‘Change tax rules’ plea by Keighley candidate

Keighley News: John Grogan John Grogan

Disabled people living in specially-adapted homes should be exempt from the bedroom tax, it is claimed.

John Grogan, Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Keighley, said many people could not afford to lose the £14 a week from their benefits for having a spare room.

He is calling on Keighley MP and housing minister Kris Hopkins to push for a change in the rules.

“Many of these disabled people have fought hard to get their homes adapted so they can remain independent,” said Mr Grogan. “What sense does it make to force them to move out when thousands of pounds of public money has been spent on adapting their homes?”

Comments (106)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:27am Fri 21 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

It looks like the courts don't support this initiative from a legal angle relating to discrimination:

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-26288112
It looks like the courts don't support this initiative from a legal angle relating to discrimination: http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-26288112 MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

11:43am Sun 23 Feb 14

notthecivic says...

when you consider the new bedroom tax should we consider the following ,firstly every house is tax banded , district councils consider the council tax per house acording to banding and if they want to increase the council tax over 2% they need to pay for a referendam so i think this is a way of increasing the council tax on some houses without actually telling the householder that the council tax is going up by more than 2% , its a way the government increase your council tax
when you consider the new bedroom tax should we consider the following ,firstly every house is tax banded , district councils consider the council tax per house acording to banding and if they want to increase the council tax over 2% they need to pay for a referendam so i think this is a way of increasing the council tax on some houses without actually telling the householder that the council tax is going up by more than 2% , its a way the government increase your council tax notthecivic
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Little Green Man says...

And what has any of it to do with a suited and grinning 'candidate' in front of Cliffe Castle gates?
And what has any of it to do with a suited and grinning 'candidate' in front of Cliffe Castle gates? Little Green Man
  • Score: 2

8:46pm Sun 23 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

don't know lgm, didn't know cliff castle was a council house.
don't know lgm, didn't know cliff castle was a council house. jimmy k
  • Score: 1

10:31pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Stevo54 says...

You can bet the bloke will be photographed at every opportunity up till the next election whenever that is. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Also it's a good bet he will be championing every "righteous" cause and campaign which comes up as well.
You can bet the bloke will be photographed at every opportunity up till the next election whenever that is. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Also it's a good bet he will be championing every "righteous" cause and campaign which comes up as well. Stevo54
  • Score: 2

9:44am Mon 24 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

Is Mr Grogan for real it was the Labour party that brought us the bedroom tax in the first place, plus lets not forget they had the chance to get it scrapped in the house of commons but 34 Labour MP's didn't bother to turn up and 12 of them even voted for it to remain.
His party has even openly stated that they will not change the benefit system should they get in.
Sorry Mr Grogan most of us in Keighley know you are a career politician and will say anything and everything to hoodwink people into voting for you.
So interested are you in this constituency that you didn't even turn up for a very important planning meeting at Ilkley.
Is Mr Grogan for real it was the Labour party that brought us the bedroom tax in the first place, plus lets not forget they had the chance to get it scrapped in the house of commons but 34 Labour MP's didn't bother to turn up and 12 of them even voted for it to remain. His party has even openly stated that they will not change the benefit system should they get in. Sorry Mr Grogan most of us in Keighley know you are a career politician and will say anything and everything to hoodwink people into voting for you. So interested are you in this constituency that you didn't even turn up for a very important planning meeting at Ilkley. G_Firth
  • Score: 2

5:02pm Mon 24 Feb 14

notthecivic says...

g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise notthecivic
  • Score: -2

10:58pm Mon 24 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

notthecivic wrote:
g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May.
I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right.
As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations.
As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK.
We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda.
As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism.
But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition.
I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise[/p][/quote]Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club. G_Firth
  • Score: 3

6:25am Tue 25 Feb 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

G Firth says
"I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right."

What are the majority of things that KTC get right?
KTC extracts over 1/2 a million pounds from the electorate Mr Firth. How much does it then spend on the Town of Keighley once they take away wages, expenses, loan repayments and debts?
G Firth says "I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right." What are the majority of things that KTC get right? KTC extracts over 1/2 a million pounds from the electorate Mr Firth. How much does it then spend on the Town of Keighley once they take away wages, expenses, loan repayments and debts? Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: 1

8:07am Tue 25 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May.
I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right.
As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations.
As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK.
We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda.
As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism.
But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition.
I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.
Perspective or prospective candidate?
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise[/p][/quote]Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.[/p][/quote]Perspective or prospective candidate? MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

8:11am Tue 25 Feb 14

OUT WITH CAVETOWN says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
G Firth says
"I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right."

What are the majority of things that KTC get right?
KTC extracts over 1/2 a million pounds from the electorate Mr Firth. How much does it then spend on the Town of Keighley once they take away wages, expenses, loan repayments and debts?
I see the self appointed leader of Cavetown is back !, how long before we see his friend Occam?.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: G Firth says "I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right." What are the majority of things that KTC get right? KTC extracts over 1/2 a million pounds from the electorate Mr Firth. How much does it then spend on the Town of Keighley once they take away wages, expenses, loan repayments and debts?[/p][/quote]I see the self appointed leader of Cavetown is back !, how long before we see his friend Occam?. OUT WITH CAVETOWN
  • Score: -3

8:19am Tue 25 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May.
I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right.
As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations.
As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK.
We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda.
As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism.
But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition.
I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.
Perspective or prospective candidate?
Also publicise with a z American spelling think mr firth has to be more careful with his spell check.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise[/p][/quote]Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.[/p][/quote]Perspective or prospective candidate?[/p][/quote]Also publicise with a z American spelling think mr firth has to be more careful with his spell check. jimmy k
  • Score: -2

8:22am Tue 25 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

jimmy k wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May.
I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right.
As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations.
As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK.
We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda.
As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism.
But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition.
I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.
Perspective or prospective candidate?
Also publicise with a z American spelling think mr firth has to be more careful with his spell check.
Though I'm 100% sure he'll avoid any European influence to avoid us saying "sacrebleu"!
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise[/p][/quote]Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.[/p][/quote]Perspective or prospective candidate?[/p][/quote]Also publicise with a z American spelling think mr firth has to be more careful with his spell check.[/p][/quote]Though I'm 100% sure he'll avoid any European influence to avoid us saying "sacrebleu"! MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

8:22am Tue 25 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

Still Mark,at least he hasn't resorted to his colleagues tactics mr laytham the UKIP ppc of insulting the electorate(yet)
Still Mark,at least he hasn't resorted to his colleagues tactics mr laytham the UKIP ppc of insulting the electorate(yet) jimmy k
  • Score: -1

8:23am Tue 25 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

MarkPullen wrote:
jimmy k wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
notthecivic wrote:
g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May.
I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right.
As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations.
As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK.
We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda.
As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism.
But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition.
I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.
Perspective or prospective candidate?
Also publicise with a z American spelling think mr firth has to be more careful with his spell check.
Though I'm 100% sure he'll avoid any European influence to avoid us saying "sacrebleu"!
hahahaha
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise[/p][/quote]Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.[/p][/quote]Perspective or prospective candidate?[/p][/quote]Also publicise with a z American spelling think mr firth has to be more careful with his spell check.[/p][/quote]Though I'm 100% sure he'll avoid any European influence to avoid us saying "sacrebleu"![/p][/quote]hahahaha jimmy k
  • Score: -1

8:33am Tue 25 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

jimmy k wrote:
Still Mark,at least he hasn't resorted to his colleagues tactics mr laytham the UKIP ppc of insulting the electorate(yet)
I have to correct you on this Jimmy K - Mr Latham doesn't just insult the electorate.

Though he seems to be keeping a lower profile at the moment - it would be nice to think he's researching answers to my questions which he chooses to avoid addressing.
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: Still Mark,at least he hasn't resorted to his colleagues tactics mr laytham the UKIP ppc of insulting the electorate(yet)[/p][/quote]I have to correct you on this Jimmy K - Mr Latham doesn't just insult the electorate. Though he seems to be keeping a lower profile at the moment - it would be nice to think he's researching answers to my questions which he chooses to avoid addressing. MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

9:03am Tue 25 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

yeh,also mr firth seems to be quick to have a go at politicians from other parties(here and other threads)but not as quick to offer up solutions,i for one am sick to death of this negative, look how rubbish they are politics instead of the positive way of selling themselves and their own ideas.
yeh,also mr firth seems to be quick to have a go at politicians from other parties(here and other threads)but not as quick to offer up solutions,i for one am sick to death of this negative, look how rubbish they are politics instead of the positive way of selling themselves and their own ideas. jimmy k
  • Score: -1

9:08am Tue 25 Feb 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

G Firth says-
" Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations."

So Mr Firth you are suggesting that UKIP would adopt the policies of the Australian Liberal and Labour parties?
An immigration policy which demands that refugees and asylum seekers are held in offshore detention centres until processed. Women and children are held in these centres sometimes for years.
Children who have no immediate family members are sent to these distant detention centres frightened and alone.
There have been many instances of minors sewing their lips together to avoid been force fed while on hunger strikes in protest at the conditions and length of time it takes to process their visas.

In the case of Australia offshore facilities on Papua New Guinea a 23 year old Iranian asylum seeker was recently "allegedly" stomped to death by guards as he lay defenceless on the ground during a riot.

As for your one rule for all nations comments. I can't recall ever hearing of an asylum seeker from England or America turning up on a leaky boat on the shores of Australia.

And these are the policies that UKIP is looking to adopt is it Mr Firth?
G Firth says- " Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations." So Mr Firth you are suggesting that UKIP would adopt the policies of the Australian Liberal and Labour parties? An immigration policy which demands that refugees and asylum seekers are held in offshore detention centres until processed. Women and children are held in these centres sometimes for years. Children who have no immediate family members are sent to these distant detention centres frightened and alone. There have been many instances of minors sewing their lips together to avoid been force fed while on hunger strikes in protest at the conditions and length of time it takes to process their visas. In the case of Australia offshore facilities on Papua New Guinea a 23 year old Iranian asylum seeker was recently "allegedly" stomped to death by guards as he lay defenceless on the ground during a riot. As for your one rule for all nations comments. I can't recall ever hearing of an asylum seeker from England or America turning up on a leaky boat on the shores of Australia. And these are the policies that UKIP is looking to adopt is it Mr Firth? Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: -4

9:11am Tue 25 Feb 14

Always a 708 Skinhead says...

Out of interest Mr Firth, which poorer nations would UKIP be using to house it's refugees until processed?
Out of interest Mr Firth, which poorer nations would UKIP be using to house it's refugees until processed? Always a 708 Skinhead
  • Score: -3

9:57am Tue 25 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
notthecivic wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise
Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.
Perspective or prospective candidate?
Oy! Mark! What are you doing!!! I am the English language pedant around here! :-)
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: g firth , are you the ukip man ? if so you need to question your own pcc on how he his going to get rid of keighley town council ? and what ukip can do about immigration ? also europe due to the fact these are the main 2 objectives of ukip \ so what can your ukip rep on ktc do about these ? also cllr fletcher did state in his election campaign that he would do everything he could to reduce the council tax for keighley residents but he fell at the first hurdle by voting FOR the precept rise[/p][/quote]Yes I am as you say a UKIP man, To be exact I'm the perspective candidate for Keighley Central Ward in May. I don't need to question him on how to get rid of KTC because for now there is no need to get rid of KTC and to be blunt if it wasn't for KTC Keighley would have very little if any money spent on it, so be thankful that while Keighley is still part of BMDC, Keighley does have a small pocket that is trying to do what it can for the town even if some of the things they do are somewhat mismanaged, the majority of other things they get right. As for what UKIP can do for Immigration should they return a majority in 2015, is first get out of the EU as there is nothing that can be done on any matter let alone immigration without leaving the EU first. Is to introduce a simple red tape cutting one rule for all nations policy a bit like the Australian immigration policy, which is a lot fairer than the hypocritical discriminating EU Immigration policy for Non EU nations. As for any UKIP member, activist, council member or MEP, until 2015 all any of us can do is publicize how damaging the EU really is to the UK. We have been called scaremongers among other things but if telling the truth is scaremongering, then mendaciously embellishing the truth is socialistic propaganda. As for Cllr Fletcher falling at the first hurdle as you claim he'd only just been elected and had only just been included into some committees to boot, did you expect him to wave a magic wand and create a miracle in such a short space of time, remember the old saying Rome wasn't built in a day, not that I'm insinuation that he is trying to create an empire here but was just using that saying as a euphemism. But all of that is detracting from the truth that Mr Grogan Labour Party are the ones that brought is the Bedroom Tax, ATOS and even the assessment that ATOS instigate that was made even worse by the current coalition. I could go on and on about the three stooges that are all of the same club.[/p][/quote]Perspective or prospective candidate?[/p][/quote]Oy! Mark! What are you doing!!! I am the English language pedant around here! :-) Kingchaser
  • Score: 1

10:04am Tue 25 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

Always a 708 Skinhead wrote:
Out of interest Mr Firth, which poorer nations would UKIP be using to house it's refugees until processed?
Will UKIP have to change it's name if Scotland go independant?

If Scotland do go independant then UKIP might want to use Scotland, perhaps? A night in East Kilbride will have the most oppressed immigrant feeling nostalgic about home.
[quote][p][bold]Always a 708 Skinhead[/bold] wrote: Out of interest Mr Firth, which poorer nations would UKIP be using to house it's refugees until processed?[/p][/quote]Will UKIP have to change it's name if Scotland go independant? If Scotland do go independant then UKIP might want to use Scotland, perhaps? A night in East Kilbride will have the most oppressed immigrant feeling nostalgic about home. Kingchaser
  • Score: 1

10:32am Tue 25 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

In all seriosness though.....

the question of the so-called 'bedroom tax' is a difficult one. And measures such as these will always have often heart-rending examples of where it is unfair. Overall, I am a supporter of the fact that it should not be possible to have a higher standard of living than the national average whilst not working. And the 'bedroom tax' is part of the way of addressing the huge benefits boom that has happened over the last 10 years or so.

However, it is unfair to penalise people who in reality don't have a spare bedroom because it is used because two spouses can't sleep together because of illness or it is needed to store specialised equipment used for the the care of someone who has a disability.

Some would say that each case needs to be judged on it's merits but that would lead to an army of costly assessors and still people would disagree with many of their decisions.

No easy answers on this one.
In all seriosness though..... the question of the so-called 'bedroom tax' is a difficult one. And measures such as these will always have often heart-rending examples of where it is unfair. Overall, I am a supporter of the fact that it should not be possible to have a higher standard of living than the national average whilst not working. And the 'bedroom tax' is part of the way of addressing the huge benefits boom that has happened over the last 10 years or so. However, it is unfair to penalise people who in reality don't have a spare bedroom because it is used because two spouses can't sleep together because of illness or it is needed to store specialised equipment used for the the care of someone who has a disability. Some would say that each case needs to be judged on it's merits but that would lead to an army of costly assessors and still people would disagree with many of their decisions. No easy answers on this one. Kingchaser
  • Score: 3

3:59pm Tue 25 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

My response to notthecivic.

