"Vindictive" Lakenham campaign run by UKIP

Anthony Butcher · 16-08-2008, 12:57 AM

Little's Log: Labour source: "Vindictive" Lakenham campaign run by UKIP

Quote:

Although I am fairly sure that both Keith Driver and Mary Cannell are pretty zen about the latest batch of "Spotlight" leaflets doing the rounds in Lakenham slamming the performace of the Labour council and government (see my post below), it seems that Labour high command are less satisfied with them and it seems an all-out witch-hunt is now underway to find the culprits. As the leaflets are anonymous and carry no imprint, they may struggle.

But I am now told by a very senior Labour source that they now strongly believe it to be the work of UKIP; or at least individuals within UKIP anyway with or without party permission. Let's be clear; I'm not aware they've done anything illegal but Labour are clearly spooked by this method of campaigning.

Just spotted this - presented without comment.

Independent UKIP · 16-08-2008, 02:14 AM

Are you just trying to wind Geoffrey Collier up with this Anthony?

Whatever; in the earlier post Little refers to he includes,

Quote:

But the issues raised [in]the leaflet are valid and it is clear that the poorest areas are most hit by Labour. Many of the weakest in society can now ill-afford Labour either nationally or locally. If you live on a council estate with anti-social behaviour and crime problems, where the housing stock is getting worse and taxes carry on rising then Labour are no help at all - in fact, they are usually the problem. No wonder more and more people are choosing the vote Conservative, many for the first time ever. Because we are putting a crackdown on crime and quality of life at the top of the agenda. Just take a look at Bowthorpe - Labour rejected after 40 years and why? Because despite the promises people were taken for granted and things got no better.

I hope Labour and the LibDems repond to this, but the best response they can have is to tackle the issue it raises.

How amusing this would be if Councillor Little turns out to be agreeing with the National Front or BNP rather than some UKIP supporters acting unofficially. He refers to Bowthorpe where Labour was rejected after 40 years. I think, though stand to be corrected, that the change from Labour to tory there is due to a combination of new private sector housing developments and boundary changes to a ward which has happened to retain an existing name.

Bob FM · 16-08-2008, 10:44 AM

AB simply posting this does not require comment, given that there is no other substance other than what Independent posts, isn't this in journalistic terms, a non story. I would suspect as Independent implies just to set our resident conspiracy theorist off on another rant.

Anthony Butcher · 16-08-2008, 11:09 AM

It was just a UKIP related story. UKIP gets so little coverage on the web at the moment that it is noteworthy simply by the fact that it references the party.

Try searching for UKIP on Google news:
ukip - Google News

And also on the Google blog search:
ukip - Google Blog Search

It is just as bad on my Politigg site:
UKIP

If UKIP intends to do well in less than ten months' time, it needs one heck of a lot more coverage than this.

Tim Worstall · 16-08-2008, 12:43 PM

"If UKIP intends to do well in less than ten months' time, it needs one heck of a lot more coverage than this."

True.

Changes are indeed afoot.

Bob FM · 16-08-2008, 01:08 PM

I can only speak accurately for Swindon. We are featured on average 3 or 4 times a week in the local press. We are engaging at all levels. On Monday I am taking part in a press conference on the Empty Buildings Tax issue which is affecting Councils and others all over the country. We have linked up with the Property Business Federation who are coordinating a national campaign. We already have a statement from Mike Nattrass who is suitably qualified to comment:
Mike Nattrass MEP (and FRICS) said,
"Empty Commercial property should be removed from the rates. Not to do so, particularly during the current recession could take us back to the
seventies when perfectly good buildings had their roofs removed to escape rates.

This led to the destruction of a significant proportion of the commercial property stock and caused a huge hike in prices when the inevitable end of the recession came. Property developers are now unlikely to build speculatively if they are to be hit by rates on empty properties, which in turn leads to greater unemployment in the vital construction sector".

Today 13% of commercial buildings are lying empty, an increase on 10% a year ago, and with the recession biting deeper this percentage is
bound to increase. If rates on these properties are not eased then the destruction that this will lead to will be enormous and utterly
wasteful".

"All this has been precipitated by the Government's abolition of business tax relief this year. Another failed stealth tax", he said.

So there is much going on.

chikrodah · 16-08-2008, 01:15 PM

So UKIP now has a policy which only benefits property developers who build speculatively?

If 13% of commercial buildings are lying empty, compared to 3% in 2007, surely there's an argument for an imaginative solution, akin to that proposed in London in recent years, where commercial properties were given over to social housing requirements? Why is UKIP only interested in a 1970s solution to a 21st century problem?

