The Lib Dem controlled Northampton Borough councillors this week voted to pass themselves a 7.7% pay increase for all councillors.  The leader of the council voted himself a 43% pay increase.  Yes, you read that right, a forty-three-per-cent pay increase.  The deputy leader gets a 64% increase.  All cabinet members get a 55% pay increase.  By a vote of 23 to 15, this egregious pay deal was passed and represents a big slap in the face to taxpayers’ who, in the current economic climate, can only dream of such a pay increase.

Why did they do this, then?  The council leadership justified it as to “encourage those on lower incomes to become councillors”.  Never mind public service or the fact that many people, pensioners and community activists who give up their time and money to become local representatives, already do a wonderful job, sometimes voting against pay increases or refusing to take their salary at all.  No, NBC want to use taxpayers’ money to try and tempt people into public service because of the money involved. 

But looking closer at Northampton Borough Council’s accounts, you’ll see that the council has a £7.2million budget black hole this year, with added risk of service cuts.  Talk about skewed priorities.  What these councillors will respond with is that they took the advice of an ‘independent panel’, but the point is that these recommendations are non-binding – they could have rejected them.

If you’re fed up of politicians using your money to line their pockets, ask Northampton Borough’s councillors whether they voted for the pay increase or not, whether they will take the pay increase or not and – if they voted for it – why they did so given the council’s dire financial situation:

Cllr Sally Beardsworth (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Shadik Chaudhury (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Richard Church (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Scott Collins (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Roger Conroy (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Jenny Conroy (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Maria-Trinidad Crake (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Mel de Cruz (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr David Garlick (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Brendan Glynane (LD Deputy Leader) – [email protected]
Cllr Jean Hawkins (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Brian Hoara (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Jane Hollis (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Irene Markham (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Brian Markham (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Richard Matthews (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Dennis Meredith (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Malcolm Mildren (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr David Perkins (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Andrew Simpson (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Marianne Taylor (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Pam Varnsverry (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Paul Varnsverry (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Portia Wilson (LD) – [email protected]
Cllr Anthony Woods (LD Leader of the Council) – [email protected]
Cllr John Yates (LD) – [email protected]

Cllr John Caswell (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Jane Duncan (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Donald Edwards (Con) – 01604 752551 (No email address)
Cllr Penelope Flavell (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Tim Hadland (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Michael Hill (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Michelle Hoare (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Jamie Lane (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Phil Larratt (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Judith Lill (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Colin Lill (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Christopher Malpas (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr David Palethorpe (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Kevin Reeve (Con) – [email protected]
Cllr Elizabeth Taverner (Con) – [email protected]

Cllr Joy Capstick (Lab) – [email protected]
Cllr Iftikhar Ahmed Choudary (Lab) – [email protected]
Cllr Keith Davies (Lab) – [email protected]
Cllr Lee Mason (Lab) – [email protected]
Cllr Tess Scott (Lab) – [email protected]

Cllr Tony Clarke (Independent) – [email protected]

…so here’s a taxpayer point of view on the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross/Manuel from Fawlty Towers saga. Let’s be honest: this is a ridiculous situation. The economy’s in crisis, Government borrowing is going through the roof, violent crime is 22% higher than previously admitted and the Congo is exploding again but Gordon Brown and David Cameron are busy talking about prank phone calls. It’s absurd, and it’s down to the fundamental unaccountability of the system.

At the core of this "story", no-one can really be sure if listeners care about Brand and Ross’s behaviour at all – the fact that only two people complained initially, and 10,000 later came out of the woodwork after newspaper reports suggest that the listener base for Brand’s show simply weren’t bothered about what happened.

Due to the way the BBC is set up, though, we simply can’t be sure if there is a real problem at all. If this was another broadcaster, their sponsors and advertisers would be furious because outraged listeners would be abandoning the show in protest. The management of the company would be angry because their profits would fall and their share price would follow.

With the BBC, though, listeners can’t remove their custom. We’re in the odd situation where if a presenter does something offensive to listeners, and the listeners were to withdraw their custom then they could end up in court. The idea is supposed to be that the BBC has a compulsory licence fee in order to provide programming that people might not otherwise buy. Is Russell Brand’s show really what Auntie’s creators had in mind?

Instead of the natural market-based feedback system other broadcasters have, with the BBC we have to rely on a bizarre impersonation of accountability by which complaints pile up, senior BBC managers release video apologies and the BBC News shows its contrition by running critical stories about themselves. If complaints result in a fine, then it is the complainers themselves – and other licence fee holders – who pay for it, not the presenter or producer responsible. It’s bonkers, and it means big problems are never corrected whilst storms in a teacup like this are over-egged. At the end of the day, we all have to pay up regardless of the quality of the service.