You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion?

Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district.

All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted.

The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford.

If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.
My response to notthecivic. You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion? Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district. All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted. The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford. If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues. pjl20
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Tue 25 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
My response to notthecivic.

You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion?

Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district.

All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted.

The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford.

If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.
So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected.

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?

So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: My response to notthecivic. You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion? Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district. All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted. The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford. If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.[/p][/quote]So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected. - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time? MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

4:27pm Tue 25 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

MarkPullen wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
My response to notthecivic.

You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion?

Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district.

All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted.

The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford.

If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.
So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected.

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?

So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?
MarkPullen

You no longer reside in this district, so why are you expressing your concern?

I suggest you make contact with Bradford Council leader David Green, if you require to know how. But, as you do not live in the council area, why do you need to know this?

This has nothing to do with the parish councils you have listed, as these may well not form part of the proposed new district council.

This will be decided by consultation and referendum of the residents in the whole area affected.

The residents of this whole area are having an amount equivalent to over 90% of their council taxes spent on housing benefit in the inner city areas of Bradford. This is according to a release of information made under the Freedom of Information Act in the last 12 months.

The way council taxes are being spent is inequitable. Why must services and facilities be curtailed in Airedale and Wharfedale districts? To satisfy the austerity measures imposed by the Chancellor upon councils, or what?

You always appear ready to criticise, yet have no solutions, only complaints.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: My response to notthecivic. You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion? Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district. All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted. The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford. If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.[/p][/quote]So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected. - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?[/p][/quote]MarkPullen You no longer reside in this district, so why are you expressing your concern? I suggest you make contact with Bradford Council leader David Green, if you require to know how. But, as you do not live in the council area, why do you need to know this? This has nothing to do with the parish councils you have listed, as these may well not form part of the proposed new district council. This will be decided by consultation and referendum of the residents in the whole area affected. The residents of this whole area are having an amount equivalent to over 90% of their council taxes spent on housing benefit in the inner city areas of Bradford. This is according to a release of information made under the Freedom of Information Act in the last 12 months. The way council taxes are being spent is inequitable. Why must services and facilities be curtailed in Airedale and Wharfedale districts? To satisfy the austerity measures imposed by the Chancellor upon councils, or what? You always appear ready to criticise, yet have no solutions, only complaints. pjl20
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Tue 25 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
My response to notthecivic.

You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion?

Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district.

All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted.

The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford.

If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.
So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected.

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?

So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?
MarkPullen

You no longer reside in this district, so why are you expressing your concern?

I suggest you make contact with Bradford Council leader David Green, if you require to know how. But, as you do not live in the council area, why do you need to know this?

This has nothing to do with the parish councils you have listed, as these may well not form part of the proposed new district council.

This will be decided by consultation and referendum of the residents in the whole area affected.

The residents of this whole area are having an amount equivalent to over 90% of their council taxes spent on housing benefit in the inner city areas of Bradford. This is according to a release of information made under the Freedom of Information Act in the last 12 months.

The way council taxes are being spent is inequitable. Why must services and facilities be curtailed in Airedale and Wharfedale districts? To satisfy the austerity measures imposed by the Chancellor upon councils, or what?

You always appear ready to criticise, yet have no solutions, only complaints.
pjl20 - I am a homeowner in one of these parishes and a trustee in an organisation based in the Worth Valley.

You also do not reside in that parish but seek to be elected to represent it - something that is more than a little hypocritical when you feel that engaging with the local parish council is not necessary before indicating that they may or may not be disbanded.

Would you support the merging of the smaller parish councils in the Worth Valley into the larger district council?

If they weren't part of the larger council then how would they be supported?

Have you had any engagement with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

You seem to be happy to make throw away statements and then attempt to deflect responses as, again, you prove a failure to at the very least consider the work that others are undertaking whilst you play politics across the hill.

Whether you feel answer my genuine questions is beneath you as my place of residence is outside the parish does not take away the importance of the requested info and the effects it could have on those who may be considering who to vote for,

I would like to respectfully remind you that whilst I do criticise, and maybe don't offer solutions, it isn't me who is looking to be seen as the appropriate candidate for the constituency.

If you don't wish to engage with people who ask questions, criticise, or complain then maybe you're attempting to make a career choice that's way beyond your comfort zone.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: My response to notthecivic. You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion? Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district. All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted. The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford. If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.[/p][/quote]So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected. - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?[/p][/quote]MarkPullen You no longer reside in this district, so why are you expressing your concern? I suggest you make contact with Bradford Council leader David Green, if you require to know how. But, as you do not live in the council area, why do you need to know this? This has nothing to do with the parish councils you have listed, as these may well not form part of the proposed new district council. This will be decided by consultation and referendum of the residents in the whole area affected. The residents of this whole area are having an amount equivalent to over 90% of their council taxes spent on housing benefit in the inner city areas of Bradford. This is according to a release of information made under the Freedom of Information Act in the last 12 months. The way council taxes are being spent is inequitable. Why must services and facilities be curtailed in Airedale and Wharfedale districts? To satisfy the austerity measures imposed by the Chancellor upon councils, or what? You always appear ready to criticise, yet have no solutions, only complaints.[/p][/quote]pjl20 - I am a homeowner in one of these parishes and a trustee in an organisation based in the Worth Valley. You also do not reside in that parish but seek to be elected to represent it - something that is more than a little hypocritical when you feel that engaging with the local parish council is not necessary before indicating that they may or may not be disbanded. Would you support the merging of the smaller parish councils in the Worth Valley into the larger district council? If they weren't part of the larger council then how would they be supported? Have you had any engagement with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? You seem to be happy to make throw away statements and then attempt to deflect responses as, again, you prove a failure to at the very least consider the work that others are undertaking whilst you play politics across the hill. Whether you feel answer my genuine questions is beneath you as my place of residence is outside the parish does not take away the importance of the requested info and the effects it could have on those who may be considering who to vote for, I would like to respectfully remind you that whilst I do criticise, and maybe don't offer solutions, it isn't me who is looking to be seen as the appropriate candidate for the constituency. If you don't wish to engage with people who ask questions, criticise, or complain then maybe you're attempting to make a career choice that's way beyond your comfort zone. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

5:04pm Tue 25 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

pjl20 wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
pjl20 wrote: My response to notthecivic. You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion? Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district. All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted. The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford. If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.
So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected. - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?
MarkPullen You no longer reside in this district, so why are you expressing your concern? I suggest you make contact with Bradford Council leader David Green, if you require to know how. But, as you do not live in the council area, why do you need to know this? This has nothing to do with the parish councils you have listed, as these may well not form part of the proposed new district council. This will be decided by consultation and referendum of the residents in the whole area affected. The residents of this whole area are having an amount equivalent to over 90% of their council taxes spent on housing benefit in the inner city areas of Bradford. This is according to a release of information made under the Freedom of Information Act in the last 12 months. The way council taxes are being spent is inequitable. Why must services and facilities be curtailed in Airedale and Wharfedale districts? To satisfy the austerity measures imposed by the Chancellor upon councils, or what? You always appear ready to criticise, yet have no solutions, only complaints.
What pompous poppycock.

He's been away for a while but he's back to insult us again.......

What if Mr Pullen was considering moving back here?

Is PJL20 not capable of seeing that this question might be on the lips of others who do reside here but he still will not answer? And he wants to reperesent us? Does he think we are daft?

And what happens to those who are relying on their Housing Benefit when he decides that it's more 'equitable' to spend the tax in leafy Ilkley instead?

Or doesn't he care? Does ethnicity come into play here?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: My response to notthecivic. You ask how I am going to get rid of the KTC. From where do you get this notion? Bradford Council has to be broken into pieces and the parish councils all disbanded too. Why? So as to form a new Airedale & Wharfedale District Council, to manage, administrate and set policies for this whole district. All new councillors to be elected into office and not co-opted. The new council to have it's own council tax raising powers, separate and distinct from Bradford. If you still wonder why, you should delve a little deeper into the politics and expenditure of Bradford MDC. Then, you may have an understanding of the issues.[/p][/quote]So whilst you make these comments about sweeping changes to the current structure I, again, wonder if you've taken the time to discuss matters with those currently serving or involved in specific areas that would be affected. - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you that the two parish councils would fit into your preferred system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? So far you continue to refuse to respond to these repeated questions - are you prepared to provide an answer this time?[/p][/quote]MarkPullen You no longer reside in this district, so why are you expressing your concern? I suggest you make contact with Bradford Council leader David Green, if you require to know how. But, as you do not live in the council area, why do you need to know this? This has nothing to do with the parish councils you have listed, as these may well not form part of the proposed new district council. This will be decided by consultation and referendum of the residents in the whole area affected. The residents of this whole area are having an amount equivalent to over 90% of their council taxes spent on housing benefit in the inner city areas of Bradford. This is according to a release of information made under the Freedom of Information Act in the last 12 months. The way council taxes are being spent is inequitable. Why must services and facilities be curtailed in Airedale and Wharfedale districts? To satisfy the austerity measures imposed by the Chancellor upon councils, or what? You always appear ready to criticise, yet have no solutions, only complaints.[/p][/quote]What pompous poppycock. He's been away for a while but he's back to insult us again....... What if Mr Pullen was considering moving back here? Is PJL20 not capable of seeing that this question might be on the lips of others who do reside here but he still will not answer? And he wants to reperesent us? Does he think we are daft? And what happens to those who are relying on their Housing Benefit when he decides that it's more 'equitable' to spend the tax in leafy Ilkley instead? Or doesn't he care? Does ethnicity come into play here? Kingchaser
  • Score: -1

4:15am Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything.
Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example.
But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition.
I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped.
But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it. G_Firth
  • Score: -1

4:16am Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything.
Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example.
But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition.
I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped.
But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it. G_Firth
  • Score: -1

8:16am Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything.
Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example.
But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition.
I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped.
But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
Thanks for joining this little discussion G_Firth.

My questions to pjl20 relate to the fact that he is fully prepared to make sweeping statements about shutting down the local parish councils in the Upper Worth Valley (though he now uses "may" to dilute his stance) without even having the common decency to engage with either of the PCs.

I can assure you that there will always be a better use for any spend - capital or otherwise.

Ukip/UKIP have all the answers but will never be in a position during my lifetime to implement any themselves - maybe you should be grateful that other parties are opting to make use of them.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]Thanks for joining this little discussion G_Firth. My questions to pjl20 relate to the fact that he is fully prepared to make sweeping statements about shutting down the local parish councils in the Upper Worth Valley (though he now uses "may" to dilute his stance) without even having the common decency to engage with either of the PCs. I can assure you that there will always be a better use for any spend - capital or otherwise. Ukip/UKIP have all the answers but will never be in a position during my lifetime to implement any themselves - maybe you should be grateful that other parties are opting to make use of them. MarkPullen
  • Score: 1

11:00am Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.) Kingchaser
  • Score: -1

11:11am Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Kingchaser.

Why don't you do some simple research?

According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough.

Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years.

Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.
Kingchaser. Why don't you do some simple research? According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough. Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years. Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo. pjl20
  • Score: 0

11:13am Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser.

Why don't you do some simple research?

According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough.

Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years.

Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.
Talking of research pjl20:

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why don't you do some simple research? According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough. Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years. Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.[/p][/quote]Talking of research pjl20: - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

11:26am Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

MarkPullen wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser.

Why don't you do some simple research?

According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough.

Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years.

Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.
Talking of research pjl20:

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?
Mark Pullen.

I suggest you contact David Green, the leader of Bradford Council if you require a definitive answer.

As a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, I am not obliged to provide any detailed information about my local policies and plans until my nomination papers have been completed and lodged with the Elections Unit in City Hall. Why? Because the operative word is 'prospective'. Neither does John Grogan for that matter.

I have no direct involvement with any parish council in the whole constituency, But, I do attend the meetings from the public gallery of some. Why would a PPC be expected to do so?

I am to be a party candidate for Ilkley ward on May 22nd. I shall be prepared to answer questions from the residents of that district and shall be happy to do so. This is how local democracy works.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why don't you do some simple research? According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough. Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years. Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.[/p][/quote]Talking of research pjl20: - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?[/p][/quote]Mark Pullen. I suggest you contact David Green, the leader of Bradford Council if you require a definitive answer. As a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, I am not obliged to provide any detailed information about my local policies and plans until my nomination papers have been completed and lodged with the Elections Unit in City Hall. Why? Because the operative word is 'prospective'. Neither does John Grogan for that matter. I have no direct involvement with any parish council in the whole constituency, But, I do attend the meetings from the public gallery of some. Why would a PPC be expected to do so? I am to be a party candidate for Ilkley ward on May 22nd. I shall be prepared to answer questions from the residents of that district and shall be happy to do so. This is how local democracy works. pjl20
  • Score: -1

11:26am Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser. Why don't you do some simple research? According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough. Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years. Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.
With respect, Mr Latham, I am only pointing out the inconsistencies between the statements of yourself and Mr Firth. Perhaps it is you, or he, that should do more research so that you come on here with a common statement of fact rather than the ridiculous conflicts in what you both are saying.

I don't need to do too much research to realise that with those inconsistencies either one or both of you are clueless!

Please explain why you are both saying different things.

I am also interested in the answers to Mr Pullen's questions. How about you provide some answers to those aswell, while you're at it.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why don't you do some simple research? According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough. Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years. Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.[/p][/quote]With respect, Mr Latham, I am only pointing out the inconsistencies between the statements of yourself and Mr Firth. Perhaps it is you, or he, that should do more research so that you come on here with a common statement of fact rather than the ridiculous conflicts in what you both are saying. I don't need to do too much research to realise that with those inconsistencies either one or both of you are clueless! Please explain why you are both saying different things. I am also interested in the answers to Mr Pullen's questions. How about you provide some answers to those aswell, while you're at it. Kingchaser
  • Score: -2

11:38am Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser.

Why don't you do some simple research?

According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough.

Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years.

Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.
Talking of research pjl20:

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?
Mark Pullen.

I suggest you contact David Green, the leader of Bradford Council if you require a definitive answer.

As a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, I am not obliged to provide any detailed information about my local policies and plans until my nomination papers have been completed and lodged with the Elections Unit in City Hall. Why? Because the operative word is 'prospective'. Neither does John Grogan for that matter.

I have no direct involvement with any parish council in the whole constituency, But, I do attend the meetings from the public gallery of some. Why would a PPC be expected to do so?

I am to be a party candidate for Ilkley ward on May 22nd. I shall be prepared to answer questions from the residents of that district and shall be happy to do so. This is how local democracy works.
So you are prepared to make statements as the PPC for the constituency but until you've lodged your nomination papers we should treat them as irrelevant?

You were more than happy to have your two-penneth on previous comment pages when it suited you.

You state, in relation to parish council meetings, that "I do attend the meetings from the public gallery of some" - why not attend on for Oxenhope or HCR&S as a member of public?

