr. Ford's own small committee was deadlocked until he cast the deciding vote against.

If the language is to have any meaning, and one of the main principles of a democracy is majority rule, to have let Mr. Ford's vote stand as final would be truly damaging to democracy.  Mr. Ford may have voted his honest convictions and interpreted existing planning rules with minimum personal bias, but was he representing his constituents?  I think not.

It is a real shame that we can't get past all this class hatred.  Life is much easier if we leave out demonstrably false populist notions and analyze what's on the table.  Money is no less important to those who don't have a lot than to those who do.  Change that.  It is likely much more so.

Really, envy is not very becoming.  The now famous hold-out "fisherman" (who has caught one salmon and one trout over the last several years) doesn't oppose golf courses or housing on the site.  He just doesn't want it to be housing for the "Rich".  So, even if the project is a huge economic winner for the area, turn it down anyways because rich folks might enjoy it?  Perhaps the news has not gotten there that without these hated rich (and market economies), a large majority of us would be living at subsistance levels.

Regarding these purported inviolate development rules the Against crowd uses to pound the table, I am assuming that they came into being through many iterations over time.  Though not closely analogous, in Los Angeles, speed limit signs are thought of as "suggestions".  Planning and zoning codes change all the time due to changes in needed uses as well as in the political will.

The SSSI issue is an important one.  I am assuming that since these are politically designated, that politicians can change what is and isn't (an SSSI and the permitted uses) based on other issues, new information, different needs, etc.  The reality of the matter is that if it were up to many environmental activists, no new development would take place and the earth would be depopulated over time to what some believe is the sustainable level of 1 billion.  Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Malthus is alive and well in the heart of the environmental movement.  How it is noble to love the earth yet not its children is well beyond by ability to reason.    

[Jim_Kennedy]

The whole incident to date smells like dead fish.

The farmer may not like the idea of housing for the 'rich' over housing that is affordable, but that type of reaction is more about maintaining a healthy diversity. I live in an area that has been slowly creeping its way toward a seasonal, wealthy population, but there are trade-offs when this happens. Young families move out because of a lack of work that pays wages in line with mean housing prices. Volunteer pools shrink because of fewer young people to fill the ranks, i.e. it's hard to get new firefighters or ambulance squads. School enrollments suffer, increased traffic clogs roadways, parking becomes a problem, fewer small-business start ups due to rents that become unaffordable because of ever rising real estate prices. Taxes on property increase, which has driven others out and forced quite a few fixed-income elderly folks to sell, after living in this town all their lives.  

The flavor changes.

From what I've read, people 'north of Balmeadie, up the A90 from town' ,i.e., the people who will be most affected by the change to the area, aren't fawning over this project. It's ..."an older community... comprising farms and cottages backed up against the rolling dunes.. Up here, the mood towards Trump is more ambiguous.

Perhaps these folks would like to keep their slice of heaven just as it is.

[Brian Phillips]

Now, I am shocked that Norway has a top tax of 38% including healthcare.  If the care is good, that is a steal and any culture should grab that sort of opportunity with both hands.  In the UK top tax including NI (NHS and state pension) is something like 50%.  The problem with the tax is that folks hit the top bracket of 40% very quickly (I think its something like 11.5% extra for NI).  I think its about £30,000 with basic deductions of 5,000ish.  That to me is far too low a wage to be taxed at 40%.  Personally, I think 40% (as if any gov't should be allowed to take that much in tax) tax should be something on a £100,000 wage or probably higher.  Lots of people with 3 kids or so have a bit of a struggle on a £50,000 a year job - that ain't right.  
 

Sean,

The top tax is not 38% it is about 50%.  I just said that my tax was 38% because I had quite high wage.  By the looks of it the tax system  here is pretty much the same without the NI deductions.

[Jason McNamara]

I do think there is a difference in health care quality not by who you are, but by where you live.  IMO the health care is better in a county like Hampshire compared to Worcestershire and there is a deal of difference between Worcestershire and Warwickshire.  

Sean -

Are you in that constituency that's represented by the Indie who first ran strictly on a health care platform?  Wyre Forest, is it?  That's somewhere 'round your part of the world, iirc.

[Sean_A]

One of the great things about this site is the posting of links to related articles and books.  Some of the reading is truly fascinating and thought provoking.  Many thanks to those who post them.

The following comment from ousted committee chair Ford (David Tepper's link) is particularly interesting:

"The past two weeks have certainly not been pleasant. This has tested relationships. Democracy has not been damaged yet, but it still could happen. Clearly the end result of a properly dealt with planning application is I am no longer chairman of the planning committee. That is a strange combination."

