Rutland Rose Winter Edition 2015 Rutland Labour
A publication never before delivered to my door.
.jpg)
.jpg)
A publication never before delivered to my door.
Yesterday a leaflet titled Rutland Rose arrived from the Rutland and Melton Labour Party. Rutland Business Rate Issue?
Yesterday a leaflet titled Rutland Rose arrived from the Rutland and Melton Labour Party.
Yes apparently there is a Labour Party here in Rutland, they wake up during the spring of the general election year then they hibernate until the next election. I say that because they never stand candidates in by-elections here in Rutland County Council Elections and they may find one person to fight a contest at the time of the general election.
Their leaflet is very glossy showing the Labour parliamentary candidate standing outside a empty
double fronted shop here in Oakham, the premises recently vacated by a large gambling chain. The
photo is used to support a false claim about business rates effecting independent shops, in Oakham and Uppingham. To be fair the shop shown does have a large rateable value and
there are other examples along the high street. The major issue for independents in Oakham
is more the issue of high rents.
I am not one to support our rotten Tory Council but it is a fact here in Oakham and Uppingham if you are a small independent trading in either town most don't pay any rates.
Businesses in Rutland who have just one property can claim 100% Rate Relief if their premises have a rateable value of less than £6,000 – meaning there would be no rates to pay. There are various reductions if they have a higher rateable value.
And if you are a successful independent trader and been around since 2010 you can claim back
all you have paid between then and now.
It would be fair to say that larger business pay more but that is the same all over the country
This is a mandatory relief scheme which is self-funding; it does not cost the Council. All relief is recovered each year by way of a supplement on the rates paid by larger companies.
A small expanding business can now also open a second shop and receive a 12 month rebate on that property. After that they have to pay full business rate on the second property.
Yes apparently there is a Labour Party here in Rutland, they wake up during the spring of the general election year then they hibernate until the next election. I say that because they never stand candidates in by-elections here in Rutland County Council Elections and they may find one person to fight a contest at the time of the general election.
Their leaflet is very glossy showing the Labour parliamentary candidate standing outside a empty
double fronted shop here in Oakham, the premises recently vacated by a large gambling chain. The
photo is used to support a false claim about business rates effecting independent shops, in Oakham and Uppingham. To be fair the shop shown does have a large rateable value and
there are other examples along the high street. The major issue for independents in Oakham
is more the issue of high rents.
I am not one to support our rotten Tory Council but it is a fact here in Oakham and Uppingham if you are a small independent trading in either town most don't pay any rates.
Businesses in Rutland who have just one property can claim 100% Rate Relief if their premises have a rateable value of less than £6,000 – meaning there would be no rates to pay. There are various reductions if they have a higher rateable value.
And if you are a successful independent trader and been around since 2010 you can claim back
all you have paid between then and now.
It would be fair to say that larger business pay more but that is the same all over the country
This is a mandatory relief scheme which is self-funding; it does not cost the Council. All relief is recovered each year by way of a supplement on the rates paid by larger companies.
A small expanding business can now also open a second shop and receive a 12 month rebate on that property. After that they have to pay full business rate on the second property.
Labour mention their Fire campaign and how it continues to protect Rutland's Fire Service in a leaflet delivered this week.
Labour mention their Fire campaign and how it continues to protect Rutland's Fire Service
in a leaflet delivered this week.
They refer to retaining the second appliance at Oakham.
I attended a very poor scrutiny meeting at Rutland County Council and the
Fire Officer said the main reason they are considering removing the
appliance is because they can not recruit enough retained staff to run it.
This could explain why the station manager is also a retained officer. Pay must be poor
because like many other officers he also ran his own business.
I find the double taxation option by Rutland Tories suggesting the council fund it at
a cost of £75,000 a year, over the next two years rather daft. Who will operate it
the Chief Fire Officer has said publicly it is often not available due to lack of staff.
I hope Labour are not supporting Rutland County Council offer to pay.
There is a lot of scaremongering about the state of Leicestershire and Rutland Fire Service.
It can cope without this appliance, Of course like all local people I am very grateful and very supportive of our Fire Officers. Although I believe the real issue here is not the loss of the engine
it's the loss of retained crew who are paid and the loss of additional pay to those who are
full time and retained. Like the Station Manager who is also one of our newest Town Councillors.