Making sweeping statements about areas that you have no knowledge or interest is not in keeping with the anticipated actions of somebody seeking (when the appropriate papers are lodged) to represent their interests.

Engaging with the existing structure to support the population is how local democracy really works - though based on your current modus operandi it is doubtful that your plans to take a seat in the house will come to fruition.

You are arrogant and dismissive of the locality of the upper Worth Valley.
You make comments on these pages and then, at best, scurry off when questioned - at worst you feel the need to become defensive and offensive in equal measures.
You backtrack.
You fail to address the simplest of questions.
You breach the T&Cs of these pages by revealing the identify of a poster.

Good luck - you'll need that and a miracle to ever represent Keighley & Ilkley at Westminster.

Don't forget - I'm more than happy to tag along for the ride between now and your retirement in May 2015.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why don't you do some simple research? According to an information release made last year, an amount equivalent to 91% of the council tax collected is spent on Housing benefit in the borough. Of course a central government grant is also provided to Bradford MDC. Although this is to be reduced by £115 millions over the next 3 years. Got it now? I suggest you take part in the democratic process rather than making useless comments and innuendo.[/p][/quote]Talking of research pjl20: - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?[/p][/quote]Mark Pullen. I suggest you contact David Green, the leader of Bradford Council if you require a definitive answer. As a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, I am not obliged to provide any detailed information about my local policies and plans until my nomination papers have been completed and lodged with the Elections Unit in City Hall. Why? Because the operative word is 'prospective'. Neither does John Grogan for that matter. I have no direct involvement with any parish council in the whole constituency, But, I do attend the meetings from the public gallery of some. Why would a PPC be expected to do so? I am to be a party candidate for Ilkley ward on May 22nd. I shall be prepared to answer questions from the residents of that district and shall be happy to do so. This is how local democracy works.[/p][/quote]So you are prepared to make statements as the PPC for the constituency but until you've lodged your nomination papers we should treat them as irrelevant? You were more than happy to have your two-penneth on previous comment pages when it suited you. You state, in relation to parish council meetings, that "I do attend the meetings from the public gallery of some" - why not attend on for Oxenhope or HCR&S as a member of public? Making sweeping statements about areas that you have no knowledge or interest is not in keeping with the anticipated actions of somebody seeking (when the appropriate papers are lodged) to represent their interests. Engaging with the existing structure to support the population is how local democracy really works - though based on your current modus operandi it is doubtful that your plans to take a seat in the house will come to fruition. You are arrogant and dismissive of the locality of the upper Worth Valley. You make comments on these pages and then, at best, scurry off when questioned - at worst you feel the need to become defensive and offensive in equal measures. You backtrack. You fail to address the simplest of questions. You breach the T&Cs of these pages by revealing the identify of a poster. Good luck - you'll need that and a miracle to ever represent Keighley & Ilkley at Westminster. Don't forget - I'm more than happy to tag along for the ride between now and your retirement in May 2015. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

11:39am Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Kingchaser.

Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker?

I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.
Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015. pjl20
  • Score: -2

12:05pm Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen

The party to which I belong has many members across the whole of the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, including the Worth Valley area, to which you refer directly.

We as a party, shall be declaring our party candidates for the forthcoming Bradford Metropolitan District Council elections, by ward, due on May 22nd. This will be when their nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall.

Perhaps you may withhold your rude and vociferous comments until then?
Mark Pullen The party to which I belong has many members across the whole of the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, including the Worth Valley area, to which you refer directly. We as a party, shall be declaring our party candidates for the forthcoming Bradford Metropolitan District Council elections, by ward, due on May 22nd. This will be when their nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall. Perhaps you may withhold your rude and vociferous comments until then? pjl20
  • Score: -1

12:11pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.
Excellent idea Mr Latham!

Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then!

It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham!

What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!.

He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked.

(What is a 'fake' question anyway?).
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.[/p][/quote]Excellent idea Mr Latham! Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then! It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham! What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!. He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked. (What is a 'fake' question anyway?). Kingchaser
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen

The party to which I belong has many members across the whole of the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, including the Worth Valley area, to which you refer directly.

We as a party, shall be declaring our party candidates for the forthcoming Bradford Metropolitan District Council elections, by ward, due on May 22nd. This will be when their nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall.

Perhaps you may withhold your rude and vociferous comments until then?
Will they be acceptable then?

I'm particularly interested in the PPC for the whole constituency - when the others are revealed I will be happy to engage with them.

Hopefully your party will provide candidates that are more prepared to consider the effects of their words on local communities unlike the PPC.

I have no particular party affiliation - I never have or will - but I do believe that anybody prepared to step into voluntary community service (or take taxpayers money to represent the population) should be accountable for their comments.

As you have already expressed comments on the topic of a larger district council (though yet to lodge your nomination) I am still willing to listen to your answers to the questions:

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?

Maybe you have had no contact - why not provide this answer?
Maybe you're not sure how the smaller PCs would fit in - why not provide this answer?

This isn't difficult Paul - please provide an answer to my two questions and we can both consider moving on.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen The party to which I belong has many members across the whole of the Keighley & Ilkley constituency, including the Worth Valley area, to which you refer directly. We as a party, shall be declaring our party candidates for the forthcoming Bradford Metropolitan District Council elections, by ward, due on May 22nd. This will be when their nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall. Perhaps you may withhold your rude and vociferous comments until then?[/p][/quote]Will they be acceptable then? I'm particularly interested in the PPC for the whole constituency - when the others are revealed I will be happy to engage with them. Hopefully your party will provide candidates that are more prepared to consider the effects of their words on local communities unlike the PPC. I have no particular party affiliation - I never have or will - but I do believe that anybody prepared to step into voluntary community service (or take taxpayers money to represent the population) should be accountable for their comments. As you have already expressed comments on the topic of a larger district council (though yet to lodge your nomination) I am still willing to listen to your answers to the questions: - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? Maybe you have had no contact - why not provide this answer? Maybe you're not sure how the smaller PCs would fit in - why not provide this answer? This isn't difficult Paul - please provide an answer to my two questions and we can both consider moving on. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser.

Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker?

I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.
Two genuine questions:

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?

Or are you just looking at getting your words in newsprint due to the forthcoming election for BMDC?

Certainly one way of electioneering but not very original.

Ready to answer my questions yet - after all this is the 21st Century and the t'interweb is playing its part in politics.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.[/p][/quote]Two genuine questions: - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? Or are you just looking at getting your words in newsprint due to the forthcoming election for BMDC? Certainly one way of electioneering but not very original. Ready to answer my questions yet - after all this is the 21st Century and the t'interweb is playing its part in politics. MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

12:18pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

Kingchaser wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.
Excellent idea Mr Latham!

Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then!

It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham!

What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!.

He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked.

(What is a 'fake' question anyway?).
It's a ruse for pjl20 to be able to respond in newsprint to further his ego boost.

He recognises that these pages aren't read by those living in Ilkley and therefore of no use to him in his campaign to be elected to BMDC in May.
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.[/p][/quote]Excellent idea Mr Latham! Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then! It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham! What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!. He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked. (What is a 'fake' question anyway?).[/p][/quote]It's a ruse for pjl20 to be able to respond in newsprint to further his ego boost. He recognises that these pages aren't read by those living in Ilkley and therefore of no use to him in his campaign to be elected to BMDC in May. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

MarkPullen wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
pjl20 wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.
Excellent idea Mr Latham! Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then! It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham! What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!. He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked. (What is a 'fake' question anyway?).
It's a ruse for pjl20 to be able to respond in newsprint to further his ego boost. He recognises that these pages aren't read by those living in Ilkley and therefore of no use to him in his campaign to be elected to BMDC in May.
I had realised that, Mr P.

Sounds like he's addicted to the idea of being elected. The worst kind of 'perspective' (sic) politician.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.[/p][/quote]Excellent idea Mr Latham! Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then! It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham! What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!. He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked. (What is a 'fake' question anyway?).[/p][/quote]It's a ruse for pjl20 to be able to respond in newsprint to further his ego boost. He recognises that these pages aren't read by those living in Ilkley and therefore of no use to him in his campaign to be elected to BMDC in May.[/p][/quote]I had realised that, Mr P. Sounds like he's addicted to the idea of being elected. The worst kind of 'perspective' (sic) politician. Kingchaser
  • Score: -1

12:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

Kingchaser wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
pjl20 wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.
Excellent idea Mr Latham! Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then! It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham! What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!. He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked. (What is a 'fake' question anyway?).
It's a ruse for pjl20 to be able to respond in newsprint to further his ego boost. He recognises that these pages aren't read by those living in Ilkley and therefore of no use to him in his campaign to be elected to BMDC in May.
I had realised that, Mr P.

Sounds like he's addicted to the idea of being elected. The worst kind of 'perspective' (sic) politician.
What's most amusing is the way he now cowers behind the "I'm not obliged" excuse now that he's being challenged but was more than happy to wade in on these and other threads spouting the party line.

Maybe one day he'll realise, along with other politicians - "perspective" or otherwise - that to represent an area you need to find out about it FIRST.

I'm looking forward to the run up to May 2015 on these pages - if we can't question those seeking approval (even if I'm ineligible, at present, to vote in this constituency) then democracy is indeed a sad state of affairs.

If pjl20 thinks I'm "rude and vociferous" in my comments then he'd better take some reality pills before slipping into comments with some of the others on these pages!
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Kingchaser. Why not write a letter direct to the Keighley News Editor, Richard Parker? I shall be prepared to answer any genuine question, although as a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate I am not expected to, until my nomination papers have been accepted by City Hall, Bradford in March or April 2015.[/p][/quote]Excellent idea Mr Latham! Assuming Mr Parker knows more than you do about what policies UKIP will be proposing! Does he? I think not. What a stupid suggestion then! It's in your best interests to be hoped that flea doesn't want it's brain back, Mr Latham! What a situation. He comes on here all puffed up with his own self-importance about being a candidate for UKIP. Contradicts his colleague, Mr Firth. And then refuses to answer any questions about his policies!. He offers to answer any 'genuine' question but refuses to answer those asked. (What is a 'fake' question anyway?).[/p][/quote]It's a ruse for pjl20 to be able to respond in newsprint to further his ego boost. He recognises that these pages aren't read by those living in Ilkley and therefore of no use to him in his campaign to be elected to BMDC in May.[/p][/quote]I had realised that, Mr P. Sounds like he's addicted to the idea of being elected. The worst kind of 'perspective' (sic) politician.[/p][/quote]What's most amusing is the way he now cowers behind the "I'm not obliged" excuse now that he's being challenged but was more than happy to wade in on these and other threads spouting the party line. Maybe one day he'll realise, along with other politicians - "perspective" or otherwise - that to represent an area you need to find out about it FIRST. I'm looking forward to the run up to May 2015 on these pages - if we can't question those seeking approval (even if I'm ineligible, at present, to vote in this constituency) then democracy is indeed a sad state of affairs. If pjl20 thinks I'm "rude and vociferous" in my comments then he'd better take some reality pills before slipping into comments with some of the others on these pages! MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

12:51pm Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen.

Surely 'Letters to the Editor' is the place to vent your wrath?

There, if published, the entire readership will be able to see your complaints.

I am not new to either elections, hustings or the columns of local newspapers. Although I can not recall having met with you.
Mark Pullen. Surely 'Letters to the Editor' is the place to vent your wrath? There, if published, the entire readership will be able to see your complaints. I am not new to either elections, hustings or the columns of local newspapers. Although I can not recall having met with you. pjl20
  • Score: -2

12:56pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

Surely 'Letters to the Editor' is the place to vent your wrath?

There, if published, the entire readership will be able to see your complaints.

I am not new to either elections, hustings or the columns of local newspapers. Although I can not recall having met with you.
What does the lack of previous encounter have to do with this.

I'm more than happy to broach my questions and concerns through this resource provided by the KN. I'm not writing to ask the editor but to ask you!

It's not a requirement for me to allow the entire readership to see my "complaints" - your term not mine.

If you would be prepared to answer my questions in print why not in this, or other, comment threads?

I've repeated them in this post in case you've forgotten what they asked:

- What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

- How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. Surely 'Letters to the Editor' is the place to vent your wrath? There, if published, the entire readership will be able to see your complaints. I am not new to either elections, hustings or the columns of local newspapers. Although I can not recall having met with you.[/p][/quote]What does the lack of previous encounter have to do with this. I'm more than happy to broach my questions and concerns through this resource provided by the KN. I'm not writing to ask the editor but to ask you! It's not a requirement for me to allow the entire readership to see my "complaints" - your term not mine. If you would be prepared to answer my questions in print why not in this, or other, comment threads? I've repeated them in this post in case you've forgotten what they asked: - What level of engagement does you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? - How do you feel that the two parish councils would fit into the system of a larger district council replacing the Keighley Town Council? MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not.
As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region G_Firth
  • Score: -1

1:46pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Semantics and pedantics!

You have described a particular method of reducing the Housing Benefit paid to some people Heinous. But you make no comment about Mr Latham's intention to reduce the overall bill in Bradford in favour of spending the money in the leafy suburbs in Airedale and Wharfdale.

That is a glaring inconsistency, Mr Firth. So may I ask for an answer to these:

Are you in favour of Mr Latham's stated intention of withdrawing Council Tax from Bradford where it is spent on Housing Benefit, in the main, and spending it in, say, Ilkley?

Or would you describe that policy as 'Heinous' too?

Yes or No answers will suffice, Mr Firth. Please don't try to wriggle - the hook will hurt even more!
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Semantics and pedantics! You have described a particular method of reducing the Housing Benefit paid to some people Heinous. But you make no comment about Mr Latham's intention to reduce the overall bill in Bradford in favour of spending the money in the leafy suburbs in Airedale and Wharfdale. That is a glaring inconsistency, Mr Firth. So may I ask for an answer to these: Are you in favour of Mr Latham's stated intention of withdrawing Council Tax from Bradford where it is spent on Housing Benefit, in the main, and spending it in, say, Ilkley? Or would you describe that policy as 'Heinous' too? Yes or No answers will suffice, Mr Firth. Please don't try to wriggle - the hook will hurt even more! Kingchaser
  • Score: 1

1:52pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not.
As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues? MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

1:57pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen. Surely 'Letters to the Editor' is the place to vent your wrath? There, if published, the entire readership will be able to see your complaints. I am not new to either elections, hustings or the columns of local newspapers. Although I can not recall having met with you.
So, let's get this straight....you are suggesting:

That every time we need clarification on a statement from a politician or some clarity on what his/her policy is on a particular issue we should write to the editor of our local newspaper? Are you for real?