From what has been reported, there is clear, large local majority support for the project.  The fuller council by nearly a three to one margin voted to move forward with the application.  Mr. Ford's own small committee was deadlocked until he cast the deciding vote against.

If the language is to have any meaning, and one of the main principles of a democracy is majority rule, to have let Mr. Ford's vote stand as final would be truly damaging to democracy.  Mr. Ford may have voted his honest convictions and interpreted existing planning rules with minimum personal bias, but was he representing his constituents?  I think not.

It is a real shame that we can't get past all this class hatred.  Life is much easier if we leave out demonstrably false populist notions and analyze what's on the table.  Money is no less important to those who don't have a lot than to those who do.  Change that.  It is likely much more so.

Really, envy is not very becoming.  The now famous hold-out "fisherman" (who has caught one salmon and one trout over the last several years) doesn't oppose golf courses or housing on the site.  He just doesn't want it to be housing for the "Rich".  So, even if the project is a huge economic winner for the area, turn it down anyways because rich folks might enjoy it?  Perhaps the news has not gotten there that without these hated rich (and market economies), a large majority of us would be living at subsistance levels.

Regarding these purported inviolate development rules the Against crowd uses to pound the table, I am assuming that they came into being through many iterations over time.  Though not closely analogous, in Los Angeles, speed limit signs are thought of as "suggestions".  Planning and zoning codes change all the time due to changes in needed uses as well as in the political will.

The SSSI issue is an important one.  I am assuming that since these are politically designated, that politicians can change what is and isn't (an SSSI and the permitted uses) based on other issues, new information, different needs, etc.  The reality of the matter is that if it were up to many environmental activists, no new development would take place and the earth would be depopulated over time to what some believe is the sustainable level of 1 billion.  Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Malthus is alive and well in the heart of the environmental movement.  How it is noble to love the earth yet not its children is well beyond by ability to reason.    

Lou

You are missing the point entirely.  The application being called in is a political decision, not a democratic decision.  For some reason you will not accept that in effect, Council Members serve as the executive of the area.  Like other executives, they are not put in place solely to represent their constituency.  They are also in place to make hard decisions which may not be popular because it is felt necessary to do so for the greater good.  Jesus, to you expect a poll to be taken every time a potentially controversial decision arises?  

For instance, every year a precept has to be requested and most years the precept rises.  Is it popular?  No, of course not, but if the Council can demonstrate that they deliver sound, good value services, then rises in the precept are justified.  If they Council cannot demonstrate that the money is well spent, then they risk losing credibility and their seats in the next election.  That is democracy as it is practiced in the UK.  You may disagree with it, but there you are.  

Your suggestion that a Council, if it disagrees with a committee appointed by themselves can therefore over-rule the committee would lead to (and has in this case) nonsense.  Council Members cannot as a body review every planning application.  As such, committees are elected or professional officers are appointed to carry out the function.  For a Council to turn around and try to over-rule their own committee damages the process.  Why?  Because the disagreement could be politically (ie party) or personally driven and have nothing in fact to do with planning regulation.  This is a huge risk to run and this is one major reason why the full Council cannot over-rule a committee decision.  Additionally, to help curb personal/party driven decision making, many Councils have the 6 month rule in their Standing Orders.  Meaning, once a decision is made, the Council cannot discuss that decision for 6 months unless legally challenged.  This is why the government called the application in.  

The Council taking a vote was in fact an ass covering exercise that probably should not have been allowed to be on the Agenda of any extra-ordinary meeting.  The Chairman of the Council should be seriously rebuked for allowing this to occur because he/she would have known full well that the Council has no power to overturn themselves (which is in effect what they would be doing by over-riding a committee).  In reality, if the Members of that Council were doing their jobs properly they in all likelyhood should have removed the Chairman if he/she insisted in wasting tax payer time and money in holding a vote of no consequence to the matter.  It only served to isolate and ridicule those members of the committee who voted to reject the application and cover their asses.  Unfortunately, even politics at this level is mired by party and personal pettiness.  The entire Council should be ashamed of themselves for leaving fellow members to hang.

Jason

No, I live in Wychavon District, but WFD isn't too far away.  Its centered around Stourport on Severn, but Kidderminster (which has a good golf club btw) may be a bigger town.  That chap's name was Dr something Taylor.  He was effectively running to save the hospital in Kidderminster (or it may have been Stourport).  It was a great campaign and for a while the party he created was the dominant party.  

