On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:49:26 +0100, Jeff Layman
<jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>When I was in business, I had a tax agent fill in the SAR for me. For
>years there was no problem until I got a short letter from HMRC worded
>to the effect "We believe your client has income not disclosed on his
>SAR". That's it - no detail. I was sure I had everything on the Return,
>and spent hours going through my accounts and other income. In the end
>we asked for more information. All HMRC would say was that it was
>related to a cash ISA I had at the time. We submitted a possible
>explanation and about a week later we got back another short letter from
>HMRC with, I suppose, the nearest to an apology anyone is ever likely to
>get. It said "Our original enquiry was as a result of incorrect
>information received from your bank". My agent said that we could apply
>for compensation for time wasted, but I said it wasn't worth it, and I
>would hope that there was now a note on my record, perhaps allowing a
>little leeway next time. We did, however, question why they did not give
>more specific information which would have saved a lot of time. Their
>reply was to the effect that when the taxpayer went through their
>records after a letter such as the first one I had received, they
>sometimes gave information to HMRC about another matter - previously
>undisclosed - and so provided HMRC with further avenues of investigation.
>

It wasn't Nat West was it? I had ISA trouble with HMRC due to Nat
West error.

--
brightside S9

On 25/07/2021 08:46, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:49:26 +0100, Jeff Layman
> <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> When I was in business, I had a tax agent fill in the SAR for me. For
>> years there was no problem until I got a short letter from HMRC worded
>> to the effect "We believe your client has income not disclosed on his
>> SAR". That's it - no detail. I was sure I had everything on the Return,
>> and spent hours going through my accounts and other income. In the end
>> we asked for more information. All HMRC would say was that it was
>> related to a cash ISA I had at the time. We submitted a possible
>> explanation and about a week later we got back another short letter from
>> HMRC with, I suppose, the nearest to an apology anyone is ever likely to
>> get. It said "Our original enquiry was as a result of incorrect
>> information received from your bank". My agent said that we could apply
>> for compensation for time wasted, but I said it wasn't worth it, and I
>> would hope that there was now a note on my record, perhaps allowing a
>> little leeway next time. We did, however, question why they did not give
>> more specific information which would have saved a lot of time. Their
>> reply was to the effect that when the taxpayer went through their
>> records after a letter such as the first one I had received, they
>> sometimes gave information to HMRC about another matter - previously
>> undisclosed - and so provided HMRC with further avenues of investigation.
>>
>
> It wasn't Nat West was it? I had ISA trouble with HMRC due to Nat
> West error.

No, the other "Nat" - Nationwide. What had happened was that they
created the new ISA from the previous one as though the latter had been
cashed in first - i.e. losing its ISA status. Why anyone in their right
mind would do that I could not understand and still don't!

--

Jeff

In article <sde17t$ist$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 10:08, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > Perhaps if the outsourcing companies fed less money and power back to
> > key politicians who enable this to occur we could get rid of it, and
> > then funding 'public' organisations could be run without the flawed
> > middlemen. Perhaps even nurses and other directly-employed 'public'
> > sector workers could be better paid, we could have more of them, etc,
> > at*lower* cost to the taxpayers.

> Labour were of course keen on outsourcing in the past, particularly with
> the notorious PFI contracts. I remember reading one article that said
> the PFI companies could afford good lawyers who wrote contracts to
> maximise profits. There were lots of examples of them squeezing more out
> of the NHS in this way.

Indeed. Yes, 'Labour' under Blair / Brown extended these policies. Prime
example of how 'New Labour' was actually 'pink Tory'. They were also
"Extremely Relaxed" about allowing the rich to cream off profits and
support "New Labour".

So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes which might
have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on allowing Social
Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money and made it
impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced. Because it suits
those whose power-base is property development, etc.

The difficulty in the UK is that any party that *doesn't* bow to this
orthodoxy will get monstered by much of the press, and struggle to find
funding.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <ilvkifFlt8jU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the licence
> for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain other new
> privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to those not
> receiving the BBC via broadcast).

IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by Government.

So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than having
their pocket picked.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).

The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <im045jFp10iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).

> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.

> That's the only possible fair outcome.