You say that you've visited in the public gallery of some local council meetings? You weren't there when some councillor is alleged to have waved at the public gallery and mentioned 'Swivel-Eyed Loons' were you?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. Surely 'Letters to the Editor' is the place to vent your wrath? There, if published, the entire readership will be able to see your complaints. I am not new to either elections, hustings or the columns of local newspapers. Although I can not recall having met with you.[/p][/quote]So, let's get this straight....you are suggesting: That every time we need clarification on a statement from a politician or some clarity on what his/her policy is on a particular issue we should write to the editor of our local newspaper? Are you for real? You say that you've visited in the public gallery of some local council meetings? You weren't there when some councillor is alleged to have waved at the public gallery and mentioned 'Swivel-Eyed Loons' were you? Kingchaser
  • Score: 2

2:03pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not.
As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?
Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?[/p][/quote]Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis. G_Firth
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not.
As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?
Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.
Not at all - I'm just aware that some candidates are prepared to take the party line on issues without applying the impact specifically on the area to which they intend to represent.

I've no problem with those in government being taken to task on issues or policies but feel that those commenting should ensure it reflects their electorate.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?[/p][/quote]Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.[/p][/quote]Not at all - I'm just aware that some candidates are prepared to take the party line on issues without applying the impact specifically on the area to which they intend to represent. I've no problem with those in government being taken to task on issues or policies but feel that those commenting should ensure it reflects their electorate. MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

2:21pm Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Lets be clear. The subject of this article is the scrapping of the so-called 'Bedroom tax'.

Labour PPC, John Grogan, has said that the losing the £14 a week benefit of having a spare room, if it is unoccupied by a resident of the home, for those people living in specially adapted homes, it should be made exempt.

I agree with him. UKIP policy goes so far as to scrap the bedroom tax altogether.

Kris Hopkins MP, is not responsible for imposing the tax personally. This was one of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare & benefit reforms, as Secretary of State of the government department concerned.
Lets be clear. The subject of this article is the scrapping of the so-called 'Bedroom tax'. Labour PPC, John Grogan, has said that the losing the £14 a week benefit of having a spare room, if it is unoccupied by a resident of the home, for those people living in specially adapted homes, it should be made exempt. I agree with him. UKIP policy goes so far as to scrap the bedroom tax altogether. Kris Hopkins MP, is not responsible for imposing the tax personally. This was one of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare & benefit reforms, as Secretary of State of the government department concerned. pjl20
  • Score: -1

2:25pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Semantics and pedantics!

You have described a particular method of reducing the Housing Benefit paid to some people Heinous. But you make no comment about Mr Latham's intention to reduce the overall bill in Bradford in favour of spending the money in the leafy suburbs in Airedale and Wharfdale.

That is a glaring inconsistency, Mr Firth. So may I ask for an answer to these:

Are you in favour of Mr Latham's stated intention of withdrawing Council Tax from Bradford where it is spent on Housing Benefit, in the main, and spending it in, say, Ilkley?

Or would you describe that policy as 'Heinous' too?

Yes or No answers will suffice, Mr Firth. Please don't try to wriggle - the hook will hurt even more!
And why would the creation of a new district council namely Airedale and Warfedale district council be concerned with the housing benefit paid in Bradford, wouldn't they be more concerned with paying the housing benefit within their own region.
You don't see the district councils of the south helping to pay for Bradford's housing benefit mountain.
But then Bradford is a city that has a council that would rather spend vast amounts on vanity projects than use that money to help business and industry, that would bring jobs to the region and thus reduce the amount of people on housing benefit, while recouping some of the investment back through business rates and people paying council tax from their own pockets.
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Semantics and pedantics! You have described a particular method of reducing the Housing Benefit paid to some people Heinous. But you make no comment about Mr Latham's intention to reduce the overall bill in Bradford in favour of spending the money in the leafy suburbs in Airedale and Wharfdale. That is a glaring inconsistency, Mr Firth. So may I ask for an answer to these: Are you in favour of Mr Latham's stated intention of withdrawing Council Tax from Bradford where it is spent on Housing Benefit, in the main, and spending it in, say, Ilkley? Or would you describe that policy as 'Heinous' too? Yes or No answers will suffice, Mr Firth. Please don't try to wriggle - the hook will hurt even more![/p][/quote]And why would the creation of a new district council namely Airedale and Warfedale district council be concerned with the housing benefit paid in Bradford, wouldn't they be more concerned with paying the housing benefit within their own region. You don't see the district councils of the south helping to pay for Bradford's housing benefit mountain. But then Bradford is a city that has a council that would rather spend vast amounts on vanity projects than use that money to help business and industry, that would bring jobs to the region and thus reduce the amount of people on housing benefit, while recouping some of the investment back through business rates and people paying council tax from their own pockets. G_Firth
  • Score: -1

2:29pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

pjl20 wrote:
Lets be clear. The subject of this article is the scrapping of the so-called 'Bedroom tax'.

Labour PPC, John Grogan, has said that the losing the £14 a week benefit of having a spare room, if it is unoccupied by a resident of the home, for those people living in specially adapted homes, it should be made exempt.

I agree with him. UKIP policy goes so far as to scrap the bedroom tax altogether.

Kris Hopkins MP, is not responsible for imposing the tax personally. This was one of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare & benefit reforms, as Secretary of State of the government department concerned.
I have to add that Mr Hopkins did in fact vote in favor of keeping it in place at the last vote where 32 Labour MP's failed to even vote and even 12 of them voted in favor also
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Lets be clear. The subject of this article is the scrapping of the so-called 'Bedroom tax'. Labour PPC, John Grogan, has said that the losing the £14 a week benefit of having a spare room, if it is unoccupied by a resident of the home, for those people living in specially adapted homes, it should be made exempt. I agree with him. UKIP policy goes so far as to scrap the bedroom tax altogether. Kris Hopkins MP, is not responsible for imposing the tax personally. This was one of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare & benefit reforms, as Secretary of State of the government department concerned.[/p][/quote]I have to add that Mr Hopkins did in fact vote in favor of keeping it in place at the last vote where 32 Labour MP's failed to even vote and even 12 of them voted in favor also G_Firth
  • Score: -1

2:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not.
As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?
Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.
Not at all - I'm just aware that some candidates are prepared to take the party line on issues without applying the impact specifically on the area to which they intend to represent.

I've no problem with those in government being taken to task on issues or policies but feel that those commenting should ensure it reflects their electorate.
Unlike the three stooges, UKIP's policy on local matters are that if need be UKIP councilors do not have to follow the party line if a matter arises that is detrimental to the locality conflicts with that of the party line and they are free to champion the locality over that of the party and fellow councilors.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?[/p][/quote]Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.[/p][/quote]Not at all - I'm just aware that some candidates are prepared to take the party line on issues without applying the impact specifically on the area to which they intend to represent. I've no problem with those in government being taken to task on issues or policies but feel that those commenting should ensure it reflects their electorate.[/p][/quote]Unlike the three stooges, UKIP's policy on local matters are that if need be UKIP councilors do not have to follow the party line if a matter arises that is detrimental to the locality conflicts with that of the party line and they are free to champion the locality over that of the party and fellow councilors. G_Firth
  • Score: 2

2:42pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
MarkPullen wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.
So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!)

Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it?

Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it?

Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP?

(And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)
Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not.
As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region
Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?
Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.
Not at all - I'm just aware that some candidates are prepared to take the party line on issues without applying the impact specifically on the area to which they intend to represent.

I've no problem with those in government being taken to task on issues or policies but feel that those commenting should ensure it reflects their electorate.
Unlike the three stooges, UKIP's policy on local matters are that if need be UKIP councilors do not have to follow the party line if a matter arises that is detrimental to the locality conflicts with that of the party line and they are free to champion the locality over that of the party and fellow councilors.
I look forward to, if the electorate decides, witnessing this being put into practice.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: So in essence what you are both saying is that you are more than happy for there to be no parish councils to represent the outlying regions of BMDC and for BMDC to take full control over everything. Even though right now it is clearly visible that BMDC would rather spend the lion share of the money they get in total on vanity projects such as turning the old Odeon building into a 30 million pound swimming pool in the center of Bradford, than on more needy projects in the outlying regions such as rural bus services for example. But all of that is detracting away from the initial topic of this thread which is the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition. I would like to add that the only party that have been fully against this tax from its conception has been UKIP and yes I do have a solution to it which has been forwarded to our party policy makers for consideration, but as the three stooges like to plagiarize UKIP policies as their own, reversing the green levy from energy bills as an example, till the main manifesto comes out we are staying tight lipped. But to answer your question over BMDC and parish councils they will soon not be the main focus just ask Councilor Green about his love for WYCA super council that got passed a public hearing without anybody even knowing that there was a public hearing about it.[/p][/quote]So, I'm totally confused! (No change there!) Latham says 90% of Council Tax in Bradford is spent on Housing Benefit. Firth says they spend it on 'Vanity Projects'. Which is it? Latham wants to reduce the amount Bradford can spend on Housing Benefit by keeping more in the leafy suburbs. Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'. Which is it? Any chance of a consistent message from Mr and Mrs UKIP? (And, no, we aren't interested in whether the size of your condoms is consistent.)[/p][/quote]Just to clarify I said and I quote "the Heinous Bedroom Tax that was first introduced by the Labour party and expanded upon by the Coalition." That is a statement that the tax should be fully abolished and not as you made out to be and I quote "Firth calles a reduction in Housing Benefit 'Heinous'." Which implies that I am in favor of the tax. of which I am not. As for the 90% of council tax being spent on housing benefit and Vanity projects they both impact our region[/p][/quote]Which is more relevant for the position which you are nominated for - regional, national, or local issues?[/p][/quote]Are you saying that I am a "Prospective" (got it right that time ;-) ) Candidate in the up and coming local elections that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a national matter that impacts us on a local basis.[/p][/quote]Not at all - I'm just aware that some candidates are prepared to take the party line on issues without applying the impact specifically on the area to which they intend to represent. I've no problem with those in government being taken to task on issues or policies but feel that those commenting should ensure it reflects their electorate.[/p][/quote]Unlike the three stooges, UKIP's policy on local matters are that if need be UKIP councilors do not have to follow the party line if a matter arises that is detrimental to the locality conflicts with that of the party line and they are free to champion the locality over that of the party and fellow councilors.[/p][/quote]I look forward to, if the electorate decides, witnessing this being put into practice. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Wed 26 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he?

He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why.

Mr Pullen it is this.

The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget.

In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen?

I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas.

A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them.

The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it.

I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up.

I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.
Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe. pjl20
  • Score: -1

4:36pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he?

He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why.

Mr Pullen it is this.

The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget.

In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen?

I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas.

A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them.

The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it.

I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up.

I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.
Paul, please confirm where I have mentioned housing benefit in my posts.

You seem to be ranting but failing to answer my questions.

Maybe you don't have a clue after all - are you sure you'd not rather consider another career choice?
I'd hate to think that all this political evasion on your part was to no avail.

I think you've quoted me instead of Kingchaser!
I'll make it easy for you - I used to live in Howarth . Hopefully one day you might respect those who live and serve in the area enough to engage with them.

Keep blowing off Paul - you are your own worst enemy. Let's hope your campaign manager (once you submit your nomination papers) has more talent.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.[/p][/quote]Paul, please confirm where I have mentioned housing benefit in my posts. You seem to be ranting but failing to answer my questions. Maybe you don't have a clue after all - are you sure you'd not rather consider another career choice? I'd hate to think that all this political evasion on your part was to no avail. I think you've quoted me instead of Kingchaser! I'll make it easy for you - I used to live in Howarth [sic]. Hopefully one day you might respect those who live and serve in the area enough to engage with them. Keep blowing off Paul - you are your own worst enemy. Let's hope your campaign manager (once you submit your nomination papers) has more talent. MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

4:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

So, Paul Latham (pjl20) - the PPC selected by Ukip/UKIP to contest the Keighley & Ilkley constituency in the May 2015 general election, can you answer one really easy peasy question?

This isn't a trick.

It doesn't need research or cut-and-paste.

You should be able to recall the answer without the need to consult others.

It doesn't require the regurgitating of party lines.


What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?


It's that simple! Prepared to answer or still evading?
So, Paul Latham (pjl20) - the PPC selected by Ukip/UKIP to contest the Keighley & Ilkley constituency in the May 2015 general election, can you answer one really easy peasy question? This isn't a trick. It doesn't need research or cut-and-paste. You should be able to recall the answer without the need to consult others. It doesn't require the regurgitating of party lines. What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? It's that simple! Prepared to answer or still evading? MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

Isn't it sad when somebody makes a fool of themselves by having a rant and trying to belittle another only to quote the wrong person?

Maybe he's after sympathy vote if he exhibits signs of mental deterioration?
Isn't it sad when somebody makes a fool of themselves by having a rant and trying to belittle another only to quote the wrong person? Maybe he's after sympathy vote if he exhibits signs of mental deterioration? MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

4:50pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.
Mr Latham,

You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two!

But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale.

How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth?

I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax?

You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating.

It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums!

(Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.[/p][/quote]Mr Latham, You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two! But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale. How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth? I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax? You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating. It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums! (Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?) Kingchaser
  • Score: -1

5:26pm Wed 26 Feb 14

notthecivic says...

0oopps did i start a war ?
0oopps did i start a war ? notthecivic
  • Score: -1

5:30pm Wed 26 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

notthecivic wrote:
0oopps did i start a war ?
Not to worry, Paul is shooting himself in the foot so no other wounded expected!
[quote][p][bold]notthecivic[/bold] wrote: 0oopps did i start a war ?[/p][/quote]Not to worry, Paul is shooting himself in the foot so no other wounded expected! MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

5:46pm Wed 26 Feb 14

G_Firth says...

Kingchaser wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.
Mr Latham,

You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two!

But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale.

How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth?

I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax?

You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating.

It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums!

(Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)
Seems to me like the concept of Airedale and Warfedale no longer being part of BMDC can not be grasped by "Kingchaser".
If they are no longer part of BMDC that means they would not be paying any money to BMDC and therefor would be instead paying money to the new Airedale and Warfedale council.
But from what you have been saying looks like you'd like Harrogate to also pay money to BMDC ?
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.[/p][/quote]Mr Latham, You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two! But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale. How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth? I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax? You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating. It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums! (Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)[/p][/quote]Seems to me like the concept of Airedale and Warfedale no longer being part of BMDC can not be grasped by "Kingchaser". If they are no longer part of BMDC that means they would not be paying any money to BMDC and therefor would be instead paying money to the new Airedale and Warfedale council. But from what you have been saying looks like you'd like Harrogate to also pay money to BMDC ? G_Firth
  • Score: -1

6:32pm Wed 26 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

is mr latham a real person?or someone dreamed up by the tories to keep labour out of keighley.he has absolutely no idea how to engage people,and not the slightest idea how to enter into any sort of rational debate.it's just a shame theres only about 20 people read these pages because i think it's important the electorate see how one of their ppc abuses anyone who asks any questions of him.at least g firth tries to have a sensible debate.
is mr latham a real person?or someone dreamed up by the tories to keep labour out of keighley.he has absolutely no idea how to engage people,and not the slightest idea how to enter into any sort of rational debate.it's just a shame theres only about 20 people read these pages because i think it's important the electorate see how one of their ppc abuses anyone who asks any questions of him.at least g firth tries to have a sensible debate. jimmy k
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Katiery says...