They never learn do they?  After we exposed North Lanarkshire council for squandering £73,000+ on a spin doctor to tell residents how good the council is, Southampton City council’s Chief Executive wants to follow up by throwing away £100,000 on an image consultant.  The reason the City council is hiring a new, £100k-a-year, apparatchik is because…and this should really set tempers to ‘AARGHG’…the council believe current media relations staff within the council “have relative inexperience in the area of media relations”.

If there are people working for Southampton City council who are unqualified – sack them and bring in people who can do the job.  More to the point, why does a council need so many media relations lackeys and spivs when the first job of councils should be to lower our taxes and deliver a frontline service!!

As a waste story, this is jaw dropping.  But the wider issue is the role of a chief executive.  How can it be that an unelected chief executive can arbitrarily spend taxpayers’ money willy-nilly?  There surely must be a check on chief executive over-reach within our councils.  Perhaps it’s worth sending an email to the democratically elected leader of the council, Cllr Alec Samuels, asking whether he intends to veto the chief executive’s spending spree!

TPA campaigner Mike Hobson deserves a big pat on the back for rallying against the ‘bedroom tax’ imposed by Purbeck Council on property extensions.  The tax is a £1,000 council levy on any property extension within the borough, naturally hitting those who want to improve their homes as well as the building trade which is already faltering in an economy bordering on recession.  The reason it’s called a bedroom tax, would you believe, is because the council’s default position is to assume all extensions could be bedrooms!! 

The council claim the money is used to fund transport improvements.  That’s some cheek seeing as the authority hiked council tax by 6.3% in 2007-8.  Where’s the money going in Purbeck that they feel the need to whack us with even more taxes?

In talking to Mike yesterday, however, he’s received no replies from councillors when he asked them their views about the bedroom tax.  Now to me it seems if you’re working for the taxpayer than you should at least give them the courtesy of a reply.  So, what we urge you to do is ask all of Purbeck’s councillors what their opinion is on the bedroom tax – are they for or against?  . 

It’s one thing to impose a tax at the worst possible time.  It adds insult to injury when the politicians won’t defend their high taxing policies to the very people who pay their wages!

So do please contact Purbeck’s councillors and ask them to scrap the bedroom tax!

Here’s a template email you can send:

“Dear Councillor,

It surely can’t be the right time to impose a new tax, least of all on housing extensions and alterations as the ‘bedroom tax’ does.  This tax merely penalises those who want to improve their property as well as discouraging and doing harm to the building trade when our economy borders on recession. 

If you support the bedroom tax, I would like to know why it’s right to levy £1,000 charges on home extensions.  If you do not, can you tell me what plans there are to scrap the bedroom tax?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours,”

You can either send the above template email or one of your own to the following councillors on Purbeck council:

Cllr Malcolm Barnes – [email protected]
Cllr David Budd – [email protected]
Cllr Nick Cake – [email protected]
Cllr Martin Colvey – [email protected]
Cllr Keith Critchley – [email protected]
Cllr David Cross – [email protected]
Cllr Nigel Dragon – [email protected]
Cllr Fred Drane – [email protected]
Cllr Beryl Ezzard – [email protected]
Cllr Simon Goldsack – [email protected]
Cllr Keith Green – [email protected]
Cllr Graham Holmes – [email protected]
Cllr Paul Johns – [email protected]
Cllr Mike Lovell – [email protected]
Cllr Gloria Marsh – [email protected]
Cllr Eric Osmond – [email protected]
Cllr Ali Patrick – [email protected]
Cllr Mike Pratt – [email protected]
Cllr Barry Quinn – [email protected]
Cllr Andrew Starr – [email protected]
Cllr Wendy Starr – [email protected]
Cllr Gary Suttle – [email protected]
Cllr Bill Trite – [email protected]
Cllr Peter Wharf – [email protected]

The Scottish city of Stirling is to appoint a resident poet, or makar, it has been reported today. After an absence of 500 years, the bard will write poetry for special occasions and festivities and will "celebrate everyday life".

Now, I don’t want to be a killjoy, but it occurs to me there isn’t much to rejoice about in yet another frivolous council appointment. The people of Stirling probably do enjoy a good rhyme, but those who are keen on poetry are certainly free to read, write and sing it whenever and however they please.

I am sure the fact their council is already £90 million in debt and still hiring doesn’t make them feel like "celebrating life". With Scotland’s rich cultural heritage, and great outlets such as the Edinburgh Festival, one has to ask: is there really any need for this appointment?

