Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Councils To Be Given Powers To Borrow Millions

Recommended Posts

Oooooh! Looky here, a whole new batch of suckers for the banks to play with courtesy of the government!

Combine this with the thread about Lloyds being the main BTL lenders and we should have no doubt that there was no change of government in May. We have the same guys in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm So I guess the fact we dont need or want these services has been lost on the Liberals. So now the councils will borrow money to fund the crap they provide, with ultimate increases in council tax to pay the interest.

This country really is doomed isnt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said the redevelopment of derelict mines in Sheffield and a science park in Newcastle were among schemes that authorities hoped to fund using the new financing mechanism.

science parks being a massive engine for growth,especially if they're near some sandwich shops atop an old colliery.

Exactly, thse schemes are a nonsense. White elephant after white elephant costing a fortune, generating a tiny number of low paid jobs that do virtually nothing for the local economy. Then when the massive annual subsidy is withdrawn they close. The Rock (as in music) Museum in Sheffield is the best example I know, cost a fortune and closed after a couple of years, but even something apparently successful and non-Public Sector like the Eden Project received massive build grants and gets a big annual subsidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great more loss making crap to be built.

Still at least some local councillor will get to have their picture taken with hopefully a A-list celeb or if it really is literally pile of crap maybe a D list one. Still it will be a day out with drinks and food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one made me laugh yesterday. Clegg went to great lengths to pile blame on the banks for our current predicament. Then announced that power would be de-centralised and that local governments will now be able to borrow lashings of money from the same evil banks. Of course that just means that council tax will rise to pay the interest on these loans.

There's no difference between these people. The liblabCON lives on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubtless the idea Clegg has in mind is that any borrowing would be backed by Central Government, so that Labour and Lib Dem councils can carry on buying votes as before, but will have to be bailed out by the rest of the nation's taxpayers when the bill lands on the doormat. A US-style model whereby if the councils can't pay it back, no rubbish collections, schools shut and the streetlights go off until the local residents pay off the tab would be fine with me; but somehow I don't think this is Clegg's idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The councils arent going to borrow millions unless they change the law.

If a council goes bust, as I understand it, the councillors then are liable to pay from their own pocket for any shortfall. This is a good rule, as it means that they are playing with their own money. Strangely enough, I dont recall any councils going bust recently, even though they are spending other peoples money.

So if I were a council, would I want to borrow more money right now? Lets think about that, cos if the council cant pay it back, will central government help? Nope, they dont have any money, so that means I would lose any assets that I have.

Decison made, we wont borrow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I watched the news last night, I was mildly reassured by Nick Clegg's remarks on debt, and how the Country must reduce its spending because it's criminal to pay some £70bn in interest payments alone (should the Labour spending plans have gone ahead according to him). I thought "good", this is on the money, and off I went watching a very fine Chuck Norris film on another channel (It was the Cold-War propaganda-led "Missing in Action", with massive chest hair, beard and all) and thought nothing of it.

This morning, as I briefly scanned the Telegraph web page, I read this

To summarise, Clegg suggests that Councils are given borrowing powers to fund infrastructure and other "big" projects. All I can see is a repeat of the US model whereby hundreds of Local Authorities are going bankrupt or on the verge of it (To name one, Los Angeles).

The fact is, if you allow them to borrow, they will almost certainly borrow too much, as it happened in every single case study.

The inevitable result would be the increase in local taxes. Yes, our beloved Council Tax. I deliberately avoided to mention the funding method of-choice, which is "Loans would be secured against the increased income from business rates expected to be generated by the large-scale schemes", because it seems obviously impracticable.

I simply cannot see Gateshead Council embarking in Aerospace infrastructure or a Biotech campus. What this will do is to fund another mini commercial building bubble which will result in even more commercial empty space. Look around your trading estates and tell me if you feel the need for more infrastructure...

Bad idea Clegg. And please go revise the principles of Economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I watched the news last night, I was mildly reassured by Nick Clegg's remarks on debt, and how the Country must reduce its spending because it's criminal to pay some £70bn in interest payments alone (should the Labour spending plans have gone ahead according to him). I thought "good", this is on the money, and off I went watching a very fine Chuck Norris film on another channel (It was the Cold-War propaganda-led "Missing in Action", with massive chest hair, beard and all) and thought nothing of it.

