Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Correct Howard.
The landowner has a very long lease.
Why should he be disadvantaged.
I presume that the site will have to be restored to its former state prior to mining as well.
More mega bucks but that's not until 2042.
What's even more galling is some stupid elected members got the derelict buildings listed, came up with grandiose schemes which then priced the regeneration out of reach for the allocated finance available. They were warned but refused to listen.
The Labout gov.pulled the plug on the scheme as not meeting the cost benefit analysis. i.e. how much money was required to create a new job.
Watty
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
hardly far sighted in closing the pit then?
i remember gary sayin g a long while back that there was still coal there.
people will argue the case of viability but does this take into account the ongoing rent, welfare costs etc?
i suspect the true answer would be about old political scores being settled.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
You can hide £170k a year in the small print but not the £50m required to sort the site for alternative uses.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,888
thats about correct howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Political scores being extracted by the Labour Govt. on its own . That has no logic Howard.
I know Gwyn felt screwed over this one -not by his government but by stupid individuals.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought it closed under the blue regime paul?
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Yes Howard but the regeneration scheme was pulled by last gov.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
this is all new to me paul, not doubting what you say.
it comes across to me that the public is paying for successive bad decisions by both of our leading parties.
that is without the social costs inflicted on the former coalfield communities.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I am in total agreement that it is not the fault of the landowner, he has a responsibility towards his trust, his family.
I was informed that this lease was extended about a year before Snowdown closed.
If that is true, why was it extended and why until 2042?
Snowdown was the perfect setting for a Kent Mining Museum and I was invited to join the group campaigning for a museum. I declined to get involved when I was told they were trying to raise £9.5 million to pay off Mr Plumtree.
If someone can manage to raise £9.5 million, then please give it to me and I will find an appropriate place to build our mining museum.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,835
Nothing changes, governments of all colours have always made costly mistakes.
The Snowdown fiasco reminds me of the hospital saga.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Paul.
I have been told that Charlie is getting involved with the group that are still trying to gain regeneration at Snowdown.
Don't you think too much money and too much time have been spent with this project and that it is time to find an alternative site, that could be more fruitful?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, in reply to your question, I don't mind bonuses being paid to people who earn less than a top salary, including those on the minimum wage.
I don't complain out of principle about people in places of high responsibility getting even over £100,000 a year. Even the £300,000 a year of top bankers doesn't worry me, providing they do their job properly.
A basic salary of a million a year seems over the top. I'd say stop at 300,000, with no extras (and no free shares either, as they can buy shares from their salary).
To impose a maximum annual salary of £12,000 a year as you suggest might just about be communism. This would not be fair either, and seems as unacceptable as paying a share-holding director 1 million pounds even without bonuses.
The minimum wage, as prices stand now, should be £10 an hour.
All in all I consider myself a moderate leveller, believing in the need for an elected and accountable House of Commons but no house of lords, hence no privileges for elites.
All bogus titles should be abolished.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,888
alexander;
when you get time please spend time reading my post, that way you will be able to reply what is actually contained in it.
just to confirm(think in general you have replied) but you have misunderstood a bit.
my figure was what do you think of anyone earning
£26,500 to a million a year
not £12,000
anyway got your view so thats fine
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Students,parents,grandparents still wincing from the pledge broken on fees are now hearing that Mr.LESTER
head of student loans has his salary of £ 182,000 pa paid into a private company he set up without tax
deductions.It has minister David Willetts approval,Ministers do not know how many other public sector
workers have the same arrangements.
Someone is waiting to tell me its not illegal and everyone can do it.............cannot see Joe Public being able
to do it on their wages.............but if we all did it the treasury would be millions out of pocket.
We all in it together.............
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,888
the theme WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER
doesn't realy wash
and we are creating a THEM AND US CULTURE
which, where as maggie attempted to get rid of the CLASS CULTURE
We are with the present cobbled together govt moving back to a class divided country
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,835
Keith, nothing to do with CLASS all to do with income, what about all of those on a low income and/or benefit who come from middle or upper income bracket. The "THEM AND US CULTURE" is now more to do with household income not background.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
things are much more confused nowadays, nick and vince want to bring in a mansion tax, this they see as a "robin hood" type of thing that will make them look socially concerned.
a comfortably off couple in london or the home counties could have bought the house when they were younger and spiralling house prices over the decades leave them sitting on a high value asset.
the same couple(or even single) could be living on a mediocre pension and struggling to pay their energy bills.
once again regional variations are not taken into account.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 234..236........Government are concerned how wide spread this is.Could it be 100,000`s of high earners in
the public sector are receiving financial advice on this way of avoiding paying tax or is it a one off DIY job??
The rumour is of course out already that its Gordon Browns fault.....................
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I would happily advise anyone to avoid as much tax as they legally can. It is part of what I have done for 22 years and many people from teachers, cleaning ladies to businessmen have benefited from what I do. Nothing at all wrong with that and there are many like me proudly serving their clients doing so.
What I detest is a priggish, sanctimonious self righteous attitude that suggests that we should all pay more than we really have to.
No-one in their right mind would do that. We all know best how to spend our own money - not governments who are just experts in wasting it.