The charge of the councils - by Richard... Sunday, October 09, 2011

The charge of the councils - by Richard... Sunday, October 09, 2011

"We froze council tax this year", boasted David Cameron in his speech last Wednesday, "and we are going to freeze it again next year too". But, by talking only of council tax, Cameron has managed to hide from us is what has become one of the best-kept secrets of British politics.

This is the fact, writes Booker, that increasingly in recent years our bloated local authorities have found alternative sources of income which are now earning them as much as they get from Council Tax.

Building on our work, he brings to a wider audience the developments from 40 years ago when the most obvious source of council revenue was the rates, topped up by grants from central government - in return for which we could expect all the services which councils provided.

Largely below the radar, councils have now discovered all sorts of other ways in which they can take money off us, by levying charges, fees and penalties for countless things which used to be free or at least very much cheaper – some of which are actually illegal.

We have become familiar, for instance, with the practice whereby we must now pay for planning applications. I think it would come as a surprise, though, to anyone not familiar with the system that you can find yourself having to pay anything from £150 for a garden shed to £250,000 for a large housing estate.

Of course, we all know about the cost of parking fees and penalties, which earn councils £2 billion a year, and businesses must now pay councils billions to have their waste collected, while tipping fees have gone through the roof.

But what most of us are less familiar with is the proliferation of new licensing charges for everything from pet shops to car boot sales, from riding establishments to "sex establishments" (up to £9,935, plus a yearly renewal fee of £5,000).

Pubs which used to pay a yearly £10 to the local magistrates for their licence, must now pay up to £1,905 to the council (plus £23.50 to notify the council if the landlord dies). Big pop festivals must pay £64,000 for a licence, even before they pay hundreds of thousands more to hire the police.

In 2007 the Lyons report on local government found that more than a quarter of councils were already earning more from such charges than they were from council tax, and this has now risen to the point where "sales, fees, charges" and "other income" now yield £25 million a year, much the same as Council Tax.

Most of these alternative sources of revenue are sanctioned by central government, but in some instances the "dash for cash" has led councils into activities which are outside the law.

This is the Summonses and Liability Orders scam, where under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, councils are only permitted to impose "costs reasonably incurred" for the issuing of these orders, which must also under the law be charged for separately.

Booker picks up on one council admitting that the cost of issuing a Reminder Notice, which precedes them, can be as little as £1.22. Yet, as we know, Bradford council charges £80 for issuing the two further documents, which, using the same computerised process, involve no more work than sending out the Reminder.

Many other councils, quite illegally, impose a combined charge of up to £100 for issuing both documents - even though, if the debtor pays in full on receiving the Summons, the Liability Order is not necessary.

In the column, Bradford details spill out, but with 21 verified FOI responses now in, the city remains firmly lodged at the top of our "greed index". The point is made. Now at last, says Booker, we may begin to understand how these "lords of the town halls" can afford to award themselves salaries which make them some of the highest paid people in Britain today.

Nevertheless, these charges will be their undoing. Their greed has got the better of them.

Heh! - by Richard... Saturday, October 08, 2011

It's in! - I always get a buzz out of it ...


Mail on Sunday tomorrow.

Rebellions bite upwards - by Richard...

Impotence writ large pervades this piece which tells of "furious" ministers baulked by MEPs who have pushed up the EU budget by 5.23 percent to £114.9 billion for the year 2012.

That brings British contributions to about £16 billion, over which neither our elected members nor the general public have any direct control. Our task is merely to pay the bills when they are presented. There is not even any opportunity to withhold the sum, as it is paid automatically by the Treasury without needing our permission or involvement.

Thus to report the bald facts, therefore, is merely to remind ourselves of our own impotence. It is small wonder that, while UKIP constantly harp on about our EU contributions, the issue never gains any serious traction. People do not feel they can affect the decision – and what they can' t change, they tend to accept or ignore.

However, perhaps we the people are not as impotent – or as clueless – as our masters would prefer us to be. We do have the power to affect such decisions, if we choose to do so, and our tactics are right.

Addressing the issue of EU contributions, it is the case that we cannot stop the government paying the money out of the Treasury cash pot. But it is also the case that there is only one cash pot. That pot is limited and, if the money is taken out for one purpose, it cannot be used for others.

Although the government would prefer us to think of it in a separate compartment, what then comes over very clearly is that local government finance is part of the overall pot. Whatever shortfall there is in local taxation, the Treasury has to make up from central funds.