This morning, as I briefly scanned the Telegraph web page, I read this

To summarise, Clegg suggests that Councils are given borrowing powers to fund infrastructure and other "big" projects. All I can see is a repeat of the US model whereby hundreds of Local Authorities are going bankrupt or on the verge of it (To name one, Los Angeles).

The fact is, if you allow them to borrow, they will almost certainly borrow too much, as it happened in every single case study.

The inevitable result would be the increase in local taxes. Yes, our beloved Council Tax. I deliberately avoided to mention the funding method of-choice, which is "Loans would be secured against the increased income from business rates expected to be generated by the large-scale schemes", because it seems obviously impracticable.

I simply cannot see Gateshead Council embarking in Aerospace infrastructure or a Biotech campus. What this will do is to fund another mini commercial building bubble which will result in even more commercial empty space. Look around your trading estates and tell me if you feel the need for more infrastructure...

Bad idea Clegg. And please go revise the principles of Economics.

Exactly, its PFI without the off balance sheet accounting.

The problem with banking, is that they have no desire for risk...never have for years...they want everything secured...no judgements on the business, just the value of the exit scheme.

so banks LOVE government debt....its guaranteed...they get paid, the taxpayer is screwed.

I say...live within your means...government...default on your debt to a level that can met within the tax take.

and One tax I would introduce....a TAX of 30% on BTL borrowing...that would help to level up the playing field off FTBs, OOs and BTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I watched the news last night, I was mildly reassured by Nick Clegg's remarks on debt, and how the Country must reduce its spending because it's criminal to pay some £70bn in interest payments alone (should the Labour spending plans have gone ahead according to him). I thought "good", this is on the money, and off I went watching a very fine Chuck Norris film on another channel (It was the Cold-War propaganda-led "Missing in Action", with massive chest hair, beard and all) and thought nothing of it.

This morning, as I briefly scanned the Telegraph web page, I read this

To summarise, Clegg suggests that Councils are given borrowing powers to fund infrastructure and other "big" projects. All I can see is a repeat of the US model whereby hundreds of Local Authorities are going bankrupt or on the verge of it (To name one, Los Angeles).

The fact is, if you allow them to borrow, they will almost certainly borrow too much, as it happened in every single case study.

The inevitable result would be the increase in local taxes. Yes, our beloved Council Tax. I deliberately avoided to mention the funding method of-choice, which is "Loans would be secured against the increased income from business rates expected to be generated by the large-scale schemes", because it seems obviously impracticable.

I simply cannot see Gateshead Council embarking in Aerospace infrastructure or a Biotech campus. What this will do is to fund another mini commercial building bubble which will result in even more commercial empty space. Look around your trading estates and tell me if you feel the need for more infrastructure...

Bad idea Clegg. And please go revise the principles of Economics.

Stuckmojo,

nope, councils arent going to be borrowing money that they cant afford to repay. Councillors arent going to do that when they are on the hook for any shortfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuckmojo,

nope, councils arent going to be borrowing money that they cant afford to repay. Councillors arent going to do that when they are on the hook for any shortfall.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuckmojo,

nope, councils arent going to be borrowing money that they cant afford to repay. Councillors arent going to do that when they are on the hook for any shortfall.

I hope you are right. However, I fear that if this stupid idea comes to pass, the political pressure from Westminster will force the Councillors to take that step. Just to show they are "game" on the Recovery process.

The problem is, this would actually provide a little boost to builders, plumbers and so on for a while, and then create a bigger problem with the unused structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuckmojo,

nope, councils arent going to be borrowing money that they cant afford to repay. Councillors arent going to do that when they are on the hook for any shortfall.

Your local council must be exceptional. Most councils owe jaw-dropping amounts of money already, then you have to add the pension liability which is usually forgotten. For example:

Bristol Evening Post: Bristol City Council borrowing hits £381 million - that's £950 per council tax payer

BRISTOL City Council's debt went up by £49 million in the last year.

By the end of March the authority owed £381m, more than the entire amount it was supposed to spend last year, £365m.

The debt jumped because the council had to borrow more money to fund its capital programme, which covers big building projects like the £26.5m M Shed museum and the £20m Colston Hall foyer. At the same time, the amount of income the council received from investments and property sales dropped because of the recession.

