"Vindictive" Lakenham campaign run by UKIP

C_steam · 16-08-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

I see some still have reading issues.

I see some still have politeness issues.

learn to debate.

Bob FM · 16-08-2008, 07:24 PM

So I got it the wrong way round. Amazing how everything posted becomes bash UKIP. As I understand it our local authority policy is to retain all rates generated including Non Domestic. This issue goes well beyond development land, it includes empty pubs and the like. Pubco's will just simply sell off difficult pubs for change of use and pull them down. For the record it's an increase of 3%, not 10%, 'Today 13% of commercial buildings are lying empty, an increase on 10% a year ago'

chikrodah · 16-08-2008, 07:50 PM

My apologies, Bob, for misreading 'on' as 'of'.

However, you didn't "get it the wrong way round", if you're referring to the name of the Federation concerned. You posted the wrong name completely, one which, when googled, could not produce relevant results.

If you want pub chains to stop selling off pubs, something I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way, then that is worthy of a campaign. The problem is, pub chains have been selling off pubs for years, even with 50% rate rebates on the empty properties. There are a great number of housing estates in the Midlands that used to be a large "estate pub" and its carpark and garden. It's quite likely that the nearest "estate pub" to me will go the same way.

The Federation you are dealing with includes, as one of its members, Annington Homes. Annington, famous for owning the deteriorating MOD housing stock, is, IIRC, part-owned by Nomura Bank, which bought the Inntrepreneur chain of pubs in the late '90s before selling them on as it realised that the quick profit it got from borrowing against a large base of stable rents had all but dried up. A lot of those pubs got sold to the highest bidder in the early 2000s. Those highest bidders tended to be the speculative property developers you are now campaigning alongside.

I'm not "bashing UKIP". I'm simply asking the sort of questions that any interviewer or political commentator would ask. Labour is on the ropes. Airtime will be given to the articulate politicos with documented examples and unassailable facts. Consider this forum as a proving ground for your PPC interviews; if you can answer forum members clearly and concisely, you'll do well at hustings and adversarial interviews.

SponPlague · 16-08-2008, 07:51 PM

From UKIPs 2008 local elections manifesto:

Quote:

Give local councils majority control over their finances by letting them keep local business rates and by replacing VAT with a simpler Local Sales Tax, with a proportion going direct to local councils.

SponPlague · 16-08-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

Consider this forum as a proving ground for your PPC interviews; if you can answer forum members clearly and concisely, you'll do well at hustings and adversarial interviews.

Well said!

Bob FM · 17-08-2008, 07:41 AM

Thank you for your concerns, however I have no difficulty communicating in the real world. I am fully aware of the history of the pub industry, I have delivered a number of talks on the history of the industry as well as been actively involved in the various conflicts in the Industry for over 25 years. As for pub sales/closures. Closures have increased massively over the last 13 months, from 206 in 2007 to a huge 1500 in 2008. There are many more under leases with a company called Admiral Taverns, which is a vehicle for change of use disposal, buying most of the 'churn' from the big boys, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns. Their own positions being pretty rocky at the moment mean more will be hived off. This will mean more closures and more pulling down.

Thanks to SponPlague for his/her explanation. Given that there are properties which in my own town were generating huge rents for the council, it seems ludicrous to have a policy which effectively means after three months without a tenant the council has to pay the Non Domestic rate which on one particular property was £110k/year, or pull it down as it was part of a regeneration zone. Would it not have been better for them to have kept the building and take on short term tenants, thus not costing the local rate payer. The sums involved in this are huge.

I also fail to see what the problem is with the BPF engaging in Europe, just because and organisation does so doesn't mean they hold a political view one way or the other. The FSB has a regional office in Europe lobbying the Parliament the FSB are non party political. Why is it that some insist on looking for negatives rather than positives. I suppose next it would be wrong to forge an alliance with the Christian Party, who support our out of Europe stance, just in case we upset other faiths or the Campaign for an Independent Britain, they have conservatives as members, can't have that can we.