It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>
> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.
>
> Jim
>

I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill, much
as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the amount
is clear. So it won’t be like an annual government grant from the central
pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would essentially
suffer the same political interference as the licence fee does, ie
arguments about how much it should increase. It also makes it slightly more
progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
person households would get the discount. It’s also very hard to evade. As
to the I don’t use it why should I pay argument, that applies to many
things paid for via the council tax bill. It is a route taken by many
European countries. Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic
amount for each council tax band set by central government (as the licence
fee currently is) before anyone moans about taxation without
representation.

It seems to be the way water is paid for in Glasgow at least judging by my
son’s council tax bill.

On 24/07/2021 09:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes which might
> have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on allowing Social
> Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money and made it
> impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced.

It went further than that, one senior Labour figure had a plan to
replace most of the houses in one city with new ones. But this meant
demolishing all the old ones against the wishes of the occupants. It
was calculated that the old houses could have been improved to modern
standards for a much lower cost. Coincidentally a relative of the senior
figure had an interest in a large building company in the area.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:24:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>>
>> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
>> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
>I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill, much
>as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the amount
>is clear. So it won’t be like an annual government grant from the central
>pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would essentially
>suffer the same political interference as the licence fee does, ie
>arguments about how much it should increase. It also makes it slightly more
>progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>person households would get the discount. It’s also very hard to evade. As
>to the I don’t use it why should I pay argument, that applies to many
>things paid for via the council tax bill. It is a route taken by many
>European countries. Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic
>amount for each council tax band set by central government (as the licence
>fee currently is) before anyone moans about taxation without
>representation.
>
>It seems to be the way water is paid for in Glasgow at least judging by my
>son’s council tax bill.

You want to allow the BBC to just stick an amount on the council tax
bill like the police?

Have you ever looked at the way the police commissioners decide the
police budget?

Do you have any say in the police budget?

I'll stick with the current method of funding, with all its problems.

--
brightside S9

On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:
> It also makes it slightly more
> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
> person households would get the discount.

The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
that reason.

On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> It would be fair*if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.

I usually point out the "Advertising Tax" that is very difficult to
avoid, when people go on about the BBC tax. I very rarely watch ITV,
CH4 and CH5 but I still pay for them through the Advertisinhg TAx and I
bet I pay a lot more than the TV Licence.

On 25/07/2021 10:41, MB wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 09:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes which
>> might
>> have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on allowing Social
>> Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money and made it
>> impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced.
>
> It went further than that, one senior Labour figure had a plan to
> replace most of the houses in one city with new ones. But this meant
> demolishing all the old ones against the wishes of the occupants. It
> was calculated that the old houses could have been improved to modern
> standards for a much lower cost. Coincidentally a relative of the senior
> figure had an interest in a large building company in the area.

In 1956, my grandmother was compulsory purchased out of her house in
Granville St, Bristol for the building of the high rise developments
of Barton Hill.

.... but the houses in Granville St are still there, and still being
owned by the residents of today.

On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <im045jFp10iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
>> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
>> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
>> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).
>
>> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.
>
>> That's the only possible fair outcome.
>
> It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.

With blanket coverage of football, Wimbledon and now the b***dy
Olympics, can I get a refund of my licence fee in compansation?

When sport coverage was limited to Grandstand on Sat PM that was
about right.

On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <ilvkifFlt8jU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the licence
>> for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain other new
>> privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to those not
>> receiving the BBC via broadcast).
>
> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by Government.
>
> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than having
> their pocket picked.

An agreement is an agreement.

It is no part of the government's "duty" to ask "How much would sir
require this time?" when the BBC makes a demand for ever more money to
be taken from the pocket of the citizen.

On 24/07/2021 09:45 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>
> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.

At least the government is answerable to the electorate, whilst the BBC,
as this series of incidents has shown, is certainly not.

Neither does the Beeb show any any signs of being amenable to the views
of the electorate. It always knows best.

On 24/07/2021 09:49 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
>> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
>> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
>> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).

>> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.

>> That's the only possible fair outcome.

> It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.

Old wives' tale.

Advertising budgets do not dictate supermarket prices. Far from it.

And since that is the case, you are effectively agreeing that scrapping
the BBC Tax (aka the licence fee) is the fair thing to do.