Ciao

[Ed Tilley]

Sean,

Very few people are paying income tax in the 40% bracket AND full NI.  NI payments tail off after a certain level.  Either that or our tax people at my firm are doing something clever and I sort of doubt that.

The 40% income tax bracket kicks in at £38,385 pa. National Insurance is paid at 10% of income from £5,044pa to £34,840pa and 1% of income therafter. The effective top rate of income tax is therefore 41%.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Ed on top of that there is the employers NI contribution of a further 12.8%.   It beggars belief that the government gets away with people ignoring this.

IN my firm, if we do well in a year we pay a bonus to the staff.  We tell them how much better than target we did, the number of employees who qualify by being there throughout the year and they say so we are going to get £x-33% (for income tax and NI)?  They are staggered when we say, sorry the government will take approximately 45% of the monies paid out.

I have it as the standard rate of tax at approx 45% and the higher rate as 53%+.   You’re an accountant, try employing someone without planning for those deductions.

[Mike Sweeney]

Lou

You are missing the point entirely.  The application being called in is a political decision, not a democratic decision.  For some reason you will not accept that in effect, Council Members serve as the executive of the area.  Like other executives, they are not put in place solely to represent their constituency.  They are also in place to make hard decisions which may not be popular because it is felt necessary to do so for the greater good.  

Ciao

Sean,

As an outsider looking in, it appears that the recent events in Scotland are a form of Direct Democracy which is a contrast to Representative Democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a selection of the people, elected periodically, but otherwise free to advance their own agendas.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_directdemocracy.html

The problem with Direct Democracy is a practical one in that most people don't care about the typical day to day process of a planning board. This is one of the reasons we have elected officials. They are paid to deal with that which we do not really care about. However in this case of the Trump proposal, people cared, and seemed to have rallied their elected officials to overrule the Council's decsion on the Trump proposal and fired the Executive.

In my view, it was the perfect democratic process, just with a little drama mixed in.

Democracies often make bad decisions, hopefully over time they make more good ones than bad.

[Brian Phillips]

Tony,

How much does a company in Britain have to pay these days in employment tax to the government?

In Norway my company pays 14.1% employer tax on top of the salary I pay to the employees and that is it.

Brian

[Ed Tilley]

Tony,

How much does a company in Britain have to pay these days in employment tax to the government?

In Norway my company pays 14.1% employer tax on top of the salary I pay to the employees and that is it.

Brian

Brian,

Employers pay nothing up to £5k pa and 12.8% on salaries above that.  

Ed

[David_Tepper]

The lead article in today's Press & Journal (Dec. 14) is another fascinating look at this soap opera.

www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk

[Adam Clayman]

David, Thanks so much for the links. This latest one's referencing the odiferous nature of dealing with The Trumpster is exactly how the originator of this thread described the man years ago.

It should be recognized Uncle Bob is a prophetic (and profetic) genius.

[Sean_A]

Lou

You are missing the point entirely.  The application being called in is a political decision, not a democratic decision.  For some reason you will not accept that in effect, Council Members serve as the executive of the area.  Like other executives, they are not put in place solely to represent their constituency.  They are also in place to make hard decisions which may not be popular because it is felt necessary to do so for the greater good.  

Ciao

Sean,

As an outsider looking in, it appears that the recent events in Scotland are a form of Direct Democracy which is a contrast to Representative Democracy, where sovereignty is exercised by a selection of the people, elected periodically, but otherwise free to advance their own agendas.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_directdemocracy.html

The problem with Direct Democracy is a practical one in that most people don't care about the typical day to day process of a planning board. This is one of the reasons we have elected officials. They are paid to deal with that which we do not really care about. However in this case of the Trump proposal, people cared, and seemed to have rallied their elected officials to overrule the Council's decsion on the Trump proposal and fired the Executive.

In my view, it was the perfect democratic process, just with a little drama mixed in.

Democracies often make bad decisions, hopefully over time they make more good ones than bad.

Mike

The Council did not over-rule the Development Committee because it has no power to do so.  If full Councils were to second guess every committee or officer decision then there isn't much point in having a committee.  In essence, the Development Committee is the Council making the decision - by delegation.  It may not be perfect, but it is essential.  This is why I said taking a vote on the matter was a pointless exercise and really only served as an ass saver for the remainder of the Council not directly involved in the Development Comm's decision.  I personally have no time for this sort of mealy mouth nonsense and would seriously question if the Council's actions were an effective use of taxpayer money.  I would characterize what happened as a knee jerk reaction and more akin to mobocracy than democracy.  Shameful really.