And as for the juvenile attack on Nattrass what can one say.

chikrodah · 17-08-2008, 10:56 AM

Bob, there are ways of legally avoiding the 100% rate levy, including leasing the properties to charitable organisations. I'm sure your local council and/or unitary authority is aware of that; I'm also sure that if they then choose not to maximise rents and minimise empty property levies they do so having rejected alternative options.

As you are well aware, if you wish to shape council decision-making, you need to get elected, then get onto the appropriate committee. UKIP Swindon has done well to become, as you put it, the third party in Swindon. Eventually, no doubt, one of your candidates will be elected and will have an opportunity to push UKIP's local taxation policies.

The BPF has members who would rather demolish older buildings than part-lease an otherwise empty building. Why would they do that, if not to convert commercial building stock into land ready to build on some time in the future? Would a renewal of the 50% discount stop them from doing that if they really wanted to?

As to your comments re the BPF engaging with the EU, you cite the FSB's Brussels office and non-party political stance in support of your views. It seems odd that you are unaware of just how many eurosceptics continue to distrust the FSB.

Nattrass is a West Midlands businessman who also happens to be an MEP. He is well networked and highly active on behalf of certain of his constituents. Mentioning that fact is hardly a juvenile attack.

Bob FM · 17-08-2008, 11:25 AM

I am an active FSB member and have expressed my views, however I concede that without some form of representative and lobbying the FSB would be totally powerless (they probably are anyway) against the EU. With Nattrass I was of course referring to the 'jibe' about his property interests. If you are in business do you not protect yours. Human nature, not wrong.

SponPlague · 17-08-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

Thank you for your concerns, however I have no difficulty communicating in the real world.

Hmm. I found this press release of yours, Bob:

Press Releases | Press Release Distribution | Submit Press Release - UKIP Swindon Young Members

Quote:

UKIP Swindon is looking to recruit young members, to stand as candidates in future Local and National Elections in the future. Bob Feal-Martinez, UKIP Chairman for Swindon said, " Many young people believe that their voice is never heard, and to a degree they are right, which is why UKIP at a National level and locally wish to reach out to them". UKIP believes that Britain needs to regain control of Britain for a sustainable future and they say we owe it to our young to create a platform for their futures, not squander the UK to Europe. Bob believes the young are the way forward, " I remember when my son was 18, and first voted, he bucked the trend of the young by voting Tory, but there was no doubt Labour were elected by the young who were not even born when Margaret Thatcher came to power. In 2010 the same situation will occur again, with millions of young first time voters. However this time they have far more to lose, if Britain is absorbed by the European Union, which is why UKIP need to get the message out that there is a better way, UKIP, working with Europe but not controlled by an unelected European Commission." Anyone interested in joining and who want's a chat, ring Bob on 01793 822997, or to join go to UKIP SWINDON

Trying to be constructive, you might find getting a colleague to proof it - want's for example - helps, and why no mention of Young Independence, which is specifically designed to appeal to the young?

Bob FM · 17-08-2008, 02:11 PM

Good god is that the best you can do.

17-08-2008, 07:41 AM	#16 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,149	Thank you for your concerns, however I have no difficulty communicating in the real world. I am fully aware of the history of the pub industry, I have delivered a number of talks on the history of the industry as well as been actively involved in the various conflicts in the Industry for over 25 years. As for pub sales/closures. Closures have increased massively over the last 13 months, from 206 in 2007 to a huge 1500 in 2008. There are many more under leases with a company called Admiral Taverns, which is a vehicle for change of use disposal, buying most of the 'churn' from the big boys, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns. Their own positions being pretty rocky at the moment mean more will be hived off. This will mean more closures and more pulling down. Thanks to SponPlague for his/her explanation. Given that there are properties which in my own town were generating huge rents for the council, it seems ludicrous to have a policy which effectively means after three months without a tenant the council has to pay the Non Domestic rate which on one particular property was £110k/year, or pull it down as it was part of a regeneration zone. Would it not have been better for them to have kept the building and take on short term tenants, thus not costing the local rate payer. The sums involved in this are huge. I also fail to see what the problem is with the BPF engaging in Europe, just because and organisation does so doesn't mean they hold a political view one way or the other. The FSB has a regional office in Europe lobbying the Parliament the FSB are non party political. Why is it that some insist on looking for negatives rather than positives. I suppose next it would be wrong to forge an alliance with the Christian Party, who support our out of Europe stance, just in case we upset other faiths or the Campaign for an Independent Britain, they have conservatives as members, can't have that can we. And as for the juvenile attack on Nattrass what can one say. Last edited by Bob FM; 17-08-2008 at 07:44 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-08-2008, 07:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,149	So I got it the wrong way round. Amazing how everything posted becomes bash UKIP. As I understand it our local authority policy is to retain all rates generated including Non Domestic. This issue goes well beyond development land, it includes empty pubs and the like. Pubco's will just simply sell off difficult pubs for change of use and pull them down. For the record it's an increase of 3%, not 10%, 'Today 13% of commercial buildings are lying empty, an increase on 10% a year ago'