On 25/07/2021 11:19 am, gareth evans wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <im045jFp10iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
>>> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
>>> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
>>> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).
>>
>>> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.
>>
>>> That's the only possible fair outcome.
>>
>> It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount
>> when we
>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>
> With blanket coverage of football, Wimbledon and now the b***dy
> Olympics, can I get a refund of my licence fee in compansation?
>
> When sport coverage was limited to Grandstand on Sat PM that was
> about right.

I tend to agree.

On 25/07/2021 10:24 am, Tweed wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>>
>> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
>> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill, much
> as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the amount
> is clear. So it won’t be like an annual government grant from the central
> pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would essentially
> suffer the same political interference as the licence fee does, ie
> arguments about how much it should increase. It also makes it slightly more
> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
> person households would get the discount. It’s also very hard to evade. As
> to the I don’t use it why should I pay argument, that applies to many
> things paid for via the council tax bill. It is a route taken by many
> European countries. Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic
> amount for each council tax band set by central government (as the licence
> fee currently is) before anyone moans about taxation without
> representation.
>
> It seems to be the way water is paid for in Glasgow at least judging by my
> son’s council tax bill.

You would put it on the council tax bill?

Who would decide the amount?

The BBC?

Would there be elections for the corporation's managers and governors?

In message <sdjdr4$ekj$2@dont-email.me>, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> writes
>On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <im045jFp10iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
>>> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
>>> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
>>> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).
>>
>>> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.
>>
>>> That's the only possible fair outcome.
>>
>> It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>
>With blanket coverage of football, Wimbledon and now the b***dy
>Olympics, can I get a refund of my licence fee in compansation?
>
>When sport coverage was limited to Grandstand on Sat PM that was
>about right.
>
Not particularly being a sports addict, I actually often find myself
watching and recording BBC Scotland. There's quite a lot of interesting
stuff there.
--
Ian

On 25/07/2021 10:41 am, MB wrote:

> On 24/07/2021 09:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:

>> So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes which
>> might have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on allowing
>> Social Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money
>> and made it impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced.
>
> It went further than that, one senior Labour figure had a plan to
> replace most of the houses in one city with new ones. But this meant
> demolishing all the old ones against the wishes of the occupants.  It
> was calculated that the old houses could have been improved to modern
> standards for a much lower cost. Coincidentally a relative of the senior
> figure had an interest in a large building company in the area.

Although it is now common knowledge that Labour local politics in *some*
areas was riddled with corruption, with undesirable effects on housing
policy, it's only fair to remark that the same sort of policies were
followed in almost all urban areas. They can't all have been corrupt but
they all did more or less the same thing.

City councils were simply following the group-think of the day, in which
it was seen as desirable to erase working class inner-city
neighbourhoods and to relocate the inhabitants in new-build estates out
on the edge of town. This often even put former city-dwellers in council
houses, maisonettes and tower block out beyond the city boundaries,
disenfranchising them from even having a right to provide electoral
"feedback" on how acceptable their new living conditions were.

It is now obvious to us that improving older but structurally-sound
houses was better in various ways, but sixty years ago, borough
engineers and councillors were implacably convinced that traditional
terraced housing was an unalloyed Bad Thing (one the "bad" things being
that councils didn't usually have control of it).

BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:24:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>>>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>>>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>>>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>>>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>>>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>>>
>>> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
>>> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill, much
>> as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the amount
>> is clear. So it won’t be like an annual government grant from the central
>> pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would essentially
>> suffer the same political interference as the licence fee does, ie
>> arguments about how much it should increase. It also makes it slightly more
>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>> person households would get the discount. It’s also very hard to evade. As
>> to the I don’t use it why should I pay argument, that applies to many
>> things paid for via the council tax bill. It is a route taken by many
>> European countries. Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic
>> amount for each council tax band set by central government (as the licence
>> fee currently is) before anyone moans about taxation without
>> representation.
>>
>> It seems to be the way water is paid for in Glasgow at least judging by my
>> son’s council tax bill.
>
>
> You want to allow the BBC to just stick an amount on the council tax
> bill like the police?
>
> Have you ever looked at the way the police commissioners decide the
> police budget?
>
> Do you have any say in the police budget?
>
> I'll stick with the current method of funding, with all its problems.
>

No, as I said, amount decided by central government, as it is now. It’s
just harder to impose hidden cuts when the amount is printed on the bill.