Recently the chairman of the fire authority reported at a full Rutland County Council meeting
and we learned that the Uppingham Appliance was not available when the large fire broke
out in Pillings Road Oakham just before Christmas. The reason the entire station is manned by
a retained crew and none were available so the appliance was logged out of the system. Just like the
police the fire service can call in support from neighbours when required. So we were assured the fire service can and do the same. Oakham, Uppingham or any Rutland Village would not suffer.
The Chair of the fire authority explained how other towns and counties assisted at the December fire
He also explained how empty stations like Oakham received an appliance from another area to cover
the town and surrounding areas whilst crews were busy at Pillings Road.
Something the man who wrote to Rutland Times should remember when he made the daft comment that it would be unfair for him and others to pay for the additional appliance at Oakham, He suggested Oakham Town Council should pay. Oakham Fire Station is its name, I wonder if the Pilton letter writer realises where a fire crew might come from if there were a fire in Pilton?
He is correct to say it is unfair for all tax payers to go along with Rutland County Councils
proposal to fund an engine that may not have a crew, because the tax payer already
pays for it their council tax bill.
If Rutland County Council do pay, what part of their budget is going to be cut?
Last year we saw them cut £11,000 from Rutland County Library here in Oakham
because they are so cash poor? £75,000 could see a lot more service cuts and I wonder
if this payment would even be lawful.
The letter also write about local BBC propaganda. Any cut in public service is news
worthy. I myself have seen posters and leaflet all containing cropped images showing
two appliances at Oakham, If you walk past and look there are three so I find it all
a little confusing and politics is playing a big part in this why else would Roger Begys
team be able to find funding to pay for the second engine just before an election?
in a leaflet delivered this week.
They refer to retaining the second appliance at Oakham.
I attended a very poor scrutiny meeting at Rutland County Council and the
Fire Officer said the main reason they are considering removing the
appliance is because they can not recruit enough retained staff to run it.
This could explain why the station manager is also a retained officer. Pay must be poor
because like many other officers he also ran his own business.
I find the double taxation option by Rutland Tories suggesting the council fund it at
a cost of £75,000 a year, over the next two years rather daft. Who will operate it
the Chief Fire Officer has said publicly it is often not available due to lack of staff.
I hope Labour are not supporting Rutland County Council offer to pay.
There is a lot of scaremongering about the state of Leicestershire and Rutland Fire Service.
It can cope without this appliance, Of course like all local people I am very grateful and very supportive of our Fire Officers. Although I believe the real issue here is not the loss of the engine
it's the loss of retained crew who are paid and the loss of additional pay to those who are
full time and retained. Like the Station Manager who is also one of our newest Town Councillors.
Recently the chairman of the fire authority reported at a full Rutland County Council meeting
and we learned that the Uppingham Appliance was not available when the large fire broke
out in Pillings Road Oakham just before Christmas. The reason the entire station is manned by
a retained crew and none were available so the appliance was logged out of the system. Just like the
police the fire service can call in support from neighbours when required. So we were assured the fire service can and do the same. Oakham, Uppingham or any Rutland Village would not suffer.
The Chair of the fire authority explained how other towns and counties assisted at the December fire
He also explained how empty stations like Oakham received an appliance from another area to cover
the town and surrounding areas whilst crews were busy at Pillings Road.
Something the man who wrote to Rutland Times should remember when he made the daft comment that it would be unfair for him and others to pay for the additional appliance at Oakham, He suggested Oakham Town Council should pay. Oakham Fire Station is its name, I wonder if the Pilton letter writer realises where a fire crew might come from if there were a fire in Pilton?
He is correct to say it is unfair for all tax payers to go along with Rutland County Councils
proposal to fund an engine that may not have a crew, because the tax payer already
pays for it their council tax bill.
If Rutland County Council do pay, what part of their budget is going to be cut?
Last year we saw them cut £11,000 from Rutland County Library here in Oakham
because they are so cash poor? £75,000 could see a lot more service cuts and I wonder
if this payment would even be lawful.
The letter also write about local BBC propaganda. Any cut in public service is news
worthy. I myself have seen posters and leaflet all containing cropped images showing
two appliances at Oakham, If you walk past and look there are three so I find it all
a little confusing and politics is playing a big part in this why else would Roger Begys
team be able to find funding to pay for the second engine just before an election?