16-08-2008, 07:50 PM	#13 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,872	My apologies, Bob, for misreading 'on' as 'of'. However, you didn't "get it the wrong way round", if you're referring to the name of the Federation concerned. You posted the wrong name completely, one which, when googled, could not produce relevant results. If you want pub chains to stop selling off pubs, something I wholeheartedly agree with, by the way, then that is worthy of a campaign. The problem is, pub chains have been selling off pubs for years, even with 50% rate rebates on the empty properties. There are a great number of housing estates in the Midlands that used to be a large "estate pub" and its carpark and garden. It's quite likely that the nearest "estate pub" to me will go the same way. The Federation you are dealing with includes, as one of its members, Annington Homes. Annington, famous for owning the deteriorating MOD housing stock, is, IIRC, part-owned by Nomura Bank, which bought the Inntrepreneur chain of pubs in the late '90s before selling them on as it realised that the quick profit it got from borrowing against a large base of stable rents had all but dried up. A lot of those pubs got sold to the highest bidder in the early 2000s. Those highest bidders tended to be the speculative property developers you are now campaigning alongside. I'm not "bashing UKIP". I'm simply asking the sort of questions that any interviewer or political commentator would ask. Labour is on the ropes. Airtime will be given to the articulate politicos with documented examples and unassailable facts. Consider this forum as a proving ground for your PPC interviews; if you can answer forum members clearly and concisely, you'll do well at hustings and adversarial interviews.

17-08-2008, 10:56 AM	#17 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,872	Bob, there are ways of legally avoiding the 100% rate levy, including leasing the properties to charitable organisations. I'm sure your local council and/or unitary authority is aware of that; I'm also sure that if they then choose not to maximise rents and minimise empty property levies they do so having rejected alternative options. As you are well aware, if you wish to shape council decision-making, you need to get elected, then get onto the appropriate committee. UKIP Swindon has done well to become, as you put it, the third party in Swindon. Eventually, no doubt, one of your candidates will be elected and will have an opportunity to push UKIP's local taxation policies. The BPF has members who would rather demolish older buildings than part-lease an otherwise empty building. Why would they do that, if not to convert commercial building stock into land ready to build on some time in the future? Would a renewal of the 50% discount stop them from doing that if they really wanted to? As to your comments re the BPF engaging with the EU, you cite the FSB's Brussels office and non-party political stance in support of your views. It seems odd that you are unaware of just how many eurosceptics continue to distrust the FSB. Nattrass is a West Midlands businessman who also happens to be an MEP. He is well networked and highly active on behalf of certain of his constituents. Mentioning that fact is hardly a juvenile attack.

17-08-2008, 11:25 AM	#18 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,149	I am an active FSB member and have expressed my views, however I concede that without some form of representative and lobbying the FSB would be totally powerless (they probably are anyway) against the EU. With Nattrass I was of course referring to the 'jibe' about his property interests. If you are in business do you not protect yours. Human nature, not wrong.

17-08-2008, 02:11 PM	#20 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,149	Good god is that the best you can do.