What income would be used to make the new Airedale & Wharfedale council self - funding? And why would there not be a contribution from central Government? If this council was independent then they would be responsible for all of the services currently provided by BMDC and would have to find the funds to pay for them, including housing benefit for those eligible.
What income would be used to make the new Airedale & Wharfedale council self - funding? And why would there not be a contribution from central Government? If this council was independent then they would be responsible for all of the services currently provided by BMDC and would have to find the funds to pay for them, including housing benefit for those eligible. Katiery
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.
Mr Latham,

You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two!

But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale.

How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth?

I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax?

You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating.

It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums!

(Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)
Seems to me like the concept of Airedale and Warfedale no longer being part of BMDC can not be grasped by "Kingchaser".
If they are no longer part of BMDC that means they would not be paying any money to BMDC and therefor would be instead paying money to the new Airedale and Warfedale council.
But from what you have been saying looks like you'd like Harrogate to also pay money to BMDC ?
What are you on about Mr Firth???

It's a question of basic mathematics!

There is only so much council tax that can be raised in a particular area. If Wharfedale and Airedale go on their own and retain their share of the Council tax then the people of Bradford have less council tax intake but still a very high percentage of housing benefits recipients. They get less. The richer areas of Wharfedale and Airedale get more disposable council tax. Call that fair??? Call that equitable??? Call that good wealth redistribution??? Call that a good idea??? Answer 'yes' to any of the above please and show us that you are the same level of moral responsibility as your idiot colleague!
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.[/p][/quote]Mr Latham, You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two! But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale. How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth? I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax? You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating. It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums! (Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)[/p][/quote]Seems to me like the concept of Airedale and Warfedale no longer being part of BMDC can not be grasped by "Kingchaser". If they are no longer part of BMDC that means they would not be paying any money to BMDC and therefor would be instead paying money to the new Airedale and Warfedale council. But from what you have been saying looks like you'd like Harrogate to also pay money to BMDC ?[/p][/quote]What are you on about Mr Firth??? It's a question of basic mathematics! There is only so much council tax that can be raised in a particular area. If Wharfedale and Airedale go on their own and retain their share of the Council tax then the people of Bradford have less council tax intake but still a very high percentage of housing benefits recipients. They get less. The richer areas of Wharfedale and Airedale get more disposable council tax. Call that fair??? Call that equitable??? Call that good wealth redistribution??? Call that a good idea??? Answer 'yes' to any of the above please and show us that you are the same level of moral responsibility as your idiot colleague! Kingchaser
  • Score: -1

8:40pm Wed 26 Feb 14

OUT WITH CAVETOWN says...

Kingchaser wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
Kingchaser wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.
Mr Latham,

You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two!

But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale.

How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth?

I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax?

You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating.

It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums!

(Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)
Seems to me like the concept of Airedale and Warfedale no longer being part of BMDC can not be grasped by "Kingchaser".
If they are no longer part of BMDC that means they would not be paying any money to BMDC and therefor would be instead paying money to the new Airedale and Warfedale council.
But from what you have been saying looks like you'd like Harrogate to also pay money to BMDC ?
What are you on about Mr Firth???

It's a question of basic mathematics!

There is only so much council tax that can be raised in a particular area. If Wharfedale and Airedale go on their own and retain their share of the Council tax then the people of Bradford have less council tax intake but still a very high percentage of housing benefits recipients. They get less. The richer areas of Wharfedale and Airedale get more disposable council tax. Call that fair??? Call that equitable??? Call that good wealth redistribution??? Call that a good idea??? Answer 'yes' to any of the above please and show us that you are the same level of moral responsibility as your idiot colleague!
Alas even i understand.
[quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kingchaser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen does not appear to have a clue about Housing Benefit, does he? He has a complaint about my figures, but he cannot understand why. Mr Pullen it is this. The amount paid out in Housing Benefit by Bradford Council represents a figure equivalent to 91% of that collected from the residents living in the WHOLE borough, as council tax. Central government pays a grant to Bradford Council to help fund this expenditure and other areas of the yearly budget. In comparison just 37% gets spent on Housing Benefit in nearby Harrogate Borough, from total council tax proceeds. Do you understand this Mr Pullen? I am not suggesting that money is withdrawn from those who are due Housing Benefit, only that the amount being spent in the inner city areas of Bradford is coming from amounts of tax paid in Airedale and Wharfedale. That means Ilkley and Keighley, which form parts of those areas. A separate Airedale & Wharfedale District Council would be self-funding. No central government grant would be required. Those on Housing Benefit living within this area would still get it. It is not being taken away from them. The important point is that the new council would have monies available to spend on maintaining and improving local council-provided services and amenities. Including the public conveniences in Haworth, if that area becomes part of it. I have sympathy for David Green, the leader of Bradford MDC. He has an onerous task managing the council budget with the present imposed austerity programme and likely cuts of as many as 650 council employees over the next 3 years, to make the books add up. I know that all of this may be difficult for you to comprehend, but it is what I believe.[/p][/quote]Mr Latham, You don't need to be arocket scientist to see that the large deprived areas of Bradford are completely different to the moneyed leafy areas of Harrogate Borough! That is why there is a massive difference in the levels of Housing Benefits being paid in those two areas. So you're being a bit daft to compare the two! But your idea (which Mr Firth fails to grasp) is to withdraw Council Tax from Bradford (with the major reason you cite being that is is mainly spent on Housing Benefit in the inner-city) and spend that money in the more affluent suburbs of Bradford such as Airedale and Wharfedale. How silly! How totally unfair! How much it seems you are wanting to rob from the poor and give it to the rich! I ask again, since you failed to address it earlier, has this anything to do with the perceived ethnicity of those receiving the benefit in Central Bradford? Is this really UKIP's policy on redistribution of wealth? I also ask how why your policy is to take Housing Benefit away from some people who need it and spend it where it isn't needed in Airedale and warfedale and Mr Firth's policy is the complete opposite of giving more Housing Benefit by scrapping the bedroom tax? You two should both get your stories (and policies) straight before coming on here and pontificating. It smacks of telling people what they might like to hear (particularly in affluent Ilkley) without doing your sums! (Still wriggling Mr Firth?, as I'm still waiting for your 'Yes' or 'No' answer?)[/p][/quote]Seems to me like the concept of Airedale and Warfedale no longer being part of BMDC can not be grasped by "Kingchaser". If they are no longer part of BMDC that means they would not be paying any money to BMDC and therefor would be instead paying money to the new Airedale and Warfedale council. But from what you have been saying looks like you'd like Harrogate to also pay money to BMDC ?[/p][/quote]What are you on about Mr Firth??? It's a question of basic mathematics! There is only so much council tax that can be raised in a particular area. If Wharfedale and Airedale go on their own and retain their share of the Council tax then the people of Bradford have less council tax intake but still a very high percentage of housing benefits recipients. They get less. The richer areas of Wharfedale and Airedale get more disposable council tax. Call that fair??? Call that equitable??? Call that good wealth redistribution??? Call that a good idea??? Answer 'yes' to any of the above please and show us that you are the same level of moral responsibility as your idiot colleague![/p][/quote]Alas even i understand. OUT WITH CAVETOWN
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Kingchaser says...

My 7 year old understands. I'm sure Mr Latham understands. But he thought we wouldn't. And that it would play out well as a guy who has our interests at heart. But he doesn't. A ghetto on our doorstep is not a good idea. And I, for one, don't mind contributing my share to the genuinely under-privileged.

Unfortunately, Mr Latham represents the more base. Those that can't see the wood for the trees. Those that look after number one, first, middle and last.

And let's not forget he's had two opportunities to say that this is nothing to do with race and he's body-swerved both.
My 7 year old understands. I'm sure Mr Latham understands. But he thought we wouldn't. And that it would play out well as a guy who has our interests at heart. But he doesn't. A ghetto on our doorstep is not a good idea. And I, for one, don't mind contributing my share to the genuinely under-privileged. Unfortunately, Mr Latham represents the more base. Those that can't see the wood for the trees. Those that look after number one, first, middle and last. And let's not forget he's had two opportunities to say that this is nothing to do with race and he's body-swerved both. Kingchaser
  • Score: 1

11:15am Thu 27 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

To all those who think that council tax is a charitable contribution, I have news for them, it isn't.

This is an antiquated system of supporting local government and is based upon an outmoded and inequitable property valuation process.

How can people possibly be assessed fairly according to the size and value of the home in which they live? We have an income tax system that assesses the amount of tax they have to pay on what they earn.

40 years ago, in 1974, Bradford Council was formed for the purpose of managing and organising a large area of West Yorkshire, under one body.

This was unfair to the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale, who were happy and content with their existing local district councils.

I well understand the purpose of council taxes and the use to which this revenue is being made.

Those who think that comparisons between Harrogate and Bradford are invalid, I say that this is what was revealed when a freedom of information request released the data. You cannot deny it. This is fact.

If you don't like the idea of a new district council for Airedale & Wharfedale, separate from Bradford, then don't support it or vote for it. However many do wish to have this change for the reasons given earlier.

The responsibility of providing for the needs of the city of Bradford is that of the residents in the city area, not those who live 10 - 12 miles distant and who rarely visit the city. Any shortfall to be made up by a central government grant, as at present. We are not a charity for the purpose of Bradford MDC.

Kingchaser says we will have a 'ghetto' on the doorstep. How?

I suggest that some of you should get off your butts and do something to improve the area in which you live, rather than be complainants about everything. We live in an elective democracy. We also now have the Localism Act by which we can demonstrate our views and opinions by referendum.
To all those who think that council tax is a charitable contribution, I have news for them, it isn't. This is an antiquated system of supporting local government and is based upon an outmoded and inequitable property valuation process. How can people possibly be assessed fairly according to the size and value of the home in which they live? We have an income tax system that assesses the amount of tax they have to pay on what they earn. 40 years ago, in 1974, Bradford Council was formed for the purpose of managing and organising a large area of West Yorkshire, under one body. This was unfair to the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale, who were happy and content with their existing local district councils. I well understand the purpose of council taxes and the use to which this revenue is being made. Those who think that comparisons between Harrogate and Bradford are invalid, I say that this is what was revealed when a freedom of information request released the data. You cannot deny it. This is fact. If you don't like the idea of a new district council for Airedale & Wharfedale, separate from Bradford, then don't support it or vote for it. However many do wish to have this change for the reasons given earlier. The responsibility of providing for the needs of the city of Bradford is that of the residents in the city area, not those who live 10 - 12 miles distant and who rarely visit the city. Any shortfall to be made up by a central government grant, as at present. We are not a charity for the purpose of Bradford MDC. Kingchaser says we will have a 'ghetto' on the doorstep. How? I suggest that some of you should get off your butts and do something to improve the area in which you live, rather than be complainants about everything. We live in an elective democracy. We also now have the Localism Act by which we can demonstrate our views and opinions by referendum. pjl20
  • Score: 0

11:25am Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
To all those who think that council tax is a charitable contribution, I have news for them, it isn't.

This is an antiquated system of supporting local government and is based upon an outmoded and inequitable property valuation process.

How can people possibly be assessed fairly according to the size and value of the home in which they live? We have an income tax system that assesses the amount of tax they have to pay on what they earn.

40 years ago, in 1974, Bradford Council was formed for the purpose of managing and organising a large area of West Yorkshire, under one body.

This was unfair to the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale, who were happy and content with their existing local district councils.

I well understand the purpose of council taxes and the use to which this revenue is being made.

Those who think that comparisons between Harrogate and Bradford are invalid, I say that this is what was revealed when a freedom of information request released the data. You cannot deny it. This is fact.

If you don't like the idea of a new district council for Airedale & Wharfedale, separate from Bradford, then don't support it or vote for it. However many do wish to have this change for the reasons given earlier.

The responsibility of providing for the needs of the city of Bradford is that of the residents in the city area, not those who live 10 - 12 miles distant and who rarely visit the city. Any shortfall to be made up by a central government grant, as at present. We are not a charity for the purpose of Bradford MDC.

Kingchaser says we will have a 'ghetto' on the doorstep. How?

I suggest that some of you should get off your butts and do something to improve the area in which you live, rather than be complainants about everything. We live in an elective democracy. We also now have the Localism Act by which we can demonstrate our views and opinions by referendum.
Paul, after mistaking somebody else's posts for mine previously (though you have yet to acknowledge and/or apologise for this oversight) I still seem to be struggling to gain the answer to one really simple, yes/no, question:

What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

You have mentioned earlier that you aren't obliged to answer questions and yet feel totally compelled to bang this particular drum with gusto and energy.

Maybe you could find just the smallest of moments to answer my question? Pretty please.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: To all those who think that council tax is a charitable contribution, I have news for them, it isn't. This is an antiquated system of supporting local government and is based upon an outmoded and inequitable property valuation process. How can people possibly be assessed fairly according to the size and value of the home in which they live? We have an income tax system that assesses the amount of tax they have to pay on what they earn. 40 years ago, in 1974, Bradford Council was formed for the purpose of managing and organising a large area of West Yorkshire, under one body. This was unfair to the residents of Airedale & Wharfedale, who were happy and content with their existing local district councils. I well understand the purpose of council taxes and the use to which this revenue is being made. Those who think that comparisons between Harrogate and Bradford are invalid, I say that this is what was revealed when a freedom of information request released the data. You cannot deny it. This is fact. If you don't like the idea of a new district council for Airedale & Wharfedale, separate from Bradford, then don't support it or vote for it. However many do wish to have this change for the reasons given earlier. The responsibility of providing for the needs of the city of Bradford is that of the residents in the city area, not those who live 10 - 12 miles distant and who rarely visit the city. Any shortfall to be made up by a central government grant, as at present. We are not a charity for the purpose of Bradford MDC. Kingchaser says we will have a 'ghetto' on the doorstep. How? I suggest that some of you should get off your butts and do something to improve the area in which you live, rather than be complainants about everything. We live in an elective democracy. We also now have the Localism Act by which we can demonstrate our views and opinions by referendum.[/p][/quote]Paul, after mistaking somebody else's posts for mine previously (though you have yet to acknowledge and/or apologise for this oversight) I still seem to be struggling to gain the answer to one really simple, yes/no, question: What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? You have mentioned earlier that you aren't obliged to answer questions and yet feel totally compelled to bang this particular drum with gusto and energy. Maybe you could find just the smallest of moments to answer my question? Pretty please. MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

11:28am Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

Paul (pjl20) makes a very valid point "I suggest that some of you should get off your butts and do something to improve the area in which you live, rather than be complainants about everything. We live in an elective democracy. We also now have the Localism Act by which we can demonstrate our views and opinions by referendum."