Bob FM · 16-08-2008, 01:41 PM

I see some still have reading issues.

Geoffrey Collier · 16-08-2008, 03:10 PM

As we all may know, Business Rates are paid directly to cental government. Domestic rates, (property tax) are a local matter. At the last GE, I raised this matter with the Treasurer of Bournmouth Borough Council. First, I asked, how much is raised in the Borough from Business rates? From memory, the figure was about forty-five million annually. He then agreed that every single penny is sent direct to Whitehall. I then asked, who carries the burden of the collecting cost, if every single penny is sent to Whitehall? My staff, he replied. But your staff are paid by the local authority, they are provided with offices, heating, stationery and, finally, pensions by the domestic 'rate payers' of the Borough. Why shouldn't the collecting expenses be deducted from the total amount raised? Local 'domestic ratepayers' are subsidising the business rates? Yes, you are right, but I have never been asked that question before. These are the kind of questions that UKIP councillors should be asking. I know that government will bring in arguments about Central Government grant-support, etc. But, while not appropriate to address it here, that is not as strong an argument as at first appears. At least let us start with the collecting expenses; deal with the principle first, then develop the scope of the argument.

chikrodah · 16-08-2008, 05:20 PM

The British Property Federation (not the Property Business Federation that BobFM thinks he's sharing a platform with on Monday) estimates that £1bn of tax revenue will be accrued in this financial year from the Budget decision to remove the 50% rate relief accorded to empty commercial properties.

They claim that property owners are demolishing older properties years earlier than would otherwise be the case rather than let just part of the property. They also claim that

Quote:

As speculative development dries up, the bill for essential regeneration and infrastructure developments will be left at the door of the taxpayer.

(BPF STEPS UP PRESSURE OVER EMPTY RATES: British Property Federation)

Another press release states

Quote:

The government invests millions of pounds through Regional Development Agencies to promote development to support local employment initiatives. The added burden of empty rates will undo a lot of the work of RDAs since it will reduce the redevelopment of deprived areas in the regions.

(OUTCRY OVER BOMBSITE BRITAIN: British Property Federation)

The BPF is proud of its lobby group status in the UK Parliament and is a member of the European Property Foundation which states:

Quote:

The role of the European Property Federation is to make sure that, at the level of the European Union, politicians and civil servants understand and support these goals and enact policies that help to achieve them.

...

Areas of policy
The Federation concerns itself with many areas of European policy,

Accounting Standards
Charter of Fundamental Rights
Competition
Construction
Consumer Protection
e-Commerce
Education & Training
Energy
Environment
EU Enlargement
European Court of Justice
Financial Services
Health & Safety
Housing
Justice & Home affairs
State Aid
Taxation
Transport

(The European Property Federation)

This is not some helpless bunch of small business landlords. UKIP is happy to associate itself with an organisation big enough to take on Westminster and the EP.

The question is, if UKIP wants the 50% rate relief reinstated, where does it think the government is going to try and get £1bn of income from next? The road users? The middle-income tax band? Private home owners? Those with second homes, IIRC, currently pay 50% council tax on their empty house. Does UKIP want to see owners of non-commercial holiday homes clobbered instead?

Does UKIP have a coherent policy on this issue? Its current policy summary states that:

Quote:

UKIP POLICIES IN BRIEF Written by Website Co-ordinator Wednesday, 09 April 2008

UKIP will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely. We will re-embrace today’s fast-growing Commonwealth and we will encourage UK manufacturing so that we make things again.
We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis.
We will have a grammar school in every town. We will restore standards of education and improve skills training. Student grants will replace student loans.
We will radically reform the working of the NHS with an Insurance Fund, whilst upholding the ‘free at the point of care’ principles. We will bring back matrons and have locally run, clean hospitals.
We will give people the vote on policing priorities, go back to proper beat policing and scrap the Human Rights Act. We will have sentences that mean what they say.
We will take 4.5 million people out of tax with a simple Flat Tax (with National Insurance) starting at £10,000. We will scrap Inheritance Tax, not just reform it and cut corporation taxes.
We will say No to green taxes and wind farms. To avert a major energy crisis, we will go for new nuclear power plants on the same existing site facilities and for clean coal. We will reduce pollution and encourage recycling.
We will make welfare simpler and fairer, introduce ‘workfare’ to get people back to work, and a new citizens pension and private pensions scheme insurance.
We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops.
We will be fair to England, with an English Parliament of English MPs at Westminster. We will replace assembly members like MSPs with MPs. And we will promote referenda at local and national levels.
We will make customer satisfaction number one for rail firms – not cost cutting and will look seriously at reopening some rail lines that Beeching closed. We will make foreign lorries pay for British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ – and we will stop persecuting motorists.
Last, but never least, we will bring in fair prices and fair competition for our suffering farmers, and restore traditional British fishing and territorial waters.

