The council was democratically elected.

Only part of the point about this is that its probably very simple to drive a double decker bus through most of the on-the-hoof policies so recently introduced - the way it seems to work now is that some "think tank" of reactionary buffoons are locked in a room and told not to come out until they've thought of a way to extract blood from a stone, when released some time later they've come up with a list of suggestions, some more barmy than the others, which are then tested by "leaking" to certain members of the press - the ones that don't result in protest marches down Whitehall get quickly written into legislation and they sort out the legality of it all sometime later when challenges are made in the courts.

Only part of that last paragraph was sarcastic.

Nice one.

I look forward to his reply and back pedal.

Just thought I'd check out Councillor Andersons ward, turns out that he lives very close to me and the area that he represents is, how can I say this, not exactly over-endowed with council house tenants, there are some its true but its fair to say that his area of representation is not exactly deprived inner city, more "the Kensington of Leeds" (if only to set an image in your mind).

Coincidentally his ward is fully contained within the bounds of Greg Mulholland's Parliamentary constituency...

Question asked ... wait for reply

See tax legislation and PWC for more details...

Edited for accuracy

Loopholes?
If you want to surcharge for extra bedrooms, surely you need to define what constitutes a bedroom?
In the case of Leeds, they are merely saying that if it's too small to be a bedroom, it's not a bedroom.
Anyway, it's in Leeds ... do you live there?

This government is THE worst I can remember for coming up with ideas that are basically unworkable or even down right illegal (Mrs May leading the way on that one). At least under Thatcher while you might disagree with what they were doing they gave the impression of basic competence. And when they did screw up it was still a time where ministers resigned!

IDS will when he appears before that committee just do his usual and shout louder.

God knows what would have happened had he won an election when he was leader of the Tory party.

I would disagree however with the notion that it is deliberate that things progress as you say where they legislate and then sort out the legalities afterwards. I really do believe that they do not think things through and it is basic incompetence that leaves them open to legal challenge.

IDS and Co certainly have an agenda IMO and it is a nasty one but I don't think they are competent enough to see their own legislation through without being caught out.

I've told the story before, but ticking on for two years ago, when negotiations were taking place with government over its planned changed to the public service pensions schemes, the lead government negotiators were Francis Maude and Danny Alexander.

The various unions had balloted for industrial action on the issue and, having received the results, were busy setting dates etc.

The government suggested that they delay the date of any action. It was explained to them that, under employment legislation that had been enacted by Conservative administrations of yore, this could not be done. Action has to be taken within a set, limited time after the result of any ballot (30 days, IIRC), or there has to be a new ballot (a costly exercise).

Mr Maude, who is a lawyer apparently, suggested that they could 'suspend' the law for a week or so.

It was suggested to him that you cannot just 'suspend' law when convenient.

He sent away a civil servant to check.

The civil servant returned to confirm that no, you cannot simply 'suspend' a law when it takes your fancy.

This is the stuff of [iThe Thick of It[/i.

Armando Iannucci must've thought all his birthdays had come at once when this bunch came to power. He should be eternally grateful for them writing his scripts on his behalf. Talk about life imitating art

Nah, Major, Blair and brown were all capable of coming up with some poor legislation, they were just better at putting a coat of gloss on it.

I don't think any of those governments had to actually back track on their legislation or rush out amendments anything like as often as this one which was the point I was making. Things like selling off woodlands and the pasty tax spring to mind.

All those governments enacted poor legislation but at least they seemed to know how to do it!

I don't recall them having a vote of no confidence in their own Queens' speech either.
Or having to enlist the opposition to push a bill through that they couldn't get support for in their own party.
Bloody hopeless.
No wonder they haven't won a majority in a general election for two decades.