I'm assuming that engaging with existing community groups and organisations is the first step to making the community in which we live, work, and/or play a better place?
Paul (pjl20) makes a very valid point "I suggest that some of you should get off your butts and do something to improve the area in which you live, rather than be complainants about everything. We live in an elective democracy. We also now have the Localism Act by which we can demonstrate our views and opinions by referendum." I'm assuming that engaging with existing community groups and organisations is the first step to making the community in which we live, work, and/or play a better place? MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

11:32am Thu 27 Feb 14

Katiery says...

pjl20, I suggest you try including everyone in your quest for an Airedale and Wharfedale self funded council. One for which you have supplied no figures, no idea of how it will operate and seem to have no clue about other than Ilkley may want it.

I am sick and tired of you preaching to everyone else about what they should be doing and what they should have. YOU want to stand for election and just because you do that doesn't mean that everyone else does too. Some of us have done many years of voluntary work in our own area. Work you know nothing about, so for god sake shut up until you do.

YOU think the way you communicate with Keighley residents - by admonishing them, accusing them of being vitriolic and generally talking down to anyone who dares to question you - is the way to be elected. It's not!
pjl20, I suggest you try including everyone in your quest for an Airedale and Wharfedale self funded council. One for which you have supplied no figures, no idea of how it will operate and seem to have no clue about other than Ilkley may want it. I am sick and tired of you preaching to everyone else about what they should be doing and what they should have. YOU want to stand for election and just because you do that doesn't mean that everyone else does too. Some of us have done many years of voluntary work in our own area. Work you know nothing about, so for god sake shut up until you do. YOU think the way you communicate with Keighley residents - by admonishing them, accusing them of being vitriolic and generally talking down to anyone who dares to question you - is the way to be elected. It's not! Katiery
  • Score: -1

12:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Katiery.

If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions.

We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own.

I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree.

I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?
Katiery. If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions. We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own. I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree. I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that? pjl20
  • Score: -2

12:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

hahaha he's now telling us to get off our butts to do something,how dare he preach at us when he hasn't got the foggiest what most of us do/don't do well i've news for you mrpjl(your patronising words not mine)many of us do try and improve the local community how is between myself and my consonance,i can however say i do it in my spare time out of work free of charge.i also don't do it to help me get elected to something(or in your case anything)tell me do you enjoy insulting people ,is it an election strategy to do so or do you think well you know better then us plebs?which is it?
hahaha he's now telling us to get off our butts to do something,how dare he preach at us when he hasn't got the foggiest what most of us do/don't do well i've news for you mrpjl(your patronising words not mine)many of us do try and improve the local community how is between myself and my consonance,i can however say i do it in my spare time out of work free of charge.i also don't do it to help me get elected to something(or in your case anything)tell me do you enjoy insulting people ,is it an election strategy to do so or do you think well you know better then us plebs?which is it? jimmy k
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Katiery.

If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions.

We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own.

I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree.

I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?
So your comments are not in any way relating to the Keighley & Ilkley constituency and only to those residing in Ilkley (or at least those who might potentially cast their vote in your favour)?

Just a little point to note Paul, whether you intend it or not everything you are posting IS part of your 2015 campaign - unless you plan on suddenly changing your spots I'm sure all those reading these posts will recall your stance and responses.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Katiery. If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions. We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own. I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree. I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]So your comments are not in any way relating to the Keighley & Ilkley constituency and only to those residing in Ilkley (or at least those who might potentially cast their vote in your favour)? Just a little point to note Paul, whether you intend it or not everything you are posting IS part of your 2015 campaign - unless you plan on suddenly changing your spots I'm sure all those reading these posts will recall your stance and responses. MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

pjl20 wrote:
Katiery.

If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions.

We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own.

I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree.

I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?
do you even get the irony of the 3rd and 4th line?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Katiery. If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions. We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own. I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree. I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]do you even get the irony of the 3rd and 4th line? jimmy k
  • Score: 1

12:24pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

instead of keeping pressed the thumbs down button,how about trying to engage with people mr pjl.you say your not electioneering however you are putting your views on an open page,you have told us who you are and what your standing for so you can can hardly blame anyone for challenging you if they have a different opinion or simply trying to get you to expand more.it is the same for us all on here not just yourself,i guess its the old adage if you cant stand the heat................
..........
instead of keeping pressed the thumbs down button,how about trying to engage with people mr pjl.you say your not electioneering however you are putting your views on an open page,you have told us who you are and what your standing for so you can can hardly blame anyone for challenging you if they have a different opinion or simply trying to get you to expand more.it is the same for us all on here not just yourself,i guess its the old adage if you cant stand the heat................ .......... jimmy k
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

jimmy k wrote:
instead of keeping pressed the thumbs down button,how about trying to engage with people mr pjl.you say your not electioneering however you are putting your views on an open page,you have told us who you are and what your standing for so you can can hardly blame anyone for challenging you if they have a different opinion or simply trying to get you to expand more.it is the same for us all on here not just yourself,i guess its the old adage if you cant stand the heat................

..........
Hear hear ..... and maybe he could answer simple questions?
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: instead of keeping pressed the thumbs down button,how about trying to engage with people mr pjl.you say your not electioneering however you are putting your views on an open page,you have told us who you are and what your standing for so you can can hardly blame anyone for challenging you if they have a different opinion or simply trying to get you to expand more.it is the same for us all on here not just yourself,i guess its the old adage if you cant stand the heat................ ..........[/p][/quote]Hear hear ..... and maybe he could answer simple questions? MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Katiery says...

pjl20 wrote:
Katiery.

If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions.

We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own.

I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree.

I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?
I am pjl20, very much so. Your comment regarding 'bedroom tax' is even more pointless than the original electioneering plea. Mr Grogan wants the payment banning, you want a whole new council setting up but have no information to share about how this will be of benefit to anyone.

If you dislike my comments to the extent that you wish me to stop making a contribution then I suggest you just stop reading and responding to them, you manage to ignore MarkPullen easily enough. The only irrelevant contributions I have seen so far have been from you.

Yes, I understand that you are seeking election to BMDC - the council you wish to see us removed from - as a candidate in Ilkley in May 2014 then you hope to seek election as the M.P. for Keighley & Ilkley in May 2015, thus abandoning your Councillor position and causing a possible re-election at a cost of around £15,000 to the tax payer. Have I got that correct?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Katiery. If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions. We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own. I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree. I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]I am pjl20, very much so. Your comment regarding 'bedroom tax' is even more pointless than the original electioneering plea. Mr Grogan wants the payment banning, you want a whole new council setting up but have no information to share about how this will be of benefit to anyone. If you dislike my comments to the extent that you wish me to stop making a contribution then I suggest you just stop reading and responding to them, you manage to ignore MarkPullen easily enough. The only irrelevant contributions I have seen so far have been from you. Yes, I understand that you are seeking election to BMDC - the council you wish to see us removed from - as a candidate in Ilkley in May 2014 then you hope to seek election as the M.P. for Keighley & Ilkley in May 2015, thus abandoning your Councillor position and causing a possible re-election at a cost of around £15,000 to the tax payer. Have I got that correct? Katiery
  • Score: 1

12:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

Katiery wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Katiery.

If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions.

We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own.

I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree.

I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?
I am pjl20, very much so. Your comment regarding 'bedroom tax' is even more pointless than the original electioneering plea. Mr Grogan wants the payment banning, you want a whole new council setting up but have no information to share about how this will be of benefit to anyone.

If you dislike my comments to the extent that you wish me to stop making a contribution then I suggest you just stop reading and responding to them, you manage to ignore MarkPullen easily enough. The only irrelevant contributions I have seen so far have been from you.

Yes, I understand that you are seeking election to BMDC - the council you wish to see us removed from - as a candidate in Ilkley in May 2014 then you hope to seek election as the M.P. for Keighley & Ilkley in May 2015, thus abandoning your Councillor position and causing a possible re-election at a cost of around £15,000 to the tax payer. Have I got that correct?
excellent point ,and as your so against district ratepayers paying for bradford council i guess you won't be taking any expenses if you got elected.
[quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Katiery. If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions. We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own. I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree. I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]I am pjl20, very much so. Your comment regarding 'bedroom tax' is even more pointless than the original electioneering plea. Mr Grogan wants the payment banning, you want a whole new council setting up but have no information to share about how this will be of benefit to anyone. If you dislike my comments to the extent that you wish me to stop making a contribution then I suggest you just stop reading and responding to them, you manage to ignore MarkPullen easily enough. The only irrelevant contributions I have seen so far have been from you. Yes, I understand that you are seeking election to BMDC - the council you wish to see us removed from - as a candidate in Ilkley in May 2014 then you hope to seek election as the M.P. for Keighley & Ilkley in May 2015, thus abandoning your Councillor position and causing a possible re-election at a cost of around £15,000 to the tax payer. Have I got that correct?[/p][/quote]excellent point ,and as your so against district ratepayers paying for bradford council i guess you won't be taking any expenses if you got elected. jimmy k
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

jimmy k wrote:
Katiery wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Katiery.

If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions.

We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own.

I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree.

I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?
I am pjl20, very much so. Your comment regarding 'bedroom tax' is even more pointless than the original electioneering plea. Mr Grogan wants the payment banning, you want a whole new council setting up but have no information to share about how this will be of benefit to anyone.

If you dislike my comments to the extent that you wish me to stop making a contribution then I suggest you just stop reading and responding to them, you manage to ignore MarkPullen easily enough. The only irrelevant contributions I have seen so far have been from you.

Yes, I understand that you are seeking election to BMDC - the council you wish to see us removed from - as a candidate in Ilkley in May 2014 then you hope to seek election as the M.P. for Keighley & Ilkley in May 2015, thus abandoning your Councillor position and causing a possible re-election at a cost of around £15,000 to the tax payer. Have I got that correct?
excellent point ,and as your so against district ratepayers paying for bradford council i guess you won't be taking any expenses if you got elected.
He could of course remain as a councillor with BMDC and be the MP - but we all know (and even Paul does deep down) that he's not going to achieve success in the general election.

Should we start a whip around now?
[quote][p][bold]jimmy k[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Katiery[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Katiery. If you are 'sick and tired' of my views and opinions, then I suggest that you refrain from making further irrelevant contributions. We live in a democracy in Britain where views and opinions are accepted and tolerated, even if different from your own. I am not communicating with the people of Keighley, as I have not yet started my campaigning for 2015. I have responded to John Grogan's plea that the 'bedroom tax' ought to be abolished for disabled people living in adapted homes. A viewpoint with which I wholly agree. I am proposing to stand in the Bradford MDC election on May 22nd, for the Ilkley ward. Do you understand that?[/p][/quote]I am pjl20, very much so. Your comment regarding 'bedroom tax' is even more pointless than the original electioneering plea. Mr Grogan wants the payment banning, you want a whole new council setting up but have no information to share about how this will be of benefit to anyone. If you dislike my comments to the extent that you wish me to stop making a contribution then I suggest you just stop reading and responding to them, you manage to ignore MarkPullen easily enough. The only irrelevant contributions I have seen so far have been from you. Yes, I understand that you are seeking election to BMDC - the council you wish to see us removed from - as a candidate in Ilkley in May 2014 then you hope to seek election as the M.P. for Keighley & Ilkley in May 2015, thus abandoning your Councillor position and causing a possible re-election at a cost of around £15,000 to the tax payer. Have I got that correct?[/p][/quote]excellent point ,and as your so against district ratepayers paying for bradford council i guess you won't be taking any expenses if you got elected.[/p][/quote]He could of course remain as a councillor with BMDC and be the MP - but we all know (and even Paul does deep down) that he's not going to achieve success in the general election. Should we start a whip around now? MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen.

You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this?

My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not
an invitation for a general debate.

jimmy k

Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010?

I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader.

This is how our elective democracy works.

Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise.

As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.
Mark Pullen. You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this? My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not an invitation for a general debate. jimmy k Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010? I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader. This is how our elective democracy works. Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise. As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question. pjl20
  • Score: -1

1:05pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this?

My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not
an invitation for a general debate.

jimmy k

Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010?

I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader.

This is how our elective democracy works.

Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise.

As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.
As I have indicated previously, Paul, I own a property in the constituency and I am active within the community.

Does a candidate only switch on and off when nomination date arrives? I can assure you that your responses and comments on these pages will ensure that you fail to be elected within the area.

Will you consider answering my question if I reside in the valley or is your arrogance a permanent fixture of your personality?

Again....What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this? My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not an invitation for a general debate. jimmy k Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010? I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader. This is how our elective democracy works. Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise. As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.[/p][/quote]As I have indicated previously, Paul, I own a property in the constituency and I am active within the community. Does a candidate only switch on and off when nomination date arrives? I can assure you that your responses and comments on these pages will ensure that you fail to be elected within the area. Will you consider answering my question if I reside in the valley or is your arrogance a permanent fixture of your personality? Again....What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

1:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Katiery says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this?

My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not
an invitation for a general debate.

jimmy k

Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010?

I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader.

This is how our elective democracy works.

Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise.

As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.
You are correct, Kris Hopkins was a Councillor for Bradford MDC for many years, he lost quite a few national elections before his success in 2010.

All 90 BMDC councillors will have a pay rise, but they are not the ones stating that we need a new district council so that we are not paying for the problems in Bradford - you are.

Can I ask why you feel you will be an effective representative for the are you are standing for if you are against the very council you will be elected to represent those people on? Or is it just another UKIP grab a seat and hope scheme? I don't expect an answer though.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this? My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not an invitation for a general debate. jimmy k Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010? I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader. This is how our elective democracy works. Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise. As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.[/p][/quote]You are correct, Kris Hopkins was a Councillor for Bradford MDC for many years, he lost quite a few national elections before his success in 2010. All 90 BMDC councillors will have a pay rise, but they are not the ones stating that we need a new district council so that we are not paying for the problems in Bradford - you are. Can I ask why you feel you will be an effective representative for the are you are standing for if you are against the very council you will be elected to represent those people on? Or is it just another UKIP grab a seat and hope scheme? I don't expect an answer though. Katiery
  • Score: -1

3:00pm Thu 27 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Katiery.

Do you not follow the course of Bradford Council and the comments made by David Green, it's leader?

Your comment about the 90 councillors does not make any sense. Do you suppose that even a single one of them does the job for the small allowances being paid?

As regards why I am involved with politics. Surely this is obvious. This will be the fifth election in succession which I have stood, on May 22.

My reasons are well known, I have made this clear in several of the hustings I have participated in. Where were you on those occasions?

Your point is a naive one. Being a member of UKIP is not about 'UKIP grab a seat'. How could it be? Our recent success has been to swell our vote and national membership figures, not about taking seats. That comes on May 22 in the European and District Council elections.
Katiery. Do you not follow the course of Bradford Council and the comments made by David Green, it's leader? Your comment about the 90 councillors does not make any sense. Do you suppose that even a single one of them does the job for the small allowances being paid? As regards why I am involved with politics. Surely this is obvious. This will be the fifth election in succession which I have stood, on May 22. My reasons are well known, I have made this clear in several of the hustings I have participated in. Where were you on those occasions? Your point is a naive one. Being a member of UKIP is not about 'UKIP grab a seat'. How could it be? Our recent success has been to swell our vote and national membership figures, not about taking seats. That comes on May 22 in the European and District Council elections. pjl20
  • Score: -1

3:03pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

Paul says "As regards why I am involved with politics. Surely this is obvious. This will be the fifth election in succession which I have stood, on May 22."