Schools should be pouring all available funds into improving resources for pupils, not committing themselves to additional costs. Children should be inspired to write poetry by their English teachers, and while the idea of a resident bard may be appealing, this money will be coming straight out of the pockets of ordinary families and is paid for by a council, not a Royal Court.

If you live in Stirling and want to take this matter up with your council leader, email him here

The BBC is funded by a universal tax. If you own a TV you must pay the licence fee. However, though we all pay for the same service, Mark Thompson, the BBC Director General has declared we will not receive an equal service. Islam is to be treated very sensitively. Christianity is fair game but criticism of Islam is off limits. This approach is ignorant and wrong. Mr Thompson should apologise or be sacked.

It is difficult to know what is worse about Mr Thompson’s statement. The patronising insinuation that Britain’s Muslim population are incapable of dealing with intelligent criticism in the same way as non Muslim citizens. The idea Muslims require official protection as they are incapable of defending their views in a free and fair debate and the notion we should limit debate and censor comedians and news reporters because some people might be offended. All these views have clearly been embraced by the BBC hierarchy and clearly all these elements are shameful.

However, the worst aspect is the fact that the BBC, a taxpayer funded broadcaster, has now publically abandoned even the pretence to air impartial coverage. Mr Thompson’s statements are by no means unique. He embodies the BBC approach.

So the BBC is politically correct, I hear you say. They admitted this in 2006, when the results of their impartiality summit were revealed. That’s not big news, what is the story? Well not so long ago (six months to be precise) Mr Thompson said pretty much the exact opposite. Let’s compare Mr Thompson in April 2008 with Mr Thompson in October 2008.

Speaking at Westminster Cathedral in April, Mr Thompson said there was “a growing nervousness about discussion about Islam and its relationship to the traditions and values of British and Western society as a whole.” However, he said the BBC had a “special responsibility”, which was to ensure that debates about religion “should not be foreclosed or censored”. This all sounds very sensible.

However, speaking in October 2008, Mr. Thompson said “their religion [Islam] is also associated with an ethnic identity which has not been fully integrated.” He added “I don’t want to say that all religions are the same. To be a minority I think puts a slightly different outlook on it.” So now religions are not the same. Religious and political debate is to be restricted to protect a specific faith.

So why did he change? Well Mr. Thompson provides us with a clue. He says Islam tends to be linked with an ethnic identity. Now actually Islam is not linked to a specific ethnicity. British Muslims come from all different ethnic backgrounds. But what Mr. Thompson appears to be saying, is that in the last six months, he has realized the majority of British Muslims share a common ethnic feature. They are not white.

So what you might say and I agree it should not be an issue. However, it is an issue for the BBC and here is why. If the BBC does not censor the debate about Islam then this religion might be criticized as Christianity and the other religions are. This criticism of Islam could then be interpreted (for which read portrayed) by some people as racist.

Now objectively we know that criticism of Islam is not racist because Islam is not a race. Islam is a belief system held by people of all races. However, the new definition of racism is not objective. Racism is defined subjectively. Statements are (post Macpherson) racist if the victim perceives them to be.

Islamophobia is a word created by the Islamists and their allies on the British far left. Although both parties seem unable to agree on a common workable definition, both of these forces want to make criticism of Islam akin to racism.

Mr Thompson has tremendously benefitted their cause. He is suggesting that if a belief system tends to be held by people with non white skin it is entitled to be treated with greater respect. This is the exact opposite of what the BBC should be doing.

The Director General notes that this minority community is not “fully integrated”. Well I have a suggestion as to why this might be. Perhaps it is because people like Mr Thompson insist on treating British Muslims as a cohesive ‘other’ rather than simply normal patriotic decent Briton’s.

A sign of true integration is when you treat all citizens the same regardless of their religion or race. Making Islam a special case and privileging it does not aid integration. It aids fragmentation. It sets community against community. We don’t pay the licence fee to subsidize the promotion of communal strife.

It may be easier to concentrate on criticizing the other religions but I expect more from the BBC. We pay for this public broadcaster because it is meant to be impartial. It is meant to provide the kind of intelligent debate that commercial TV is (supposedly) unable to provide. Now we have the BBC Director General saying the BBC will not provide this service and we are still expected to pay the licence fee.

April’s Mark Thompson had it right, “there is no point having a BBC which isn’t prepared to stand up and be counted.” The BBC should “always be forthright in the defence of freedom of speech and of impartiality.” October’s Mark Thompson has it wrong. A BBC which refuses to allow candid discussion of the Islamist threat fails in its duty as a public broadcaster. The Director General must retract his statement and apologize or be sacked. If the BBC refuses to sack their Director the Government should seriously consider abolishing the licence fee now.