There's nothing there about commercial property rates.

Could it be that Nattrass is aware that Nattrass Giles currently lists 42 industrial properties, 26 offices, 5 development sites, 4 retail properties, 2 further education development opportunities and 3 "other sites", at a time when property sales and rentals are experiencing a severe downturn. Before anybody else performs the same checks that I've done, I am well aware that certain properties are listed more than once. As a best case, Nattrass Giles has 42 properties they need to dispose of; meanwhile, either they or the owners of the empty properties need to pay full rates.

16-08-2008, 11:09 AM	#4 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,193 Party: None	It was just a UKIP related story. UKIP gets so little coverage on the web at the moment that it is noteworthy simply by the fact that it references the party. Try searching for UKIP on Google news: ukip - Google News And also on the Google blog search: ukip - Google Blog Search It is just as bad on my Politigg site: UKIP If UKIP intends to do well in less than ten months' time, it needs one heck of a lot more coverage than this. __________________ If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled! Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

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

16-08-2008, 10:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,843	AB simply posting this does not require comment, given that there is no other substance other than what Independent posts, isn't this in journalistic terms, a non story. I would suspect as Independent implies just to set our resident conspiracy theorist off on another rant.

16-08-2008, 12:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
Tim Worstall Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 107	"If UKIP intends to do well in less than ten months' time, it needs one heck of a lot more coverage than this." True. Changes are indeed afoot.

16-08-2008, 01:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,843	I can only speak accurately for Swindon. We are featured on average 3 or 4 times a week in the local press. We are engaging at all levels. On Monday I am taking part in a press conference on the Empty Buildings Tax issue which is affecting Councils and others all over the country. We have linked up with the Property Business Federation who are coordinating a national campaign. We already have a statement from Mike Nattrass who is suitably qualified to comment: Mike Nattrass MEP (and FRICS) said, "Empty Commercial property should be removed from the rates. Not to do so, particularly during the current recession could take us back to the seventies when perfectly good buildings had their roofs removed to escape rates. This led to the destruction of a significant proportion of the commercial property stock and caused a huge hike in prices when the inevitable end of the recession came. Property developers are now unlikely to build speculatively if they are to be hit by rates on empty properties, which in turn leads to greater unemployment in the vital construction sector". Today 13% of commercial buildings are lying empty, an increase on 10% a year ago, and with the recession biting deeper this percentage is bound to increase. If rates on these properties are not eased then the destruction that this will lead to will be enormous and utterly wasteful". "All this has been precipitated by the Government's abolition of business tax relief this year. Another failed stealth tax", he said. So there is much going on.

16-08-2008, 01:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,724	So UKIP now has a policy which only benefits property developers who build speculatively? If 13% of commercial buildings are lying empty, compared to 3% in 2007, surely there's an argument for an imaginative solution, akin to that proposed in London in recent years, where commercial properties were given over to social housing requirements? Why is UKIP only interested in a 1970s solution to a 21st century problem?

16-08-2008, 01:41 PM	#8 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,843	I see some still have reading issues.

16-08-2008, 03:10 PM	#9 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,170	As we all may know, Business Rates are paid directly to cental government. Domestic rates, (property tax) are a local matter. At the last GE, I raised this matter with the Treasurer of Bournmouth Borough Council. First, I asked, how much is raised in the Borough from Business rates? From memory, the figure was about forty-five million annually. He then agreed that every single penny is sent direct to Whitehall. I then asked, who carries the burden of the collecting cost, if every single penny is sent to Whitehall? My staff, he replied. But your staff are paid by the local authority, they are provided with offices, heating, stationery and, finally, pensions by the domestic 'rate payers' of the Borough. Why shouldn't the collecting expenses be deducted from the total amount raised? Local 'domestic ratepayers' are subsidising the business rates? Yes, you are right, but I have never been asked that question before. These are the kind of questions that UKIP councillors should be asking. I know that government will bring in arguments about Central Government grant-support, etc. But, while not appropriate to address it here, that is not as strong an argument as at first appears. At least let us start with the collecting expenses; deal with the principle first, then develop the scope of the argument.