“Why do people care more about benefit ‘scroungers’ than billions lost to the rich?”

Last year’s British Social Attitudes survey asked Britons about their feelings on this issue. Our analysis of this data (with Ben Baumberg Geiger of the University of Kent) revealed that the British public believes tax avoidance to be commonplace (around one third of taxpayers are assumed to have exploited a tax loophole). In moral terms, people seem rather ambivalent; less than half (48%) thought that legal tax avoidance was “usually or always wrong”.

By contrast, more than 60% of Britons believe it is “usually or always wrong” for poorer people to use legal loopholes to claim more benefits. In other words, people are significantly more likely to condemn poor people for using legal means to obtain more benefits than they are to condemn rich people for avoiding tax. This is a consistent finding across many different studies. For example, detailed interviews conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis found that people “tended to be far more exercised by the prospect of low-income groups exploiting the system than they were about high-income groups doing the same”.

This discrepancy is reflected in government priorities. Deep public antipathy towards benefit “scroungers” has been the rock upon which successive Conservative-led parliaments have built the case for austerity. Throughout his premiership, David Cameron, along with his chancellor, George Osborne, kept the opposition between “hardworking people” and lazy benefit claimants right at the centre of their messaging on spending cuts. Though gestures have been made towards addressing widespread tax avoidance by the wealthy, very little has actually been achieved. This stands in stark contrast to the scale and speed with which changes have been made to welfare legislation.

Will the Paradise Papers shift the public’s focus? The leaks alone are seemingly not enough. The 2016 British Social Attitudes survey was conducted just four months after the release of the Panama Papers. Even then, the British public remained more concerned about benefit claimants than tax avoiders.

…”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/benefit-scroungers-billions-rich-paradise-papers-tax-avoidance

Here’s an article about cash-strapped councils selling off town halls in order to save money. There is NO comparison with councils such as ours which are then SPENDING EXTRA MONEY on their new HQ.

£10million or so in our case:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/15/britain-council-civic-centre-sell-off-newcastle-durham-county-hall-swansea-plymouth

“Beauty spots spoilt by rise in new homes”

“Scenic areas are being blighted by new housing, with the number of homes approved in protected landscapes doubling in five years, a study has found.

The Cotswolds and High Weald areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) are facing the greatest threat. Developers target the areas because new homes within them sell at a 30 per cent premium to homes outside.

The number of homes given planning permission in England’s 34 AONBs has risen by 82 per cent in five years, from 2,396 in 2012-13 to 4,369 in 2016-17, says research commissioned by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). Applications for 12,741 homes in AONBs are pending.

The CPRE said the threat was not just from new homes on greenfield sites but the conversion of existing farm buildings into what it described as “mega-houses” for the very wealthy, who install high fences, CCTV, warning signs and automatic gates. The report said: “These urbanising elements can reduce public enjoyment and make the countryside much less welcoming.”

The CPRE said developers were “exploiting poorly defined and conflicting national planning policy” in order to build in AONBs.

The government’s planning guidelines state that “great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty” in AONBs. This year’s Conservative manifesto vowed to build more homes but also to maintain the AONBs’ “existing strong protections”.

But guidelines state that major development can be permitted in the areas in “exceptional circumstances” and where it would be in the public interest. These terms are not clearly defined, creating loopholes for developers to exploit.

The CPRE said local councils were under pressure to find land for housing “irrespective of any constraints imposed by protected landscape policies”.

The report said there had been “a shift in the emphasis of planning practice from landscape protection to addressing the housing shortage”.

The CPRE urged the government to amend planning policy to include an explicit presumption against proposals for large housing developments in AONBs. It called for targets to be set in the long-promised 25-year environment plan to ensure that development did not damage landscape quality.

The Department for Communities and Local Government declined to respond directly to the CPRE’s recommendations.”

Source: The Times (pay wall)