send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.

Sunday, 13 April 2014


Click to enlarge
The proposed Mansion Tax will destroy the lives of income poor Borough residents.
Most bought their property years ago. 
Thanks to Vince Cable they will be forced from their homes and the Borough. 
And the beneficiary? 
More buyers using dirty off shore money. 
They will now be able to pick up those long term residents' properties 'on the cheap', at fire sale prices.
The money raised by this stupid tax will be minimal. 
It will hardly compare to the £2 billion lost by that economic genius Cable through miss-pricing Royal Mail.
Again, not a word from the ludicrous Lib Dem trio on our council....probably too busy trying to grasp a Leader's Allowance.

In Touch circulating in Stanley Ward has Cockell and his crew perpetuating the blatant lie a Conservative council would be able to kill off the tax....
What a bunch of liars: they will have nil influence on the introduction of this tax...
But maybe this is what Cockell calls a 'political lie'. 
Cockell should be called to account and asked to substantiate his extraordinary claim. 
But good to see he now supports the Royal Marsden!


  1. Like the way he lied about not using the Bentley. Now trying to con people he can stop Mansion tax...what a jerk

    1. Political rhetoric, dear boy. Pooter Cockle excels at political rhetoric

  2. Cockell only supports the Marsden now because he was forced into that position by the Chelsea Independents. He has been given a dispensation by Chief Whip Ahern to go against the party policy, which is to back Royal Brompton.

  3. Labour and the Lib Dems believe that additional council tax bands are more equitable than the so-called mansion tax. It is patently unfair that a £3 million home attracts the same council tax as a £20+ million palace. Such a change will disproportionally impact K and C and Westminster residents. It is the inevitable result of decades of collusion between the Council and property developers to make west central London a place fit only for super wealthy non doms. It's also the fault of those who vote for them decade after decade.

    Perhaps those able to prove home ownership prior to K & C being sold to Mammon, will be excluded from the council tax rise.

    1. We actually need:

      1. Regular re-evaluations of property values. If Johnny Foreigner across the channel can manage to review property values once a year there's no reason the "wonderful" UK government, local or central, can't either.

      2. Ditch bands. Set Council taxes at a percentage set at a level designed to achieve a pre-determined income stream. In other words: if the Council needs £x million, set the percentage at a level designed to bring in £x million in Council tax. Given the extreme price of some property in the borough even ye olde lady in a £2 million home is likely to end up paying less than they are now.

      Note for the thick: percentages can include very small numbers. For example. if the percentage were set at say 0.0004% of the notional property value someone living in a £2 million house will be paying £800. Whilst someone in a £30 million house will pay £12,000. Much fairer than the current situation where both are paying exactly the same amount.

  4. Labour and the Lib Dems support a tax on new homes? Really? The Conservative party clearly require a decent headline writer and a good proof-reader.

  5. This Motion was voted and passed at full council last year, The Labour and Lib dims voted against. What is more they asked for they names to be recorded against the motion.

    This Council recognises that property taxes exhibit a serious defect: the people taxed often do not have the income to afford a tax bill that reflects the current value of their home. The Council resolves to campaign against both a £2m Mansion Tax and a revaluation of the Council Tax Bands that would impose heavy and often unaffordable local property tax burdens on our residents.”

    1. That motion presupposes that the current situation is the best that could ever be achieved. It clearly isn't. It is grossly unfair. Just how ridiculously unfair? Well every tax payer living in a home valued at £320,000 (1990 values) pays the same amount of Council tax. Is this really the best we can do?

      There are better ways to provide the local authority with a guaranteed income stream that can accurately take into account the value of property. That the Tory party repeatedly tries to suggest otherwise indicates they are much more mindful of the oligarch in his £30 million mansion than ye olde lady living in a £2 million house she bought for a couple of grand 50 years ago.

    2. At the moment hundreds of families are dependent on Council Tax Benefit (or equivalent) to be able to afford to pay their Council Tax precisely because their income is too low.

      The situation will be exactly the same under any new regime - there will always be people whose income is too low to be able to afford to pay the tax in full themselves (just as now). Those people can apply for a rebate or dispensation. Hardly rocket science.

  6. It's a total mess, but it is outrageous that the most valuable homes in K and C pay no more council tax than fairly ordinary flats. There is the problem of those who bought their homes long ago and can ill afford to pay higher council tax. Perhaps a solution would be for the higher council tax to be imposed on newly sold properties. Those paying £5 million for a house can afford a few thousand a year council tax, while those selling their main homes pay no capital gains tax.

  7. Judging by the rest of the leaflet, local Tories have very little to say about anything.


Comments are your responsibility. Anyone posting inappropriate comments shall have their comment removed and will be banned from posting in future. Your IP address may also be recorded and reported. Persistent abuse shall mean comments will be severely restricted in future.