Eastleigh allotment rents set to soar 50 per cent (From Daily Echo)

Here we go, financial attack on pensioners. Charming.

RadicalEmu wrote:
Here we go, financial attack on pensioners. Charming.

It's not an attack on pensioners. Why should the taxpayer subsidise what is, essentially, someones hobby?

DCM wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote:
Here we go, financial attack on pensioners. Charming.

It's not an attack on pensioners. Why should the taxpayer subsidise what is, essentially, someones hobby?

Well, it is, as pensioners use them the most, and it's not like the 'average pensioner' is rolling in it.
.
Why not subsidise it? We should encourage more people to grow their own food rather than moaning about taxes. There are more important things we could worry about.

DCM wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote: Here we go, financial attack on pensioners. Charming.

It's not an attack on pensioners. Why should the taxpayer subsidise what is, essentially, someones hobby?

I strongly disagree with you. I have an allotment and my children enjoy helping out and learning about growing various vegetables. It’s not just a hobby; we eat everything we grow. And make various pickles and chutneys, and it gets children out doors in all weathers. Another reason we have an allotment is that we only have a small garden which is just big enough to put up a washing line.

fraggled wrote:

DCM wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote: Here we go, financial attack on pensioners. Charming.

It's not an attack on pensioners. Why should the taxpayer subsidise what is, essentially, someones hobby?

I strongly disagree with you. I have an allotment and my children enjoy helping out and learning about growing various vegetables. It’s not just a hobby; we eat everything we grow. And make various pickles and chutneys, and it gets children out doors in all weathers. Another reason we have an allotment is that we only have a small garden which is just big enough to put up a washing line.

Oh right, so I should subsidise your food consumption as well now should I? It's going to cost an extra £15 a year for a standard plot for goodness sake, that's 29p per week.
It is not the states job to pay for you to have a hobby, grow your own food and have fun with your kids.

RadicalEmu wrote:

DCM wrote:

RadicalEmu wrote: Here we go, financial attack on pensioners. Charming.

It's not an attack on pensioners. Why should the taxpayer subsidise what is, essentially, someones hobby?

Well, it is, as pensioners use them the most, and it's not like the 'average pensioner' is rolling in it. . Why not subsidise it? We should encourage more people to grow their own food rather than moaning about taxes. There are more important things we could worry about.

I agree that people growing their own food is a good idea BUT, given that it will save them money by doing so I fail to see why I, as a taxpayer, should then compensate them even more for doing it.

DCM your party should start to listen to the people that voted for your party. All those people that change there vote from Labour to the Liberals will not vote for your party again they will return back to voting Labour, if that survey from Sky News is to believed.
This is a targeted at the less well off, When they should be targeting the well off to start paying there way.

Firstly, until reading this news article I was unaware that the Council were operating allotments at a loss. Secondly, I don’t expect anyone to help with the costs of me growing my own fruit and veg, or paying for me to ‘have fun’ with my own children.
At no point did I indicate that I was unhappy with the price increase. I though that the price I paid for my plot covered the cost to the Council. I would not have an issue with the increase.
My initial post was disagreeing with the fact that people only see allotments as being a hobby for older people, when it isn’t.

£40 a year??Id be tempted to put up a shed and live in it !!

southy wrote:
DCM your party should start to listen to the people that voted for your party. All those people that change there vote from Labour to the Liberals will not vote for your party again they will return back to voting Labour, if that survey from Sky News is to believed. This is a targeted at the less well off, When they should be targeting the well off to start paying there way.

Hi Southy, long time no speak.
I understand what you're saying but the fact of the matter is, is that the state has been paying for things that it shouldn't have been paying for, for too long now. Consequently as people are used to receiving these goodies from government it hurts when they go. I don't like hurting the less well off but I really do believe that the state should not be involved in funding things like this.
As for people returning their vote back to Labour - too be honest it was always going to happen as a number of people voted for us to try and block the Tories. Our vote has now stabilised to the level it was at before the general election campaign which is pretty good considering the level of press anger we received for siding with the Tories in the first place (despite no realistic alternative). I do believe our share of the vote will climb higher as this government delivers.
As for targetting the well off - I agree, we should. Which we have done (by raising capital gains tax for example) and yes, we could do more and I hope we will. But this allotment issue is a Council decision not a central government one and a Council has very little powers to target the well off over any other group.

£15 per year! That's not even news worthy. I was expecting the second paragraph of this story to end with "from £25 to £40 a week".

£40 a year? And people are complaining? That's NOTHING! I'd have assumed those wanting allotments in the 21st Century would be paying at least that per month! Can't believe it's so low, for your own bit of land.

DCM wrote:

southy wrote:
DCM your party should start to listen to the people that voted for your party. All those people that change there vote from Labour to the Liberals will not vote for your party again they will return back to voting Labour, if that survey from Sky News is to believed. This is a targeted at the less well off, When they should be targeting the well off to start paying there way.

Hi Southy, long time no speak.
I understand what you're saying but the fact of the matter is, is that the state has been paying for things that it shouldn't have been paying for, for too long now. Consequently as people are used to receiving these goodies from government it hurts when they go. I don't like hurting the less well off but I really do believe that the state should not be involved in funding things like this.
As for people returning their vote back to Labour - too be honest it was always going to happen as a number of people voted for us to try and block the Tories. Our vote has now stabilised to the level it was at before the general election campaign which is pretty good considering the level of press anger we received for siding with the Tories in the first place (despite no realistic alternative). I do believe our share of the vote will climb higher as this government delivers.
As for targetting the well off - I agree, we should. Which we have done (by raising capital gains tax for example) and yes, we could do more and I hope we will. But this allotment issue is a Council decision not a central government one and a Council has very little powers to target the well off over any other group.

Yes DCM it has been awhile.
Can I point out to you Allotments don't cost the government or local council any thing to run. They just collect the money.
The Allotments are run by the gardener's them self,s, There is no cost to the Council only to the Allotment holder.
What is really happening here is, The Council is trying to push out the gardener's, so they can declare it unused and then can build on it.
It's going to fall the share on the vote for the Liberals that was on the cards the moment the Torys gain power, The real killer to both party's will happen in 2012 when that Depression sink,s in.

southy wrote:

DCM wrote:

southy wrote: DCM your party should start to listen to the people that voted for your party. All those people that change there vote from Labour to the Liberals will not vote for your party again they will return back to voting Labour, if that survey from Sky News is to believed. This is a targeted at the less well off, When they should be targeting the well off to start paying there way.

Hi Southy, long time no speak. I understand what you're saying but the fact of the matter is, is that the state has been paying for things that it shouldn't have been paying for, for too long now. Consequently as people are used to receiving these goodies from government it hurts when they go. I don't like hurting the less well off but I really do believe that the state should not be involved in funding things like this. As for people returning their vote back to Labour - too be honest it was always going to happen as a number of people voted for us to try and block the Tories. Our vote has now stabilised to the level it was at before the general election campaign which is pretty good considering the level of press anger we received for siding with the Tories in the first place (despite no realistic alternative). I do believe our share of the vote will climb higher as this government delivers. As for targetting the well off - I agree, we should. Which we have done (by raising capital gains tax for example) and yes, we could do more and I hope we will. But this allotment issue is a Council decision not a central government one and a Council has very little powers to target the well off over any other group.

Yes DCM it has been awhile. Can I point out to you Allotments don't cost the government or local council any thing to run. They just collect the money. The Allotments are run by the gardener's them self,s, There is no cost to the Council only to the Allotment holder. What is really happening here is, The Council is trying to push out the gardener's, so they can declare it unused and then can build on it. It's going to fall the share on the vote for the Liberals that was on the cards the moment the Torys gain power, The real killer to both party's will happen in 2012 when that Depression sink,s in.

Right - so the line in the report that says "In the last tax year, allotments generated £12,700 in income but cost £28,574 in maintenance and utilities" is wrong is it? No, it is a cost to taxpayers and should stop being one.
In addition, no matter how many times you and other lefties say it, there isn't going to be a depression so you'll have to come up with another reason to start your revolution :-)

£40 is too cheap and they should pay more for the costs incurred to cover the maintenance etc so we do not have to subsidise it and if they dont like it sell it off for buliding.

If there is a waiting list then they should auction the plots to the highest bidder. It could be for a two or three year term.

88hythe wrote:
£40 is too cheap and they should pay more for the costs incurred to cover the maintenance etc so we do not have to subsidise it and if they dont like it sell it off for buliding.

I agree with you.

Allotments are a quaint and curious legacy from a bygone age. They need to go.

In 2010, they are redundant, in the same way rag and bone men once provided a necessary public service but who long ago ceased being relevant to modern day life, or knife sharpeners who used to visit people at home to sharpen their knives.

If people want to have a hobby or play at being gardeners then let them fund their personal activity out of their own pocket. Not the taxpayers. Taxes are for essential or emergency services that benefit everyone and made available to everyone.

If allotment holders are of limited financial resources, such as elderly people on a pension, then have them get financial support from their working children or other relatives, to fund their hobby. The amount per year charged for an allotment is well within the financial resources of any working relative. In fact, it is a paltry amount.

Why oh why should the nanny state persist in the 21st century and give out the message that public funds are okay to be used for all sorts of non-essential activities.?

In 2010, taxpayer-paid subsidised allotments cannot be justified as a sort of perk for a few.

Dig them up and use the land for a community facility universally available to all in the community.

clausentum wrote:

88hythe wrote: £40 is too cheap and they should pay more for the costs incurred to cover the maintenance etc so we do not have to subsidise it and if they dont like it sell it off for buliding.

I agree with you. Allotments are a quaint and curious legacy from a bygone age. They need to go. In 2010, they are redundant, in the same way rag and bone men once provided a necessary public service but who long ago ceased being relevant to modern day life, or knife sharpeners who used to visit people at home to sharpen their knives. If people want to have a hobby or play at being gardeners then let them fund their personal activity out of their own pocket. Not the taxpayers. Taxes are for essential or emergency services that benefit everyone and made available to everyone. If allotment holders are of limited financial resources, such as elderly people on a pension, then have them get financial support from their working children or other relatives, to fund their hobby. The amount per year charged for an allotment is well within the financial resources of any working relative. In fact, it is a paltry amount. Why oh why should the nanny state persist in the 21st century and give out the message that public funds are okay to be used for all sorts of non-essential activities.? In 2010, taxpayer-paid subsidised allotments cannot be justified as a sort of perk for a few. Dig them up and use the land for a community facility universally available to all in the community.

“In 2010, they are redundant” Clearly not as there is a waiting list that is estimated at being seven years long!
Whilst I agree with you on the fact that the tax payer should not be subsidising this facility, I disagree with your comments that they are out dated, no one wants them and that they are a perk for a few. Just because YOU have never had one, and YOU have no interest in them, and YOU do not understand what an allotment means to someone who does not have the use of a garden, does not mean that YOU are right!

DCM wrote:

southy wrote:

DCM wrote:

southy wrote: DCM your party should start to listen to the people that voted for your party. All those people that change there vote from Labour to the Liberals will not vote for your party again they will return back to voting Labour, if that survey from Sky News is to believed. This is a targeted at the less well off, When they should be targeting the well off to start paying there way.

Hi Southy, long time no speak. I understand what you're saying but the fact of the matter is, is that the state has been paying for things that it shouldn't have been paying for, for too long now. Consequently as people are used to receiving these goodies from government it hurts when they go. I don't like hurting the less well off but I really do believe that the state should not be involved in funding things like this. As for people returning their vote back to Labour - too be honest it was always going to happen as a number of people voted for us to try and block the Tories. Our vote has now stabilised to the level it was at before the general election campaign which is pretty good considering the level of press anger we received for siding with the Tories in the first place (despite no realistic alternative). I do believe our share of the vote will climb higher as this government delivers. As for targetting the well off - I agree, we should. Which we have done (by raising capital gains tax for example) and yes, we could do more and I hope we will. But this allotment issue is a Council decision not a central government one and a Council has very little powers to target the well off over any other group.

Yes DCM it has been awhile. Can I point out to you Allotments don't cost the government or local council any thing to run. They just collect the money. The Allotments are run by the gardener's them self,s, There is no cost to the Council only to the Allotment holder. What is really happening here is, The Council is trying to push out the gardener's, so they can declare it unused and then can build on it. It's going to fall the share on the vote for the Liberals that was on the cards the moment the Torys gain power, The real killer to both party's will happen in 2012 when that Depression sink,s in.

Right - so the line in the report that says "In the last tax year, allotments generated £12,700 in income but cost £28,574 in maintenance and utilities" is wrong is it? No, it is a cost to taxpayers and should stop being one.
In addition, no matter how many times you and other lefties say it, there isn't going to be a depression so you'll have to come up with another reason to start your revolution :-)

Yes it is wrong DCM, Lets look at what the council really provide, Land and hummm well its just land, All the rest is dealt with by the gardeners apart from the water ant that,s supply by the water board and the allotment holders pay for that has a serrate bill.
The gardener's supply there own tools, build there own sheds, greenhouses, repair there own fence and gateways, they work there own compose, get there own seeds or cutting, grow it all them self,s.
That generated £12,700 is pure profit, there are no maintenance or utilities cost to the council. This £28,574 cost is not though allotments but is being added on to make it look good for them to ask for an increase, but the real reason is that the council wants to build on them and selling the land to a private developer and to do this they need to push the gardeners out of there allotments.

You too late we are heading into a depression now but first will be the deepen of the recession which has all ready started DCM.