I can fully understand the Chairman of the Development Comm being asked to stand down if it can be shown that he disregarded planning regulations and therefore prejudiced a possible appeal.  If it is just a disagreement of opinion, then no, I don't think its reasonable to ask the Chairman to resign.  All this sort of action does is create doubt in the mind  of a potential Chairman and perhaps lead him to make judgements which are based on popular opinion rather than on planning regulations.  Having said this, if the Chairman is that far off base concerning the wishes of his constituents perhaps he should have considered resigning as Chairman of the Comm and perhaps stepping down as a Councillor.  However, the same is true of the other Cllrs who voted against the Trump application. However, mass resignations could lead to a by-election and that costs money to administer - an issue which shouldn't be taken lightly in this day and age of election costs.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

"You are missing the point entirely.  The application being called in is a political decision, not a democratic decision.  For some reason you will not accept that in effect, Council Members serve as the executive of the area.  Like other executives, they are not put in place solely to represent their constituency.  They are also in place to make hard decisions which may not be popular because it is felt necessary to do so for the greater good."  Sean A.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sean,

Not at all.  If your characterization of the powers possessed by Mr. Ford's "Development Committee" is correct, the full council would not have overturned its authority.  But if you are right and the council acted in violation of the law, no doubt the Against folks will petition the courts and have the purported illegal action reversed.

It is beyond me how "the greater good" is better divined by a narrow 5 to 4 vote than by a more representative ballot involving a plurality of the council coming to a different conclusion by a factor of nearly 3 to 1.  Do you really think that this is mob rule or tyranny of the majority?  By the way, I fail to see the difference in this case between a democratic and a political decision.  How can a government decision not be political?

I wonder if the scenario was the other way- Ford voted in favor of the the application, the majority of the locals was against it, and the full council intervened to overrule the development committee- whether we would now be hearing effusive praise for the progressive action to ensure that the wishes and interests of the community prevailed.  Democracy is really good when one is on the winning side.  If you are in the minority, it can "suck".

[Sean_A]

"You are missing the point entirely.  The application being called in is a political decision, not a democratic decision.  For some reason you will not accept that in effect, Council Members serve as the executive of the area.  Like other executives, they are not put in place solely to represent their constituency.  They are also in place to make hard decisions which may not be popular because it is felt necessary to do so for the greater good."  Sean A.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sean,

Not at all.  If your characterization of the powers possessed by Mr. Ford's "Development Committee" is correct, the full council would not have overturned its authority.  But if you are right and the council acted in violation of the law, no doubt the Against folks will petition the courts and have the purported illegal action reversed.

It is beyond me how "the greater good" is better divined by a narrow 5 to 4 vote than by a more representative ballot involving a plurality of the council coming to a different conclusion by a factor of nearly 3 to 1.  Do you really think that this is mob rule or tyranny of the majority?  By the way, I fail to see the difference in this case between a democratic and a political decision.  How can a government decision not be political?

I wonder if the scenario was the other way- Ford voted in favor of the the application, the majority of the locals was against it, and the full council intervened to overrule the development committee- whether we would now be hearing effusive praise for the progressive action to ensure that the wishes and interests of the community prevailed.  Democracy is really good when one is on the winning side.  If you are in the minority, it can "suck".

Lou

First off, it wasn't Mr Ford's Committee.  The Committee is made up of willing Council Members of which Mr. Ford was the elected Chairman.  Secondly, the Council didn't overturn anything or violate the law.  The Council had no powers in this matter and so they acted outside law - meaning they wasted tax payer money because their resolutions and/or votes carried no weight.  

"The greater good" is in the case of Councils always decided by vote.  The margin of a carried motion is meaningless.  Would the outcome be any different if the Development Committee voted 13-1 to reject the application?  

It is up to the Council to elect members of the Development Committee which reflect the views of the Council as a whole.  In this case, the failure of the Council to do this reflects on the Council as a body.  This is one of the reasons why I can't condon the full Council turning their backs on a committee they elected.  In fact, its absurd.  One way or another, the full Council is responsible for the decision taken.  Holding meaningless votes after the fact doesn't absolve the Council from their responsibility.

The calling in of the Trump application is a political decision because the matter has now been taken out of the hands of the democratically elected Members of the local planning authority which are entrusted to make local planning decisions.  This is a very clear cut case of the government circumventing the democratic process because they were unhappy with the results of the process.  If the government can over-ride any local decision why do we need to go through the charade of pretending local authorities have decision-making power?  If there is no power locally, then I am all for scraping district, borough & county councils.  It will save me some dosh.

You can wonder all you like if things would be different if the vote of the Development Control Committee were in favour of the Trump application.  It doesn't matter.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()