Check out today’s YEP letters.
The taxpayer continues to pay more for less
Peter Haddington, Eccleshill
I SMILED at John Theobald’s comments about Leeds City Council being helpful, and second to none at answering routine matters (Your Feedback, March 18).
I doubt that he’s asked for their support with noisy neighbours if he thinks they’re helpful. Being quick and helpful is what you would expect when queries are raised regarding council tax.
Leeds City Council are very good at handling matters, especially when money is involved. Most people who have been caught out by the bus lane cameras would agree to that. Some people have been instructed to use the bus lane, as at the Skyride event, and have still received fines some months on.
With regard to swift action taken in filling potholes, wasn’t it around five years someone was waiting in the Burley Wood area of Leeds for this to be done?
Being helpful in principle is one thing, action is another. The road surfaces that motorists drive on are appalling and many are a mass of patches, steps and holes, mainly due to constant roadworks and the standard of finish is generally poor.
I believe this causes a lot of potholes when the bad weather penetrates the cracks. If a near perfect surface can be created for the Tour de France isn’t the everyday motorist entitled to drive on one with the amount of tax that they pay?
There are some things in life that cost a lot that people get very little for – the council tax is one of them. The public continue to pay more for less with another increase due shortly.
Give discount to those living alone
Ernest Lundy, Beeston
COUNCIL TAX bills have been dropping through the letter box once again. Creating dismay for some, indifference for others; being wealthy enough to pay without hardship.
Those on benefits with savings below £16,000 obtain help. But surely there has to be an anomaly in the system?
While not suggesting that families living in multi-occupancy homes with additional income should pay more (the reason baroness Thatcher’s Poll Tax was abandoned after an outcry) there does seem to be something wrong when a person living alone, likely an OAP with one pension, is only discounted to the tune of 25 per cent and, having only moderate savings, obtains no relief from the benefit system.
Where the tax bill band for the particular home is at a certain level, it is understandable it should be paid in full, commensurate with two or more people living there.
But surely when utility services rendered relate to only one person, is it not reasonable to expect a 50 per cent reduction, rather than 25 per cent?
Labour can’t take high ground
Martin Hamilton, Leeds
Grant Woodward is certainly correct when he says that the Lib Dems were unable to scrap tuition fees as they had promised (Woodward’s World, April 2).
When the other two parties were both set on increasing them (remember that Labour introduced and then doubled tuition fees when as a majority government they had it within their power not to introduce them), any other outcome in coalition discussions with either party was unlikely.
A little remembered fact is that the Browne report that recommended increasing tuition fees and formed the basis of the coalition’s eventual policy was commissioned by the previous Labour government.
If Labour were sincere about alternatives to tuition fee rises, they could have asked the NUS or some other student friendly organisation to do the report. Instead they asked the multi-millionaire former head of BP. Is it any wonder that the outcome was more fees?
That’s why on this particular issue, Labour taking the moral high ground is laughable. They have no right to lecture anyone on the subject.
Boxing clever over vocabulary
Jack Banner, Meanwood
I AM fully aware, as a regular reader and contributor to your letters page, that there is great resentment felt regarding the adoption of “Americanisms” into our vocabulary and our society.
The latest thing to get my goat (which my dear wife Sue tells me does not take a lot of doing these days) was the imported American clown who was engaged to do the announcements prior to the Kell Brook fight the other weekend.
Having watched various boxing matches on Sky Sports, I did know that the man concerned existed, but could not comprehend just what he was supposed to add to the occasion in Sheffield.
Making the utterance of a single vowel last as long as a sentence was extremely annoying and distracting, who on earth employed him?
We don’t need more housing
Bernard Duffy, North Yorkshire
IN REPLY to M Jones (Your Feedback, March 25) I completely disagree with his letter, stating that we need more houses being built. What we actually need is to stop more people being allowed into the country and deporting those who are here illegally. It is estimated that between a third and a half of the so called ‘housing shortage’ has been created by Labour’s open door immigration policy.
We cannot continue taking up valuable land for house building. People cannot afford the houses, at present, so who is going to pay for future houses. In the Selby area, alone there are 1,000 houses for sale, so where is the housing shortage? The issue is cost and what will happen if lots of houses are built is that the taxpayer will end up purchasing them,thus putting more pressure on the already bankrupt economy.
M Jones obviously has a vested interest in building more houses to enlarge his ‘quango’.
It is time for France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the other European countries to shoulder their fair share of the burden of immigration, instead of passing all immigrants straight down the line to the heaven of the gullible UK.
Vote Labour at your peril in May!