At a meeting in Paris on Tuesday, Germany and France launched a fresh onslaught against Switzerland, claiming it should be black listed for its tax haven status.

"Switzerland offers conditions that invite the German taxpayer to evade taxes. Therefore, in my view Switzerland belongs on such a list"

German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck told a news conference. What he means is, the German taxman has his hand in the German taxpayers’ pocket to such an absurd extent that they are forced to find ways to make ends meet by seeking alternative investment locations. With monotonous predictability, European states are furiously pointing fingers rather than self-examining.

The bloated and inefficent European welfare state must be fed by punishingly high rates of tax. If they didn’t have this revenue, so goes the argument, there would be no provision  of public services and the state would, ultimately, collapse.

But Switzerland disproves this in spectacular fashion. Far from collapsing, Switzerland is thriving. If anything, it is a victim of its own success and has become the envy of its neighbours. Why on earth should some European states have the right to decide what others do with their tax policy? This does indeed all smack of the green eyed monster methinks…

If there are any lessons to be drawn from this situation, it’s that lowering tax rates makes countries more attractive to businesses and individuals alike. Particularly now, when there is so little money to go around, countries should be doing all they can to attract and retain foreign capital. Decreasing the tax burden is a great way to do this, the politics of envy and dragging policy down to the lowest common denominator is not.

TPA activist Grace Chen answered our recent call for action with a superb email I’d like to share.  In writing to her council leader to hold them to account over lost money in the failing Icelandic banks, she wrote:

Regarding Icelandic banks, I do understand and agree with the objective of placing funds into savings accounts for the short-term.  However, should Haringey Council taxes go up substantially in the future because of the misplacement of these funds into accounts which should have been suspect as ‘too good to be true,’ then I believe it would be arguable that the amounts saved and now possibly lost were indeed excessive funds which could have been retained by the taxpayer in previous years in terms of smaller Council tax rises or tax cuts. I certainly hope to be proved wrong and see no Council tax increases in the future due to the losses made by Haringey’s poor short-term investments in Icelandic banks.

The whole Council tax concept is indeed regressive and unfair by basing rates on bubble-based house prices which often bear sharp divergence from incomes.  However, if Labour is to stick to this unjust and underhanded method of local taxation, what is indeed due now is a reassessment of local tax rates due to the marked and continuing falls in house prices.  Such a reassessment would again argue for lower Council tax rates for the hard-pressed taxpayer.  Does the Councillor foresee such a review of local bands and rates should house prices continue to decline?

The arrogance of the Labour party towards the UK taxpayer continually astounds and angers me. While the affectation to support the poor and vulnerable is a laudable one, the reality is that Labour’s astronomical and wasteful public spending, which has apparently taken public borrowing to the highest in 60 years, has instead supported and nurtured a culture of dependency on government social programs and benefits which not only underpins a mentality of under-achievement in society but has also helped to attract the excessive unskilled immigrant inflows which are now overburdening local government budgets.   It has also spawned an overreaching and insidious Big Brother state comparable to China in terms of surveillance powers in what is supposedly a democratic western country respectful of human rights.

I really cannot understand why Labour fails to grasp the proven principle of tax cuts in creating economic stimulus and recognise the drag which excessive tax burdens create on taxpayers and the overall economy.    Indeed, under this Government’s current tax regime, I am not sure why any rational person would wish to work hard to make a higher income, start their own business, or put away savings, only to have 40% of extra income/savings stripped away at very modest threshold levels.  It beggars belief that the income tax rate is allowed to jump from 20% to 40% at just under £35k, without any middle rate in between on what is really a middle class tax threshold.  If there is any time to review public spending and reduce the public’s tax burden by cutting wasteful and unnecessary public spending, it certainly is now when the economy is faltering and families are struggling financially.

Grace makes an excellent point – if this money lost is in reserves, then it’s not included in current spending and shouldn’t mean that council tax should rise as a result.  Please keep up the lobby by writing to your council leader, as Grace has superbly done, making the point that the money lost cannot be an excuse to increase council tax in 2009.

Cameron and Osborne’s latest announcement on the economic crisis is a good start, but they must still go further for it to be of meaningful benefit. The idea is to offer small businesses a VAT deferral, allowing them to pay their VAT six months later than expected. Some have assumed this is six months off paying VAT, but it isn’t – small businesses will still pay the same, they’ll just pay it in April rather than November.