On 25/07/2021 10:58 am, MB wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> It would be fair*if*  we also could choose to have a price discount
>> when we
>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>
> I usually point out the "Advertising Tax" that is very difficult to
> avoid, when people go on about the BBC tax.  I very rarely watch ITV,
> CH4 and CH5 but I still pay for them through the Advertisinhg TAx and I
> bet I pay a lot more than the TV Licence.

There is no "Advertising Tax" effect.

Advertising is part of the system of competition, which keeps prices
lower than they would be if there were no advertising and no competition.

Look at and compare prices in "convenience stores" and in supermarkets
to immediately see the truth of that.

Almost anything we buy which might be advertised (whether on street
billboards, TV, radio, cinema or in the various forms of press) is
cheaper in real terms today than it was in our grandparents' prime of life.

Supermarkets weren't even allowed to discount prices from RRP until 1964.

On 25/07/2021 11:16 am, gareth evans wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 10:41, MB wrote:
>> On 24/07/2021 09:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes which
>>> might
>>> have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on allowing Social
>>> Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money and
>>> made it
>>> impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced.
>>
>> It went further than that, one senior Labour figure had a plan to
>> replace most of the houses in one city with new ones. But this meant
>> demolishing all the old ones against the wishes of the occupants.  It
>> was calculated that the old houses could have been improved to modern
>> standards for a much lower cost. Coincidentally a relative of the senior
>> figure had an interest in a large building company in the area.
>
> In 1956, my grandmother was compulsory purchased out of her house in
> Granville St, Bristol for the building of the high rise developments
> of Barton Hill.
>
> ... but the houses in Granville St are still there, and still being
> owned by the residents of today.

If there were any justice, she (and her estate) would be compensated for
the obvious financial loss she suffered as a result.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:
>> It also makes it slightly more
>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>> person households would get the discount.
>
> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
> that reason.
>

But it was at least an order of magnitude more than the TV licence is ever
likely to be. If one of the couple entered low paid employment they could
double their bill overnight. Huge issue for mothers attempting to return to
employment for example. The quantisation effects were huge. The TV licence
isn’t in the slightest bit progressive at the moment.

On 25/07/2021 11:37, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 10:41 am, MB wrote:
>
>> On 24/07/2021 09:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> So although nicer in some ways, they failed to make the changes which
>>> might have dealt with the underlaying problems. e.g. went on allowing
>>> Social Housing to be flogged off at prices that lost Council's money
>>> and made it impossible for the Social Housing to be fully replaced.
>>
>> It went further than that, one senior Labour figure had a plan to
>> replace most of the houses in one city with new ones. But this meant
>> demolishing all the old ones against the wishes of the occupants.  It
>> was calculated that the old houses could have been improved to modern
>> standards for a much lower cost. Coincidentally a relative of the
>> senior figure had an interest in a large building company in the area.
>
> Although it is now common knowledge that Labour local politics in *some*
> areas was riddled with corruption, with undesirable effects on housing
> policy, it's only fair to remark that the same sort of policies were
> followed in almost all urban areas. They can't all have been corrupt but
> they all did more or less the same thing.

More bias: It is equally common knowledge that many Tory local politics
in some areas was corrupt as well, but I note that you don't mention
that, only Labour local politics.

> City councils were simply following the group-think of the day, in which
> it was seen as desirable to erase working class inner-city
> neighbourhoods and to relocate the inhabitants in new-build estates out
> on the edge of town. This often even put former city-dwellers in council
> houses, maisonettes and tower block out beyond the city boundaries,
> disenfranchising them from even having a right to provide electoral
> "feedback" on how acceptable their new living conditions were.
>
> It is now obvious to us that improving older but structurally-sound
> houses was better in various ways, but sixty years ago, borough
> engineers and councillors were implacably convinced that traditional
> terraced housing was an unalloyed Bad Thing (one the "bad" things being
> that councils didn't usually have control of it).

Yes, much of the above is true. In the post-war years, there was a hell
of a lot of war damage to clear up, some of it was still visible in
Bristol as much as 30 years later, and for many years the modernist
group-think just bull-dozed whole areas and created concrete modernist
monstrosities as replacements - high-rise urban jungles in residential
areas, for example in many areas of SE London, and concreted over whole
town centres, for example Bristol.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk