NIBOR DOOH

Ok, so I may be slow, but I have now worked out my bleating about this government's approach to the voluntary sector a few weeks ago was quite timely. You see, dear old Mr Brown has just screwed the third sector - again. Tax is down to 20% from next year, whoppee! Oh, except there will be no 10% rate any more, so its only down as long as you are not on a low income. I have heard the income tax changes described as "roughly neutral" by some and a "small increase" by others, either way, it is redistributive taxation rather than a real tax cut. Just the sort of thing you expect from a labour government. Oh, aside from the bit where it favours the better off, and dumps on the working class, but never mind, there's the good ol' incomprehensible tax credits system, so we'll all be OK....

Anyway, I digress. So Gordon has claimed a tax cut while saving a few pennies (very prudent) but hold on a mo, he has actually made a bit more, by reducing charities income. You see the base rate of income tax will drop, and so will the amount charities can reclaim under the Gift Aid scheme. Fair enough you might think, you should only be able to reclaim what has been paid in. Except we are paying the same amount of income tax, or slightly more, yet Gordon is keeping more for the government to fritter away, and leaving less for the voluntary and community sector they are so keen to support (at least when it means cheaper contracts for them than the private sector can offer.)

Harumph.

Time for a more left wing administration, like, erm... just about anyone else....

Life's a lottery...especially in the voluntary sector

So, the government's screwed the third sector again. Yet more overspend on the Olympics, so the lottery will be mined deeper still to make up the short fall. For all the talk of supporting the voluntary and community sector, there never appears to be much action. Or money. Take a look at government grants available. They have a whole website listing them. Only they're virtually all closed to applications. Recent changes to the lottery opened it up to a wider range of applicants including government bodies, and at the same time "targeted" a lot more of the money, reducing the chance for organisations to bid for projects based on need, rather having to come up with projects that deliver to a particular agenda.

As well as the direct impact on bodies applying to the lottery, this affects those who don't even want lottery money, as the demand for funding from charitable trusts etc. is in higher demand.

I guess this is all part of the great nanny state thing. We can't have local people accessing funding for what they need. Far better if central government tells them what's best.

Do not meddle

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.



Picture courtesy of Anneliese Myers

What a state....

I wonder just how much state control/surveillance the average Brit can stand? It appears the country will quite happily swallow almost anything as long as it is dressed up in terms of "protecting" the vulnerable - particularly children. The Government's "Every Child Matters" strategy is a classic. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there is some good stuff in it, but it takes us yet deeper into being a surveillance society.

Some will think this is scaremongering, and that I'll mention 1984 any minute like all good conspiracy theorists. I shall confess at this point I have never read 1984, though I probably should!

So what is the limit? Where does the state responsibility to protect overrule the individual rights to privacy and non-interference? Would compulsory ID cards be OK? Statutory anti-abuse visits by Social Services? How about CCTV cameras in your house, then at the slightest hint of abuse the police could drop by and arrest you. Think of all the crime that could be avoided. Oh, and we could catch all those nasty terrorists too. How could anyone object? If it saves just one life......

Farmer Giles (or Oi bee an allarrrtment 'older)

I have become an allotment holder! Well not quite, I have just started sharing an allotment with a friend. So, I have a year of hard work but hopefully lots of nice tasty veg. My garden is the size of a postage stamp, and I manage to grow a surprising amount on it, but it's just too small for serious growing. Looking forward to this, though my back isn't!

On Sat DS (age nearly 5) and I started work on the allotment with Andrew. About an hour in DS suddenly says "why are you talking like Farmer Giles?" Hmm.... talking like a son of the soil after just an hour, I must be a natural!

What really amazed me was how cheap it is to rent an allotment. £21 for a standard plot. About what I expected per month. But no, that's the annual plot fee! I think that's great, and rather democratic. Us paupers can still farm our little bit of England's green and pleasant at a very modest cost. Long may it continue!

House prices

A few weeks ago The Times published an article entitled:

Bolt holes at a bargain price

You think you can't buy a second home in Britain for less than £100,000? Think again, says Lucy Denyer

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/buying_and_selling/article1294147.ece

Hmmm...... I wouldn't mind being able to afford a first home for under £100,000. Unfortunately the Isle of Wight is one of those places they list, and indeed many people find it is a lovely place to own a second home. The trouble is said second home will be occupied for a tiny amount of the year, and the rest of the time lie empty, while many locals can't even get in sight of the property ladder, never mind reaching the first rung. I believe average house prices on the Island are now ten times average wages (I can only find stats for 2004, when it was "only" 7.4).

So if you're thinking of "investing" in a second property, why not think about investing in something else and instead renting your holiday accommodation? Saving resources is a big issue, we try and save water, save energy etc. as we are aware of the finite nature of such things. So can we please start thinking about how we use our limited housing resources?

Obviously I have a vested interest, as I live in a rented house, on a short term lease. But is it really so much to ask when my income is around 30% higher than the average for the area to be able to afford a modest family home without needing to borrow 7 times my income?

So Lucy Denyer, how about promoting shared bolt-holes rather than increasing the over-consumption of our precious housing resource?

why oh why oh why.....

am I so disorganised? One blog post then nothing. Hmmmm. Will try harder.