Any respite is, of course welcome, but this doesn’t even in the medium term mean firms will pay less tax. They still face the same burdens, and there is no real prospect of the economic crisis having just blown over in six months time. A VAT cut, and/or serious reductions in other taxes would are needed to keep businesses afloat, keep people in work and bolster the economy. The seven point "Backing British Business" manifesto launched today by The Sun contains several of the more radical steps that businesses need sooner rather than later. It’s urgent that we offer swingeing reductions in company tax burdens – not just the same burden in a few months time.

Over at the Spectator Coffee House, Fraser Nelson raises another interesting angle of the VAT issue. As VAT changes can only be introduced with unanimous agreement of all member states at EU level, can Cameron really do this if he is elected? The answer is that of course he can – the EU may not like it, but a democratically elected Government of the UK has the final power to control our affairs.

Furthermore, if he was to go ahead and provide tax cuts regardless of what the EU thinks, does anyone really think that it would be strategically or electorally damaging? In an economic crisis, people want tax cuts to help the economy and they’d rather see their Government bring them in in defiance of the EU than knuckle down and let the EU refuse to let us do what’s needed to help the economy.

A VAT holiday is a good start, but let’s have corporation tax cuts, VAT reductions and a simplification of the arduous rules businesses have to obey. If the EU don’t like any of that, I’d hope any Government would do what was best for Britain regardless of how many hurt feelings there might be in Brussels.

On Friday we blogged here and sent out an action alert to all our supporters to lobby those responsible for Town Hall mismanagement.  The two stories that caught our attention involved Three Rivers District Council giving their chief executive a day off a week, whilst on full pay, to ‘enjoy his musical interests’ and Herefordshire Council who had ordered a local resident, Brian Hubbard, to stop cutting ‘council’ grass. 

Already this morning we have had replies from Cllr. Roger Phillips, leader of Herefordshire County Council, saying the following in response to our complaint that Herefordshire County Council was actively preventing a local taxpayer from cutting some public grass near his home:

“I was unaware of this situation and am following it up Monday morning.  If people want to mow grassland and verges outside their homes as a general principal common sense would indicate no one or body should have a problem.”

Result!  Thank you to Peter Anderton and Dennis Boot for lobbying Cllr Phillips and sending us the replies.  It seems Cllr Phillips had no idea Town Hall busybodies were hectoring Mr Hubbard who merely wanted to cut some grassland close to his home.  Hopefully Herefordshire Council will now get off Mr Hubbard’s back and allow him to continue his generous act of public service. 

This just shows how we can quickly and effectively hold politicians to account as well as alerting senior councillors to the actions of their officer corps.  If you know of any instance where your council is being heavy handed or wasting your money, email us so we can chase it up and hold the politicians to account.

Spot the doublespeak in the following article from the Romford Recorder:

“HAVERING Council leader, Michael White, has committed himself to not raising council tax after it was revealed that the council has millions of pounds locked up in struggling Icelandic banks…

Cllr White again reassured Havering residents that no services or current projects would be affected by the crisis – and pledged that there would be no changes to council tax.

He Said…"In terms of council tax, we are going to aim for our pledge of no more than a 3.5 percent raise. We have delivered two budgets at this rate and I am very confident that we will do it again.”

Ok, I made it easy by highlighting in bold the contradictory statements.  How can you pledge not to raise council tax and then say you’re going to aim for a maximum 3.5% council tax increase?

You know the drill by now: ask Cllr White which it’s to be – a council tax freeze or a tax hike at the worst possible time?

It was reported this week that a council erected ‘graffiti wall’ had been defaced by an angry resident who, before the official unveiling, sneaked in and wrote on the wall, "I paid my taxes and all i got was this lousy wall".

The wall is said to have cost £3000, and although much of the money was provided by local businesses, I think there is more at stake here than the expenditure of public money alone. The policeman in charge said, "The ironic thing is that it has been built thanks to the generosity of local people giving time and resources for free. But it is now going to cost the taxpayer, as we will have to investigate it and paint over it."

No, Sgt Moorcroft, the ironic thing is that you built a wall for people to express themselves freely on and then have decided that they can only express themselves when they’re saying nice things about your pet project.

This, in my opinion, is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Why on earth are the police busy tying themselves up in red tape over a ‘crime’ that never was? Are the fair vistas of Wadebridge, Cornwall, so idyllic that there is no real crime for the police to investigate?

Freedom of speech means we let people say what they wish, especially when it might be difficult to hear. Even if most of the money for this wall came from private donations, the point is that SOME money came from taxpayers, SOMEONE whose salary is paid by the taxpayer spent time working on it, and it was put in a public park. So my disgruntled friend has every right to say what he thinks. Just because he is more likely to be wearing a cardigan than a hoody, it doesn’t mean his opinions are any less valid.