Spending big on vanity projects, way to go.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/media/2010/06/bristol-evening-post-bristol-city-council-borrowing-hits-381-million-thats-950-per-council-tax-payer.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are right. However, I fear that if this stupid idea comes to pass, the political pressure from Westminster will force the Councillors to take that step. Just to show they are "game" on the Recovery process.

The problem is, this would actually provide a little boost to builders, plumbers and so on for a while, and then create a bigger problem with the unused structures.

Councillors can / will be personally surcharged, so they would have to be very game.

What if those "structures" were council houses? I doubt that they would be un-used and they would save us a fortune in housing benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More grotty architecture to be dotted all around the place.

If they just HAVE to go into more debt and spend why not build some good quality sporting facilities and such like for the youngsters that they're always accusing of hanging around on street corners and binge drinking and so on. Even the not so young could benefit as well.

In time the UK might even win a fair share of some sporting competitions with local talent, develop some good tennis players and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More grotty architecture to be dotted all around the place.

If they just HAVE to go into more debt and spend why not build some good quality sporting facilities and such like for the youngsters that they're always accusing of hanging around on street corners and binge drinking and so on. Even the not so young could benefit as well.

In time the UK might even win a fair share of some sporting competitions with local talent, develop some good tennis players and so on.

Alas ... councils that do build new sporting faciltiies tend to do the same thing after they have built them ... restrict access to the majority of local people.

So the good quality sporting facilties, should you then look at the timetable, will be entirely taken up most evenings by "club use" or "lessons" or "staff training", and on the weekend, they will entirely be taken over by programmes for primary school children or OAPs.

Our local pool is appalling for this ... if you are a teenager, there is only one night a week that, for three hours, you are allowed to use the pool, and on weekends, there are various slots that add up to about five hours in total, when you would be allowed to swim. For adults without children, it is even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More grotty architecture to be dotted all around the place.

If they just HAVE to go into more debt and spend why not build some good quality sporting facilities

What does it cost to build a field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas ... councils that do build new sporting faciltiies tend to do the same thing after they have built them ... restrict access to the majority of local people.

So the good quality sporting facilties, should you then look at the timetable, will be entirely taken up most evenings by "club use" or "lessons" or "staff training", and on the weekend, they will entirely be taken over by programmes for primary school children or OAPs.

Our local pool is appalling for this ... if you are a teenager, there is only one night a week that, for three hours, you are allowed to use the pool, and on weekends, there are various slots that add up to about five hours in total, when you would be allowed to swim. For adults without children, it is even worse.

I agree the scheduling is too often appalling but if they built more sports facilities in general (that is if they just HAVE to go into more debt) then there would start to be a fairer distribution of the facilities due to there being more of them and maybe take the pressure off the swimming pools. Say indoor tennis, athletics, multi sports facilities etc, whatever there's too few of them. There are places in the UK but a better distribution around the country is needed.

That's not to say that they still wouldn't make a mess of the scheduling (almost a certainty I would say) but it would be a better way of spending the money than more theme parks and science parks that Clegg seems to be in favour of.

Of course they'll want to brag about how they've given a few more people a bit of minimum wage part time employment pretending to be workers living in days gone by and how many tourists visit (to gawp at Merrie England :rolleyes: ) and at the same time it helps them to continue complaining about the youth of today hanging about and binge drinking and it helps with popular conference sound bites to spend more money on law and order and allows them to keep going on about the cost to the NHS of teenage drinking and general obesity.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does it cost to build a field?

Indeed that would be a start and there used to be a lot (at any rate a lot more than these days) before they started building flats etc on them. Many schools just sold off their playing fields to developers.

But if they HAVE to spend money and get into even more debt they could build indoor multi sport centres and then they would be available in all weathers. If indoors they could even be round the clock for shift workers etc.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your local council must be exceptional. Most councils owe jaw-dropping amounts of money already, then you have to add the pension liability which is usually forgotten. For example:

Spending big on vanity projects, way to go.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/media/2010/06/bristol-evening-post-bristol-city-council-borrowing-hits-381-million-thats-950-per-council-tax-payer.html

Always been the way. When I worked in Local Government in a managerial position constantly fighting rear guard actions to save miniscule budgets relating to public health spending only to see the money taken and pissed up the wall on White Elephant after White Elephant. Usually Councillors whim vanity projects.

Another good reason why I am glad to be out of it. Never again :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.