Now, while we cannot control what central government takes out of the pot - for instance, in paying the EU its subs - we can to a certain extent control what goes into the pot (and comes out) at local level. The weak link in the system is local government. But, if you starve local government, you also starve central government. The finances are that closely inter-related.

At first sight, though, forcing "starvation" would not appear to be a realistic proposition, given the huge scale of the budget. But, one does not have to have even a passing acquaintance with government to know that it is vastly over-committed. Very small shortfalls can create huge stresses.

Creating – or exacerbating – these stresses is well within the capability of individuals and small groups, particularly as many local government officials have become arrogant and lazy. Many of the income streams on which they have come to rely are of dubious legality, if not outright illegal, and they have not taken care to protect them. They can be interdicted.

At very small risk, therefore, and with only small but carefully targeted effort, it is possible to leverage effect on the system. The Booker column later today might give some clue as to that – pointing to a way forward. All we need to do is realise that, like underdogs, rebellions bite upwards. You might also say that a bite in time saves nine. Teeth-sharpening is on the menu.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

The march of time - by Richard...

Hailed at the time as the great working man's protest (although there was a huge element of stage management), the Jarrow Hunger March of 1936 has gone down in history.

But now, 75 years later, attempts at re-enactment collided with the realities of modern Britain. The organisers, the Youth Fight for Jobs (YFJ) movement, were told by Labour-controlled South Tyneside Council that the parade through Jarrow to celebrate their departure requires a temporary traffic regulation order, costing £2,230.20 plus VAT.

South Tyneside council also said that the protesters were required to pay the cost of physically closing the roads.

Faced with a storm of protest, however, the council backed off – but not to the extent of waiving the fee. It simply dipped into council funds to give the organisers a grant, so that they could pay the bill. Thus, at modest expense, we get an illustration of how low we have sunk in this Britain, land of the free and the brave – and the over-taxed.

Sacre Bleu! Eees climate change! - by Richard...

Sir, I am from Eurobarometer and would like to ask you some questions about climate change. Do you agree to answer some questions about climate change? You do? Good.

Now, please look at this card headed "climate change" (above) while I read out a list. Give me one answer only - which of the following do you consider to be the single most serious problem facing the world as a whole?

1. Climate change …

Now, please look at this second card (above), while I read out the same list again. Are there any other things facing the whole world that you think are a serious problem? You can give three answers this time. The options are:

1. Climate change …

Mais alors. Sacre Bleu! We find that the majority of the public in the European Union consider global warming to be one of the world's most serious problems, with one-fifth saying it is the single most serious problem.

C'est incroyable!

Calm down dears - by Richard... Friday, October 07, 2011

Contrary to some rumours, the Greeks have not just bought 400 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks. The original press report, on which subsequent rumours are based, refers to the refurbishment or upgrade of second-hand US tanks currently in storage in Europe, and their acquisition by Greece, a process which has been ongoing since last year.

The problem for the Greek Army is that it still operates a number of very old M48/60s, which need urgent replacement. Leopard-2 stocks from Holland and Germany are depleted, and there is no option for replacement with that type, despite some 350 earlier Leopard 1 models currently being operated by the Greek Army.

The Army is thus seeking alternative solutions from the US Army. The only obstacle is the poor operational condition of US equipment, requiring large funds for their re-activation. It does, however, revisit an old ambition of the Greek Army, which nearly purchased Abrams tanks in a dealnegotiated in 2001.

So far no work has been done on this new initiative, but Letters of Offer (LOA) and acceptance are expected soon, following approval by the US government. A fleet of AAV7A1 amphibious assault vehicles is also to be ungraded, making this a routine upgrade contract for armoured vehicles that are now older than the Second World War was long.

As for the Abrams tanks, you wouldn't be using M1A1s for a military coup - which would not, in any event, be delivered before 2014. Their fuel-hungry gas turbines make them highly unsuitable for such purposes. You would be better off with M113s, of which the Greek Army has a considerable stock. The target, as always, is the Turkish Army, which is the ever-present threat.

Confidence dealt a blow - by Richard...

This is Moody's Investor Service downgrading the credit ratings of some of Britain's biggest banks. Lloyds Banking Group, Santander UK, Royal Bank of Scotland, Co-operative Bank, Nationwide and seven smaller building societies are affected.

A Lloyds spokesman said: "It is important to note that both the stand-alone rating and short-term ratings remain unchanged. We believe this change will have minimal impact on our funding costs". So that's alright then?