How many of these have you been successful?

I'm sure those who are interested will have noted the date in their diary so no need to continue electioneering by repeating it with every comment you make!
Paul says "As regards why I am involved with politics. Surely this is obvious. This will be the fifth election in succession which I have stood, on May 22." How many of these have you been successful? I'm sure those who are interested will have noted the date in their diary so no need to continue electioneering by repeating it with every comment you make! MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Katiery says...

Now you have totally lost me pjl20. You said 'Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances?
Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise.' I agreed, as they usually get a pay rise each year.

I don't follow Dave Green's comments. What has that got to do with anything?

Elected councillors for BMDC have an annual allowance. Leaders, Portfolio holders and Whips receive an extra amount, but the rest of the councillors have the same allowance plus any expenses they claim, so many of them do the job just for the basic allowance. What point am I missing here?
Now you have totally lost me pjl20. You said 'Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise.' I agreed, as they usually get a pay rise each year. I don't follow Dave Green's comments. What has that got to do with anything? Elected councillors for BMDC have an annual allowance. Leaders, Portfolio holders and Whips receive an extra amount, but the rest of the councillors have the same allowance plus any expenses they claim, so many of them do the job just for the basic allowance. What point am I missing here? Katiery
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Katiery says...

To be honest, pjl20, I thought you had only attended one hustings and for that one I was in another country. If you attended any prior to that then I was probably too busy with my own campaigns to attend yours.
To be honest, pjl20, I thought you had only attended one hustings and for that one I was in another country. If you attended any prior to that then I was probably too busy with my own campaigns to attend yours. Katiery
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this?

My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not
an invitation for a general debate.

jimmy k

Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010?

I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader.

This is how our elective democracy works.

Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise.

As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.
whoops getting mixed up again its katiery who wrote that not me.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. You do not even live in this constituency, yet you feel you are able to berate me as a local resident and a prospective candidate. Is there not something inconsistent about this? My contribution to the comments made about this article are just that, not an invitation for a general debate. jimmy k Are you not aware that Kris Hopkins MP was a councillor and leader of Bradford MDC immediately prior to becoming elected to represent Keighly & Ilkley, in May 2010? I stood against him in that general election. But, I did not criticise him for being a candidate, despite him being a Bradford councillor and it's leader. This is how our elective democracy works. Are you aware that Bradford Council recently agreed to an increase in the councillor allowances? Yes, all 90 of them will get a pay rise. As I have yet to be elected, I am unable to answer your hypothetical question.[/p][/quote]whoops getting mixed up again its katiery who wrote that not me. jimmy k
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

pjl20 wrote:
Katiery.

Do you not follow the course of Bradford Council and the comments made by David Green, it's leader?

Your comment about the 90 councillors does not make any sense. Do you suppose that even a single one of them does the job for the small allowances being paid?

As regards why I am involved with politics. Surely this is obvious. This will be the fifth election in succession which I have stood, on May 22.

My reasons are well known, I have made this clear in several of the hustings I have participated in. Where were you on those occasions?

Your point is a naive one. Being a member of UKIP is not about 'UKIP grab a seat'. How could it be? Our recent success has been to swell our vote and national membership figures, not about taking seats. That comes on May 22 in the European and District Council elections.
right so anyone who wasn't at these hustings is not allowed to ask you any questions,glad we've got that sorted then.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Katiery. Do you not follow the course of Bradford Council and the comments made by David Green, it's leader? Your comment about the 90 councillors does not make any sense. Do you suppose that even a single one of them does the job for the small allowances being paid? As regards why I am involved with politics. Surely this is obvious. This will be the fifth election in succession which I have stood, on May 22. My reasons are well known, I have made this clear in several of the hustings I have participated in. Where were you on those occasions? Your point is a naive one. Being a member of UKIP is not about 'UKIP grab a seat'. How could it be? Our recent success has been to swell our vote and national membership figures, not about taking seats. That comes on May 22 in the European and District Council elections.[/p][/quote]right so anyone who wasn't at these hustings is not allowed to ask you any questions,glad we've got that sorted then. jimmy k
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

I'm feeling generous this afternoon and therefore can offer some support to Paul:

http://goo.gl/XpAz1x
I'm feeling generous this afternoon and therefore can offer some support to Paul: http://goo.gl/XpAz1x MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Thu 27 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen.

I am intrigued to know what it is about the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury that concerns you?

I am standing in the Ilkley ward in May and I am a prospective constituency candidate in 2015. Why should those two parishes concern me now? UKIP does have party members living within them.

The fact that you may still own property in this district does not entitle you to a vote.

The rules for qualifying for a vote are not based on property ownership any longer.

I have owned property in London, but I do not vote their, neither do i berate the residents who are standing for election in a forthcoming poll
Mark Pullen. I am intrigued to know what it is about the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury that concerns you? I am standing in the Ilkley ward in May and I am a prospective constituency candidate in 2015. Why should those two parishes concern me now? UKIP does have party members living within them. The fact that you may still own property in this district does not entitle you to a vote. The rules for qualifying for a vote are not based on property ownership any longer. I have owned property in London, but I do not vote their, neither do i berate the residents who are standing for election in a forthcoming poll pjl20
  • Score: -1

3:50pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

I am intrigued to know what it is about the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury that concerns you?

I am standing in the Ilkley ward in May and I am a prospective constituency candidate in 2015. Why should those two parishes concern me now? UKIP does have party members living within them.

The fact that you may still own property in this district does not entitle you to a vote.

The rules for qualifying for a vote are not based on property ownership any longer.

I have owned property in London, but I do not vote their, neither do i berate the residents who are standing for election in a forthcoming poll
You really don't seem to have understood why those commenting on these pages find your stance abhorrent do you?

Your own comments indicate that you'll show an interest only when, and if, you begin campaigning - by default that means you don't care about these communities at the moment.

So people - residents, homeowners, employees, employers etc - in these areas have real issues right now.

When you decide it's appropriate to care you'll have somebody do some reading up on issues and then make sweeping statements which, you'll hope, will serve your campaign.

Representing an area isn't about saying the right thing when it suits you - it's about caring and feeling enough about the issue to make the effort.

Why should anybody vote for a candidate who's expressed that it's not relevant until nearer the elections? What faith will they have in that person if they couldn't care less right now when major issues to them are taking place?

At this moment in time I am not able to vote in elections which cover my house - accepted.
When the election comes around that could be different.
Is it not wise for you to begin building relationships with organisations in advance?

You're an experienced politician - you've contested and lost a number of times - maybe the way in which you campaign and present your case is the reason for failure?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. I am intrigued to know what it is about the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury that concerns you? I am standing in the Ilkley ward in May and I am a prospective constituency candidate in 2015. Why should those two parishes concern me now? UKIP does have party members living within them. The fact that you may still own property in this district does not entitle you to a vote. The rules for qualifying for a vote are not based on property ownership any longer. I have owned property in London, but I do not vote their, neither do i berate the residents who are standing for election in a forthcoming poll[/p][/quote]You really don't seem to have understood why those commenting on these pages find your stance abhorrent do you? Your own comments indicate that you'll show an interest only when, and if, you begin campaigning - by default that means you don't care about these communities at the moment. So people - residents, homeowners, employees, employers etc - in these areas have real issues right now. When you decide it's appropriate to care you'll have somebody do some reading up on issues and then make sweeping statements which, you'll hope, will serve your campaign. Representing an area isn't about saying the right thing when it suits you - it's about caring and feeling enough about the issue to make the effort. Why should anybody vote for a candidate who's expressed that it's not relevant until nearer the elections? What faith will they have in that person if they couldn't care less right now when major issues to them are taking place? At this moment in time I am not able to vote in elections which cover my house - accepted. When the election comes around that could be different. Is it not wise for you to begin building relationships with organisations in advance? You're an experienced politician - you've contested and lost a number of times - maybe the way in which you campaign and present your case is the reason for failure? MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

MarkPullen wrote:
pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

I am intrigued to know what it is about the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury that concerns you?

I am standing in the Ilkley ward in May and I am a prospective constituency candidate in 2015. Why should those two parishes concern me now? UKIP does have party members living within them.

The fact that you may still own property in this district does not entitle you to a vote.

The rules for qualifying for a vote are not based on property ownership any longer.

I have owned property in London, but I do not vote their, neither do i berate the residents who are standing for election in a forthcoming poll
You really don't seem to have understood why those commenting on these pages find your stance abhorrent do you?

Your own comments indicate that you'll show an interest only when, and if, you begin campaigning - by default that means you don't care about these communities at the moment.

So people - residents, homeowners, employees, employers etc - in these areas have real issues right now.

When you decide it's appropriate to care you'll have somebody do some reading up on issues and then make sweeping statements which, you'll hope, will serve your campaign.

Representing an area isn't about saying the right thing when it suits you - it's about caring and feeling enough about the issue to make the effort.

Why should anybody vote for a candidate who's expressed that it's not relevant until nearer the elections? What faith will they have in that person if they couldn't care less right now when major issues to them are taking place?

At this moment in time I am not able to vote in elections which cover my house - accepted.
When the election comes around that could be different.
Is it not wise for you to begin building relationships with organisations in advance?

You're an experienced politician - you've contested and lost a number of times - maybe the way in which you campaign and present your case is the reason for failure?
hear,hear mark the man has shownthrough his comments he doesn't care a jot for the people of keighley or their concerns,and as you rightly pointed out he has openly admitted he'll care when it comes election time .its a shame because ukip sells themselves as different to the other parties,these posts prove what most of us have thought a long time ie all party politicians are as bad as one another.
[quote][p][bold]MarkPullen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. I am intrigued to know what it is about the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads & Stanbury that concerns you? I am standing in the Ilkley ward in May and I am a prospective constituency candidate in 2015. Why should those two parishes concern me now? UKIP does have party members living within them. The fact that you may still own property in this district does not entitle you to a vote. The rules for qualifying for a vote are not based on property ownership any longer. I have owned property in London, but I do not vote their, neither do i berate the residents who are standing for election in a forthcoming poll[/p][/quote]You really don't seem to have understood why those commenting on these pages find your stance abhorrent do you? Your own comments indicate that you'll show an interest only when, and if, you begin campaigning - by default that means you don't care about these communities at the moment. So people - residents, homeowners, employees, employers etc - in these areas have real issues right now. When you decide it's appropriate to care you'll have somebody do some reading up on issues and then make sweeping statements which, you'll hope, will serve your campaign. Representing an area isn't about saying the right thing when it suits you - it's about caring and feeling enough about the issue to make the effort. Why should anybody vote for a candidate who's expressed that it's not relevant until nearer the elections? What faith will they have in that person if they couldn't care less right now when major issues to them are taking place? At this moment in time I am not able to vote in elections which cover my house - accepted. When the election comes around that could be different. Is it not wise for you to begin building relationships with organisations in advance? You're an experienced politician - you've contested and lost a number of times - maybe the way in which you campaign and present your case is the reason for failure?[/p][/quote]hear,hear mark the man has shownthrough his comments he doesn't care a jot for the people of keighley or their concerns,and as you rightly pointed out he has openly admitted he'll care when it comes election time .its a shame because ukip sells themselves as different to the other parties,these posts prove what most of us have thought a long time ie all party politicians are as bad as one another. jimmy k
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

jimmy k

You surely have some odd logic.

I have never met you and you are not aware of mine or my party's policies. Yet you have made conclusions based upon your own comments.

I have already told you that we have party members throughout the Keighley & Ilkley constituency area.

You will shortly find out who it is that will be standing in the ward where you live for the Bradford MDC election on May 22. It won't be me, it will be a local resident. This is how local elections work.

Do you have a problem understanding this?

I shall be one of very few people in 2015 who will be standing in the constituency in which they have lived for over 30 years. Now that is unusual.
jimmy k You surely have some odd logic. I have never met you and you are not aware of mine or my party's policies. Yet you have made conclusions based upon your own comments. I have already told you that we have party members throughout the Keighley & Ilkley constituency area. You will shortly find out who it is that will be standing in the ward where you live for the Bradford MDC election on May 22. It won't be me, it will be a local resident. This is how local elections work. Do you have a problem understanding this? I shall be one of very few people in 2015 who will be standing in the constituency in which they have lived for over 30 years. Now that is unusual. pjl20
  • Score: -2

4:44pm Thu 27 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
jimmy k

You surely have some odd logic.

I have never met you and you are not aware of mine or my party's policies. Yet you have made conclusions based upon your own comments.

I have already told you that we have party members throughout the Keighley & Ilkley constituency area.

You will shortly find out who it is that will be standing in the ward where you live for the Bradford MDC election on May 22. It won't be me, it will be a local resident. This is how local elections work.

Do you have a problem understanding this?

I shall be one of very few people in 2015 who will be standing in the constituency in which they have lived for over 30 years. Now that is unusual.
You're a star Paul - a real credit to your party and profession.

A true hero of the ballot box.

I can read the headlines in June 2015 - "7 times and still not elected"
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: jimmy k You surely have some odd logic. I have never met you and you are not aware of mine or my party's policies. Yet you have made conclusions based upon your own comments. I have already told you that we have party members throughout the Keighley & Ilkley constituency area. You will shortly find out who it is that will be standing in the ward where you live for the Bradford MDC election on May 22. It won't be me, it will be a local resident. This is how local elections work. Do you have a problem understanding this? I shall be one of very few people in 2015 who will be standing in the constituency in which they have lived for over 30 years. Now that is unusual.[/p][/quote]You're a star Paul - a real credit to your party and profession. A true hero of the ballot box. I can read the headlines in June 2015 - "7 times and still not elected" MarkPullen
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 27 Feb 14

jimmy k says...

pjl20 wrote:
jimmy k

You surely have some odd logic.

I have never met you and you are not aware of mine or my party's policies. Yet you have made conclusions based upon your own comments.

I have already told you that we have party members throughout the Keighley & Ilkley constituency area.

You will shortly find out who it is that will be standing in the ward where you live for the Bradford MDC election on May 22. It won't be me, it will be a local resident. This is how local elections work.

Do you have a problem understanding this?

I shall be one of very few people in 2015 who will be standing in the constituency in which they have lived for over 30 years. Now that is unusual.
how do you know you've never met me?
how do you know i'm not aware of your parties policies?
there you go again making assumptions about me based on absolutely nothing.all you have done on these threads is have a go at other politicians,but when someone asks you a question you either a,insult them,
or b,bleat on about not being a candidate yet,at least your more honest then other politicians they try and hide their disdane for the voters.
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: jimmy k You surely have some odd logic. I have never met you and you are not aware of mine or my party's policies. Yet you have made conclusions based upon your own comments. I have already told you that we have party members throughout the Keighley & Ilkley constituency area. You will shortly find out who it is that will be standing in the ward where you live for the Bradford MDC election on May 22. It won't be me, it will be a local resident. This is how local elections work. Do you have a problem understanding this? I shall be one of very few people in 2015 who will be standing in the constituency in which they have lived for over 30 years. Now that is unusual.[/p][/quote]how do you know you've never met me? how do you know i'm not aware of your parties policies? there you go again making assumptions about me based on absolutely nothing.all you have done on these threads is have a go at other politicians,but when someone asks you a question you either a,insult them, or b,bleat on about not being a candidate yet,at least your more honest then other politicians they try and hide their disdane for the voters. jimmy k
  • Score: 0

5:24pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Katiery says...

I'm still waiting for a response to my comments pjl20...

Why should the fact that you have members in most wards be of interest to someone who was asking for your views?

Most people do make decisions based on the comments they read. You have just ensured that all UKIP candidates will be viewed with suspicion should they come to the door campaigning.

Being local to an area IS an important consideration when choosing who to vote for for the M.P, but equally, so is being approachable, knowing and caring about the area and listening to the electorates views. So far you have proved that you only comply with one of those four considerations.
I'm still waiting for a response to my comments pjl20... Why should the fact that you have members in most wards be of interest to someone who was asking for your views? Most people do make decisions based on the comments they read. You have just ensured that all UKIP candidates will be viewed with suspicion should they come to the door campaigning. Being local to an area IS an important consideration when choosing who to vote for for the M.P, but equally, so is being approachable, knowing and caring about the area and listening to the electorates views. So far you have proved that you only comply with one of those four considerations. Katiery
  • Score: -2

10:48am Fri 28 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen
jimmy k
Katiery

You can reflect upon this.

The UKIP Spring Conference takes place today and tomorrow, down in Torquay. Listen on radio or look in on TV and you will find out more about our party policies.

I have no intention of disclosing confidential info until the Policy Manifesto is published.

You may find this terribly frustrating and not to your own likings, but there it is. Wait with bated breath.

As for our local membership. Why does this matter? Because we shall be putting up party candidates through the district on May 22nd. You will be able to ask them what their plans and polices are locally and read about their message on campaign material. I shall be doing so in Ilkley ward.

This is how an elective democracy works in our country.

I see that Mark Pullen has awarded me a star for effort. He is also right. I don't give up!

Mr Pullen, do you take an active interest in the politics of the area in which you live. Do you know who it is that represents my party in your area too?
Mark Pullen jimmy k Katiery You can reflect upon this. The UKIP Spring Conference takes place today and tomorrow, down in Torquay. Listen on radio or look in on TV and you will find out more about our party policies. I have no intention of disclosing confidential info until the Policy Manifesto is published. You may find this terribly frustrating and not to your own likings, but there it is. Wait with bated breath. As for our local membership. Why does this matter? Because we shall be putting up party candidates through the district on May 22nd. You will be able to ask them what their plans and polices are locally and read about their message on campaign material. I shall be doing so in Ilkley ward. This is how an elective democracy works in our country. I see that Mark Pullen has awarded me a star for effort. He is also right. I don't give up! Mr Pullen, do you take an active interest in the politics of the area in which you live. Do you know who it is that represents my party in your area too? pjl20
  • Score: -1

11:03am Fri 28 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen
jimmy k
Katiery

You can reflect upon this.

The UKIP Spring Conference takes place today and tomorrow, down in Torquay. Listen on radio or look in on TV and you will find out more about our party policies.

I have no intention of disclosing confidential info until the Policy Manifesto is published.

You may find this terribly frustrating and not to your own likings, but there it is. Wait with bated breath.

As for our local membership. Why does this matter? Because we shall be putting up party candidates through the district on May 22nd. You will be able to ask them what their plans and polices are locally and read about their message on campaign material. I shall be doing so in Ilkley ward.

This is how an elective democracy works in our country.

I see that Mark Pullen has awarded me a star for effort. He is also right. I don't give up!

Mr Pullen, do you take an active interest in the politics of the area in which you live. Do you know who it is that represents my party in your area too?
Thanks for the reply Paul, I assume that you'll be a little quieter if attending the conference this weekend.

You, yet again, miss the whole point of the comments being raised - this isn't about party politics and manifesto items but about the person wishing to represent the area.

You often refer to those from Ukip/UKIP who are active in the area of the upper Worth Valley but there are none who engage with the parish councils.
How active is that?!?
The district councillors make the effort - though meetings do clash with some held at BMDC.

What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury?

Sweeping, headline grabbing, statements that aren't backed up by evidence of engagement are more than a little damp and lacking - time to man up and really show that you want to be the chosen one.
Don't worry - my position doesn't rely on any ballot box so I can continue for as long as I feel necessary. Will you?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen jimmy k Katiery You can reflect upon this. The UKIP Spring Conference takes place today and tomorrow, down in Torquay. Listen on radio or look in on TV and you will find out more about our party policies. I have no intention of disclosing confidential info until the Policy Manifesto is published. You may find this terribly frustrating and not to your own likings, but there it is. Wait with bated breath. As for our local membership. Why does this matter? Because we shall be putting up party candidates through the district on May 22nd. You will be able to ask them what their plans and polices are locally and read about their message on campaign material. I shall be doing so in Ilkley ward. This is how an elective democracy works in our country. I see that Mark Pullen has awarded me a star for effort. He is also right. I don't give up! Mr Pullen, do you take an active interest in the politics of the area in which you live. Do you know who it is that represents my party in your area too?[/p][/quote]Thanks for the reply Paul, I assume that you'll be a little quieter if attending the conference this weekend. You, yet again, miss the whole point of the comments being raised - this isn't about party politics and manifesto items but about the person wishing to represent the area. You often refer to those from Ukip/UKIP who are active in the area of the upper Worth Valley but there are none who engage with the parish councils. How active is that?!? The district councillors make the effort - though meetings do clash with some held at BMDC. What level of engagement do you have, or have had, with the two parish councils in Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads, and Stanbury? Sweeping, headline grabbing, statements that aren't backed up by evidence of engagement are more than a little damp and lacking - time to man up and really show that you want to be the chosen one. Don't worry - my position doesn't rely on any ballot box so I can continue for as long as I feel necessary. Will you? MarkPullen
  • Score: -1

11:28am Fri 28 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen.

Sorry to say Mark, that even if elected I won't be representing you, as you no longer live in this district.

Why would I have any immediate need to visit the parish council's of Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads and Stanbury?

We shall have members who will be standing in the May 22 election, one of whom will live in one the villages that form part of the Worth Valley ward. Why not also ask Kris Hopkins MP how many of those parish council meetings he attends?

I regularly attend Ilkley parish council meetings, as I shall be standing in this district for the Ilkley ward, as I have advised you.

I became the PPC for Keighley & Ilkley on Aug, 31st last. I have attended several KTC meetings since then. As my part of my party responsibilities in the Yorkshire Dales, I have chaired several meetings in that area. I have also campaigned across the whole area, using our party gazebo in the summer/autumn period. I have appeared in public in Keighley and in Ilkley during campaigning and have answered questions asked of me on a face-to-face basis, by local residents.

So what is the nature of your complaint, as a non-resident of the district?
Mark Pullen. Sorry to say Mark, that even if elected I won't be representing you, as you no longer live in this district. Why would I have any immediate need to visit the parish council's of Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads and Stanbury? We shall have members who will be standing in the May 22 election, one of whom will live in one the villages that form part of the Worth Valley ward. Why not also ask Kris Hopkins MP how many of those parish council meetings he attends? I regularly attend Ilkley parish council meetings, as I shall be standing in this district for the Ilkley ward, as I have advised you. I became the PPC for Keighley & Ilkley on Aug, 31st last. I have attended several KTC meetings since then. As my part of my party responsibilities in the Yorkshire Dales, I have chaired several meetings in that area. I have also campaigned across the whole area, using our party gazebo in the summer/autumn period. I have appeared in public in Keighley and in Ilkley during campaigning and have answered questions asked of me on a face-to-face basis, by local residents. So what is the nature of your complaint, as a non-resident of the district? pjl20
  • Score: -1

12:14pm Fri 28 Feb 14

MarkPullen says...

pjl20 wrote:
Mark Pullen.

Sorry to say Mark, that even if elected I won't be representing you, as you no longer live in this district.

Why would I have any immediate need to visit the parish council's of Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads and Stanbury?

We shall have members who will be standing in the May 22 election, one of whom will live in one the villages that form part of the Worth Valley ward. Why not also ask Kris Hopkins MP how many of those parish council meetings he attends?

I regularly attend Ilkley parish council meetings, as I shall be standing in this district for the Ilkley ward, as I have advised you.

I became the PPC for Keighley & Ilkley on Aug, 31st last. I have attended several KTC meetings since then. As my part of my party responsibilities in the Yorkshire Dales, I have chaired several meetings in that area. I have also campaigned across the whole area, using our party gazebo in the summer/autumn period. I have appeared in public in Keighley and in Ilkley during campaigning and have answered questions asked of me on a face-to-face basis, by local residents.

So what is the nature of your complaint, as a non-resident of the district?
I'm sure you will be happy to justify the fact that your colleagues who intend to stand on the 22nd May have also failed to attend any of the PC meetings in the Worth Valley.

You are also making the assumption that whilst I don't live in the BD22 area at present it's totally fine to alienate me as a potential resident.

I can tell you why I would want to begin engaging with local organisations if I was considering standing as their MP - to understand the issues that are important to residents, homeowners, employees, and employers. How can you possibly justify selecting this constituency without understanding the area?

I'm probably not the only person who sees you as an opportunist fraudster Paul.

Your selective comments betray your wish to avoid positive engagement.

You have failed on 5 occasions, to date, to be elected - maybe it's time to take the hint?

I seem to recall the gazebo tour wasn't exactly welcomed by the authorities - I'm sure you'll be prepared to remind us of this.

I can advise you that I have met with Kris on a number of occasions - at PC meetings and other events. He's always been supportive and has offered assistance in recent times when I approached him on a number of community issues.

So have you attended any parish council meetings in the upper Worth Valley? Yes or No?

I'm surprised that the PC in Ilkley still welcome you after your push to see them abolished in 2012!
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: Mark Pullen. Sorry to say Mark, that even if elected I won't be representing you, as you no longer live in this district. Why would I have any immediate need to visit the parish council's of Oxenhope, Haworth, Cross Roads and Stanbury? We shall have members who will be standing in the May 22 election, one of whom will live in one the villages that form part of the Worth Valley ward. Why not also ask Kris Hopkins MP how many of those parish council meetings he attends? I regularly attend Ilkley parish council meetings, as I shall be standing in this district for the Ilkley ward, as I have advised you. I became the PPC for Keighley & Ilkley on Aug, 31st last. I have attended several KTC meetings since then. As my part of my party responsibilities in the Yorkshire Dales, I have chaired several meetings in that area. I have also campaigned across the whole area, using our party gazebo in the summer/autumn period. I have appeared in public in Keighley and in Ilkley during campaigning and have answered questions asked of me on a face-to-face basis, by local residents. So what is the nature of your complaint, as a non-resident of the district?[/p][/quote]I'm sure you will be happy to justify the fact that your colleagues who intend to stand on the 22nd May have also failed to attend any of the PC meetings in the Worth Valley. You are also making the assumption that whilst I don't live in the BD22 area at present it's totally fine to alienate me as a potential resident. I can tell you why I would want to begin engaging with local organisations if I was considering standing as their MP - to understand the issues that are important to residents, homeowners, employees, and employers. How can you possibly justify selecting this constituency without understanding the area? I'm probably not the only person who sees you as an opportunist fraudster Paul. Your selective comments betray your wish to avoid positive engagement. You have failed on 5 occasions, to date, to be elected - maybe it's time to take the hint? I seem to recall the gazebo tour wasn't exactly welcomed by the authorities - I'm sure you'll be prepared to remind us of this. I can advise you that I have met with Kris on a number of occasions - at PC meetings and other events. He's always been supportive and has offered assistance in recent times when I approached him on a number of community issues. So have you attended any parish council meetings in the upper Worth Valley? Yes or No? I'm surprised that the PC in Ilkley still welcome you after your push to see them abolished in 2012! MarkPullen
  • Score: -2

12:24pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Katiery says...

Having a candidate in many of the wards for the Council elections does not answer the questions of how you - the UKIP Keighley & Ilkley PPC - feel about the area and it's problems. Yes, we can ask the BMDC UKIP candidate what their policies are, but those would be policies for local issues, not national issues. Councillors cannot make or change decisions in Government however much they may promise they will do so.

I have no idea which part of the 'whole area' you have previously campaigned in. Certainly no area close to me as I have never seen you or UKIP out and about.

Here's hoping that the Spring Conference will be decisive and that UKIP will let us have a clue what their policies nationally will be soon, then we can resume the discussion about how the UKIP PPC for Keighley feels about the area in which he is standing. I won't be watching, I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. I got fed up of all the media lies and spin years ago.
Having a candidate in many of the wards for the Council elections does not answer the questions of how you - the UKIP Keighley & Ilkley PPC - feel about the area and it's problems. Yes, we can ask the BMDC UKIP candidate what their policies are, but those would be policies for local issues, not national issues. Councillors cannot make or change decisions in Government however much they may promise they will do so. I have no idea which part of the 'whole area' you have previously campaigned in. Certainly no area close to me as I have never seen you or UKIP out and about. Here's hoping that the Spring Conference will be decisive and that UKIP will let us have a clue what their policies nationally will be soon, then we can resume the discussion about how the UKIP PPC for Keighley feels about the area in which he is standing. I won't be watching, I don't watch TV or listen to the radio. I got fed up of all the media lies and spin years ago. Katiery
  • Score: -2

2:26pm Fri 28 Feb 14

pjl20 says...

Mark Pullen
Katiery

I think that your criticism is coming a little too early don't you, upon reflection?

Have you seen ANY political candidate out campaigning recently in Keighley or the local district? Campaigning has yet to get seriously under way.

Katiery. I believe I met you in April 2010, in the village where you live, when I was campaigning as a candidate.

I have set up and campaigned outside of Morrisons Superstore and also opposite the town hall with my team of supporters on Oct.31st. We received an excellent response.

As regards national policies. Have you seen a published manifesto from any one of the political parties yet?

I do hope that you are also writing to the other candidates asking for this information.

We have circulated 100,000 copies of our mini-manifestos in the Y&NL Region since last summer.
Mark Pullen Katiery I think that your criticism is coming a little too early don't you, upon reflection? Have you seen ANY political candidate out campaigning recently in Keighley or the local district? Campaigning has yet to get seriously under way. Katiery. I believe I met you in April 2010, in the village where you live, when I was campaigning as a candidate. I have set up and campaigned outside of Morrisons Superstore and also opposite the town hall with my team of supporters on Oct.31st. We received an excellent response. As regards national policies. Have you seen a published manifesto from any one of the political parties yet? I do hope that you are also writing to the other candidates asking for this information. We have circulated 100,000 copies of our mini-manifestos in the Y&NL Region since last summer. pjl20
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree